Jantar Mantar: A theatre of Anarchy

The CJP itself illustrates this transformation. What began as social media satire now seeks recognition as a serious political movement. Having failed to establish itself through sustained public support or electoral credibility, it has embraced agitation as its principal political instrument. The strategy is simple: project every administrative lapse as evidence of governmental collapse, put a well-known face such as Sonam Wangchuk at the forefront, mobilise sympathetic student organisations and portray the government as anti-youth. This may be convenient for short politics, but it is also dangerous for politics.

The organisers neither obtained permission for the indefinite fast nor for the proposed march to Parliament. But the government exercised considerable restraint and allowed the protest to continue at the designated venue. When the matter reached the Delhi High Court, the court adopted a balanced constitutional approach. It directed the authorities to ensure daily medical monitoring of Wangchuk and provide medical intervention whenever necessary, recognising that every citizen's life deserves protection. At the same time, the court did not endorse the hunger strike as a political instrument nor did it permit an unauthorised march towards Parliament during the Monsoon Session.
Delhi Police, acting under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), reiterated that no permission had either been sought or granted for such a march. Existing regulations allow demonstrations only at designated protest sites, including Jantar Mantar, subject to prior approval. This is not authoritarianism. It is the rule of law. No democracy can permit any group, irrespective of its cause, to lay siege to Parliament or disrupt constitutional institutions merely because it disagrees with government policy.

The government's response has, in fact, been democratic on two fronts. First, on education, the Centre has already initiated investigations into examination irregularities, entrusted paper leak cases to the CBI, constituted expert committees and introduced technological safeguards for examinations such as NEET and CUET. These are institutional responses aimed at correcting systemic weaknesses. Demanding a minister's resignation may generate headlines, but it does not reform an examination system. Technology, stronger monitoring, criminal prosecution of paper leak syndicates and administrative reforms do.

Second, the government has not prohibited dissent. It permitted protests at designated locations, exercised restraint despite repeated provocations and ensured medical assistance when the hunger strike became a health concern. It recognised the constitutional right to protest while insisting that such protests remain within constitutional and legal limits.

One must also ask who has assembled at Jantar Mantar. Many of the loudest voices in the present agitation remained absent when Parliament debated education reforms or when investigating agencies pursued the paper leak mafia. But they become instantly vocal whenever an opportunity arises to target the government. Students deserve timely examinations, transparent recruitment, secure question papers and strict punishment for those who compromise merit. They do not deserve to have their aspirations converted into political theatre.
The agitation at Jantar Mantar is therefore less an expression of democratic dissent than a manifestation of political frustration. After suffering repeated electoral setbacks for more than a decade and failing to secure the confidence of the Indian electorate, its principal protagonists appear to have abandoned persuasion in favour of disruption. Unable to challenge the BJP and Prime Minister Narendra Modi through democratic means, they increasingly seek to paralyse institutions, manufacture instability and project India as a nation in constant political turmoil. Such methods substitute agitation for public mandate and obstruction for political persuasion.

Even more disturbing is the growing willingness of sections of this ecosystem to seek ideological validation and other forms of support from foreign elements that remain uncomfortable with India's expanding global influence under the present government. Whether driven by frustration, political irrelevance or ideological hostility, this tendency raises serious questions about priorities. Democracies thrive through debate, elections and constitutional methods not through manufactured chaos, intimidation or attempts to weaken public institutions. If a political movement cannot earn the trust of the people, the answer lies in introspection and democratic renewal, not in fuelling lawlessness or looking beyond India's borders for support that it has failed to secure from its own citizens.