Protests Shall Continue: What You Can't Achieve Directly, You Try to Achieve Indirectly

By S.N. Verma

The controversy surrounding the alleged NEET paper leak has triggered nationwide protests and political mobilisation. A pertinent question, however, is whether these protests will end once the immediate grievances are addressed.

In my opinion, the answer is no.

The reason is that the movement, in its present form, has evolved beyond the original issue. Even if every demand relating to the alleged paper leak were accepted, another issue would soon emerge as the next rallying point. If not NEET, it could be another policy decision, another administrative controversy, or another public issue capable of generating widespread public sentiment. The objective, in my view, is no longer confined to resolving a particular grievance but to sustaining continuous political pressure on the Government.

This reflects an old political strategy: when an objective cannot be achieved directly, attempts are made to achieve it indirectly.

If a government cannot be removed through the electoral process because it continues to enjoy public support, the alternative strategy may be to create an atmosphere of persistent unrest, dissatisfaction and political instability. Continuous protests, frequent agitations and sustained public campaigns can weaken public confidence in the Government even where the original issue has been addressed.

From this perspective, NEET is merely one episode in a larger political contest.

Tomorrow, the issue may shift elsewhere. It could be a fuel policy, ethanol blending, agricultural reforms, infrastructure projects or any other matter capable of influencing public opinion. Complex policy issues are often difficult for the general public to examine in detail. Consequently, they may become effective political tools for mobilising public sentiment. The focus may then shift from one minister to another, accompanied by fresh demands for resignations or policy reversals.

The pattern, therefore, is likely to continue.

This does not imply that every protest is illegitimate. In a democracy, peaceful protest is a constitutional right and often serves an important public purpose. Genuine grievances deserve to be heard and remedied. However, it is equally important to distinguish between issue-based protests intended to secure specific reforms and political campaigns that, in the my opinion, seek to maintain perpetual confrontation regardless of whether the original grievance has been resolved.

In my assessment, several political actors and ideological groups that oppose Prime Minister Narendra Modi—including opposition parties, regional political formations, Left groups and other critics of the Government—share a common political objective of defeating the present Government. Their methods and priorities may differ, but they may find common cause on issues that generate public mobilisation. In my opinion,  external interests too  prefer a less assertive Indian leadership and hence they too are  sponsoring, aiding and abetting such protests so that Modi is thrown out.

The larger political calculation, in my opinion, is straightforward. If electoral arithmetic does not favour a change in government, continuous public agitation may be viewed as a means of creating an environment of instability and weakening the Government's political standing before the electorate.

Whether this assessment ultimately proves correct will be judged by events over time. However, if one observes a recurring pattern of successive agitations where the issue changes but the mobilisation continues, it may indicate that the objective extends beyond the immediate grievance.

The central question, therefore, is not whether one supports or opposes a particular protest. Rather, it is whether the protest is genuinely directed at resolving a public issue or whether the issue has become a vehicle for pursuing a broader political objective.

In my opinion, that distinction is crucial. The future will reveal whether protests conclude when their stated demands are met, or whether they simply move from one issue to another in pursuit of a larger political goal.

As the saying goes, what cannot be achieved directly is often attempted indirectly.