The social media-based Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) has apparently mistaken the Narendra Modi government’s patience for weakness. Nothing else explains its latest veiled threat to throw a democratically elected government out of power through street protests. If that indeed is its political ambition, nobody should object. But there is only one constitutional and democratic route available to achieve it—the ballot box. There is no second route in Bharat’s democracy.
What is simply unacceptable is the growing tendency to resort to intimidation, blackmail and threats whenever one’s demands are not met in their entirety. The politics of “accept all our demands or face consequences” has no place in a constitutional democracy.
The CJP and its founder would do well to remember that governments in Bharat are elected by over a billion people, not by social media trends, prime-time television debates or orchestrated street protests.
The Narendra Modi government may have retreated on certain issues in the larger interest of maintaining peace and accommodating genuine student concerns. But one retreat appears to have emboldened the CJP leadership into believing that they can now dictate terms to the government. That would perhaps be their biggest political miscalculation.
For nearly fifty days, the nation was subjected to one carefully crafted narrative—Gen Z is angry, Gen Z is revolting and Gen Z represents the CJP. Nothing could be farther from the truth. No political outfit, least of all a social media phenomenon, has the moral authority to appropriate an entire generation.
Emerging intelligence inputs reportedly suggest that a substantial number of protestors were above 28 years of age. If that be true, the obvious question is: who exactly was protesting in the name of students and Gen Z? How many among them had actually appeared for competitive examinations? How many were directly affected stakeholders? More importantly, who financed and sustained a protest movement of such magnitude?
These are legitimate questions in a democracy and raising them does not amount to questioning anybody’s democratic rights.
Equally shameful were the visuals of certain protestors hurling the choicest abuses at the Prime Minister and the Union Home Minister. Political disagreements are welcome. Personal abuse is not. If abusing constitutional functionaries has become the new definition of democratic expression, then our public discourse has reached a dangerous low.
The CJP’s primary demand for stronger anti-question paper leak legislation has substantially been achieved. Parliament has moved decisively in that direction despite obstructionist tactics adopted by sections of the Opposition. The law, once the parliamentary process is completed, will become one of the strongest legal frameworks against examination malpractices.
What then remains of the agitation?
Apparently, the resignation of the Union Home Minister. On what grounds? Nobody has satisfactorily answered that question till date. Political vendetta can never become a substitute for constitutional accountability.
The government also reportedly agreed during negotiations to consider withdrawing cases against protesting students. Subsequently, judicial intervention clarified the legal position. Courts are not bound by political negotiations. If minors deserve leniency, they should receive it. If individuals with criminal antecedents participated in violent or unlawful activities, they cannot seek immunity merely by describing themselves as students or activists.
The rule of law must prevail over political commitments.
Some sections of the media deserve equal criticism. Television anchors who continue reminding the government of its so-called promise should first educate their viewers about a fundamental constitutional principle—that judicial directives prevail over political assurances. Governments do not possess the authority to overrule courts merely because television studios demand so.
This e-paper throws an open challenge to the founder of the CJP. Register your organisation with the Election Commission. Contest Panchayat, Municipal, Assembly or Parliamentary elections. Convince the people of Bharat that you represent their aspirations. Defeat the BJP and every mainstream political party if that is what the people mandate.
Nobody should object to that.
But the politics of veiled threats must stop immediately.
The Narendra Modi government has spent over a decade dealing firmly with some of the country’s gravest internal and external security challenges. It has demonstrated both the patience to engage and the resolve to act whenever constitutional boundaries are crossed. Therefore, mistaking accommodation for weakness could prove politically expensive for those indulging in coercive politics.
The CJP must decide whether it wishes to become a legitimate political party or merely remain a pressure group surviving on outrage and social media amplification.
Finally, a word of caution to the government. Excessive accommodation of unreasonable demands invariably encourages greater adventurism. Democracies must be compassionate, but they must never become weak. The State cannot be seen surrendering before organised intimidation, irrespective of who employs it.
If the CJP genuinely believes it enjoys the support of Bharat’s youth, let it seek a mandate from the people. The ballot box awaits them.
If not, they would do well to restrain themselves from issuing veiled threats that challenge constitutional processes. Bharat’s democracy has immense tolerance for dissent. It has absolutely none for intimidation.
The Constitution permits protest. It does not permit political terrorism by any other name.
