By ending the atmosphere of fear that had kept people off the streets throughout the Modi administration, the CJP created history on July 20. It demonstrated the viability and political efficacy of coordinated public protest.
Thousands of people flocked to Central Delhi’s streets today to participate in the Cockroach Janta Party’s march to Parliament, calling for Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation, turning Jantar Mantar into a boiling pot of wrath. They bravely resisted a violent police crackdown because of their fury. They were so furious that they even screamed derogatory chants against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who is equally admired and feared.
The pessimists and cynics were disproved by their fury. They had assumed that a social media phenomena like the CJP couldn’t rally people against a government that was predisposed to stifle dissenting opinions. The Modi administration, which intimidates MPs and MLAs with threats of tax raids and incarceration, was unable to quell the fury that erupted from Jantar Mantar.
The administration interpreted the anger within hours of the march’s start as evidence that its plan to ignore the CJP in the hopes of rendering it impotent had failed. The CJP was asked to speak with former BJP president and Union Health Minister J.P. Nadda, a compromise for a government unwilling to give in to public pressure and reason.
It’s still possible that the CJP’s win was pyrrhic. But take a moment to think about it: months of protest against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 just postponed its implementation rather than eliminating it; it took farmers a year of sit-ins and over 700 fatalities to get the government to repeal the three agricultural laws they disliked.
Because they encouraged people to get past their fear of the Modi regime, those two movements gained traction. However, since then, the public sphere has been blanketed in silence, partly due to the imprisonment of leaders of anti-CAA protests under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. People did not take to the streets despite the humiliations inflicted upon them by the Special Intensive Revision of electoral records. Their concern about how their future was being shaped was overshadowed by fear of the repercussions of resistance.
The founder of the CJP, Abhijeet Dipke, filled this need by turning his indignation over the National Eligibility/Entrance Test paper leak into a movement for educational reform. With young people still afraid of the government, such a campaign could not be successful. For this reason, Dipke had the assembled throng chant, “We will not be scared by your politics,” during the CJP’s inaugural Jantar Mantar rally on June 6, marking the party’s transition from online to offline.
It appears that in less than two months, the younger generation—as well as older generations—relied on Dipke’s defiance to speak out about the examinations they had studied for, only to discover the papers had been leaked. The thousands of people who marched in the direction of Parliament are powerful evidence that young people’s dread is declining.
It took time for this to occur. Volunteers said that they were afraid about what would happen to them if they used their right to demonstrate at Jantar Mantar. The community at Jantar Mantar gave them comfort, and the enthusiasm it inspired overcame their trepidation. They were less terrified of the authorities the longer they stayed.
Some may argue that compared to earlier rallies India has witnessed, the gathering that marched in the direction of Parliament is insignificant. They overlook the fact that the previous governments were much more liberal than the present one. The CJP’s demonstration today is an attempt to regain India’s argumentative voice, proclaim it as a right, and carve up a public space where citizens may confront governmental authority, as quiet has become the nation’s default mode since the epidemic.
A fresh partnership between the internet and offline
The CJP’s ability to mobilise people also highlights how the legacy media’s function as democracy’s watchdog is eroding. Legacy media, including the government, disregarded the CJP demonstration and the public unrest that was fuelling it for days. There was a perception that the CJP was destined to fade due to its relative lack of coverage in the mainstream media.
The anger growing at Jantar Mantar was further magnified by social media coverage, which convinced many people that this was a cause worth supporting. India has entered a new era when the internet and offline support one another, both in the practice of government and in opposing it when citizens are let down, as was the case with the NEET paper leak.
In fact, the CJP demonstration in Jantar Mantar had been faltering until activist and educationist Sonam Wangchuk, together with members of the All India Students’ Association Neha Bora, Manish Kumar, and Ameen Amitosh, started a death fast. There were less than a thousand individuals at Jantar Mantar on the first day of their fast. The gathering had significantly increased by the day before Wangchuk was taken to the hospital by the police, mostly due to reports of the fasting activists’ declining health.
The cultural theorist Terry Eagleton’s writings on the motives of martyrs may be the best way to understand the significance of their fast till death, which attracted vast numbers. In his 2005 essay A Different Way of Death, which appeared in The Guardian, Eagleton claimed that martyrs are essentially the antithesis of regular, non-political suicides, which are the deeds of people whose life have become meaningless to them and who so require a quick way out.
It is true that martyrs value their life. However, they believe that a “life is only worth living if it contains something worth dying for,” hence they seek death in order to live a more full life overall. A political suicide represents the idea that “death is preferable” to a miserable life when that “something” is absent from society.
The prospect of such a death serves as a harsh condemnation of those who have the potential to bring back what is lacking from communal life but are either unable or unwilling to do so. Wangchuk, Bora, Kumar, and Amitosh’s fast till death served as a message.
For them, that “something” was the Modi administration’s persistent inability to hold exams without question papers being leaked. Pradhan’s resignation and acceptance of responsibility were the first steps in fixing this systematic failing. They demanded his resignation for reasons other than accountability: they felt that if Pradhan remained in office, the educational system could not be changed and students’ prospects in life would continue to be jeopardised.
The Modi administration was constantly reminded by the pictures of the fasting campaigners, laying motionless on mattresses and exhausted, that it had damaged the educational system to the point that some people thought death was preferable. These pictures, which went viral on social media, refute the government’s assertions that it has provided residents with acche din.
Modi might have asked Pradhan to step down, but doing so would have been tantamount to acknowledging the incompetence of his administration. Its initial reaction was to disregard those who were fasting and to have its internet followers portray them as ardent BJP opponents. However, as Wangchuk’s health and the health of others fasting with him declined, the administration seemed to realise that any fatalities would be attributed to it. In an attempt to prevent this, Wangchuk was taken against his will to the hospital early on July 18.
Jantar Mantar took on a new significance as a result of the government’s action: that it favoured repression above communication with those who were complaining about it. The way the CJP protested indicated that it was open to dialogue. After all, a fast to death does not result in an abrupt death; rather, the methodical, patient process of dying is an opportunity to negotiate the resolution of complaints.
Public outrage was stoked by the Modi government’s refusal to engage in discussion with the CJP and its indifference as the lives of those fasting decreased. The Modi administration was perceived by most as being heartless and autocratic. People were so furious that they turned to the streets and forced one of the most powerful regimes in recent memory to concede, if only somewhat. This is historic: July 20 belongs to the CJP, which has imparted three lessons: movements cannot emerge in an atmosphere of fear; their success depends on the sacrifices we are willing to make; and a movement is the most effective way to oppose a dictatorship that ignores popular demands.
