Question Your Wins - Gen Z Protest

 

Let’s understand the chronology of Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation.

History shows that whenever students unite in protest, those in power become uncomfortable.

Be it the FTII Pune agitation, the Jamia Millia protests against PM Narendra Modi’s proposed convocation, the JNU sedition controversy that sparked a nationwide debate on free speech, the University of Hyderabad (Rohith Vemula) movement, or the Banaras Hindu University protests, the list goes on.

The question remains: Why were they discredited or crushed from day one?

The answer is simple. Student movements have historically grown into broader political challenges. The JP Movement, led by students and Jayaprakash Narayan, directly weakened Indira Gandhi’s Congress. That legacy arguably concerns the BJP as much as, if not more than, the Congress.

The movement produced several prominent political leaders, including Atal Bihari Vajpayee, L.K. Advani, Arun Jaitley, Ravi Shankar Prasad, Subramanian Swamy, George Fernandes, Ram Vilas Paswan, and Nitish Kumar.

Nope, Modi was not on that list. Perhaps he received this lesson from his “Marg Darshak Mandal”: don’t mess with students.

So, coming back to today.

Let’s understand how the BJP fell on its face and why Dharmendra Pradhan resigned.

The BJP initially responded to the NEET paper leak controversy by downplaying or dismissing the protests, even as Rahul Gandhi continued raising the issue from 2024 onward. In 2026, the movement gained significant momentum as reports of student suicides spread across the country, intensifying public outrage.

What happened next, we all know. Let’s understand how the BJP may have played it.

They knew it would be difficult to handle students if they took to the streets in large numbers.

The immediate solution, in my view, was to find a new face for the revolution. They did not want to respond to Rahul Gandhi’s “Chhatron Ki Goonj” campaign, which could have given him political mileage. So, according to this interpretation, they simply ignored that movement.

Instead, I believe the BJP saw a fresh face like Abhijeet Dipke as an easier target: “Come to India. We’ll give you a platform, help you gain popularity, and then crush you like a cockroach.”

It is somewhat similar to how the British, after the Revolt of 1857, engaged with the Indian National Congress as one avenue to negotiate with sections of Indian political opinion rather than dealing with widespread decentralized resistance.

Abhijeet Dipke, knowingly or unknowingly, became the face of the entire Gen Z movement. At the same time, students protesting across India alongside Rahul Gandhi received little space in the mainstream media, for reasons many critics believe are obvious.

I have no personal grudge against Abhijeet Dipke, but I do agree with one of his statements: “Don’t make him a hero.”

However, some of his actions raise questions. It is publicly known that Abhijeet Dipke previously worked with the Aam Aadmi Party.

He is not Mahatma Gandhi, who returned from South Africa and immediately led India’s freedom movement. Even Gandhi took time to build his movement.

He was reportedly granted permission to protest immediately after arriving in India, even though the usual procedure reportedly requires an application to be submitted seven days in advance. If that information is accurate, there could be only two possible explanations.

Either the government was shaken by Gen Z’s growing influence on social media, or, as some critics speculate, the entire episode was used to divert public attention from the alleged Ram Mandir theft controversy that surfaced on 5 June 2026.

My concern throughout this movement is simple: how did all of this happen so quickly?

Why was permission for Abhijeet Dipke’s protest at Jantar Mantar granted so quickly? Was the standard procedure followed, or was an exception made in this case?

Was he planted by someone, just as some people have alleged about Anna Hazare?

Then entered Sonam Wangchuk. With all due respect for the work he has done for India, that alone does not place him above the spirit of Indian democracy.

He, too, needs to answer a few questions.

What happened during those closed door meetings?

Why did the demands appear to shift from seeking Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation to asking only for the FIRs to be withdrawn and for someone from the ministry to speak with him so that he would end his hunger strike?

Then came Black Monday, 20 July 2026, when we witnessed police brutality in action: lathi charges, tear gas, and the manhandling of protesters.

One thing appeared to be missing. The CJP faces were not on the front lines taking those blows from the Delhi Police.

At that point, the protests were being led largely by Gen Z and emotionally charged students.

We owe an apology and immense respect, to those who took those baton blows for us and for our children’s future, including CJP leaders, Sonam Wangchuk, and many others.

Meanwhile, two leaders from the Cockroach Janta Party were engaged in closed-door meetings over demands that appeared to have only two possible outcomes.

The government’s answer should simply have been “yes” or “no.”

When meetings are held behind closed doors and away from public scrutiny, they naturally raise questions about transparency. At that point, they may appear less like discussions to address public demands and more like political negotiations. Critics may even view them as a quid pro quo, though such claims require evidence.

Sonam Wangchuk broke his fast, but in my opinion, he should have accepted that glass of juice from the protesters at Jantar Mantar rather than from JP Nadda.

If the entire agitation was genuinely about securing Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation, then why did Gitanjali J Angmo (Sonam Wangchuk’s wife) criticize Rahul Gandhi’s decision to protest outside Narendra Modi’s residence when both appeared to share the same objective?

Were they truly trying to challenge the government’s ego, or were they seeking credit for themselves?

The resignation itself came across as egotistical rather than principled. It did not appear to stem from moral responsibility or accountability.

He did not resign on his own.

In my view, he was asked to resign by the party leadership because it could no longer control the narrative or contain the growing energy of the youth.

The Prime Minister called the protesters “friends”, yet failed to acknowledge the student suicides or the alleged excesses committed under his own Home Ministry.

A leader who chose to communicate through Mann Ki Baat and held no press conferences for over twelve years was eventually compelled to switch on his front camera and address people on Instagram. Yet even then, it remained a one-way conversation.

One point repeatedly highlighted by sections of the independent media became clear to many.

According to those reports, the Delhi Police and the government had planned the crackdown on students together.

That raises further questions.

What compelled the government to engineer such a swift resignation within just two days?

What is coming up next in Parliament?

Which bills does the government want to introduce?

How quickly will Modi’s government act on the two remaining demands?

One must continue asking questions, regardless of who is in power, and avoid becoming an andhbhakt.

I hope this protest and my writing about it encourages people to think critically rather than accept everything at face value.

If you found meaning in this piece, do share it with your friends and family.

Spread ideas, not hatred.

Gen Z - The Generation That Refused to Stay Quiet

A heartfelt thank you to the generation that apparently forgot the first rule of being a "good citizen" in modern times. 

People thought you only make reels, scroll social media, and fight over celebrities. Instead, you showed up on the streets carrying placards instead of ring lights. Very disappointing.

The script was simple. If unemployment rises, call it a perception problem. If students protest, call them anti-national. If journalists ask uncomfortable questions, call them biased. If anyone still refuses to clap, accuse them of disturbing public order.

But Gen Z missed the memo.

They insisted on asking why educated youth struggle to find jobs. They asked why campuses increasingly resemble places where disagreement is treated as a security concern. They asked why criticism of the government is so often confused with criticism of the nation.

They observe how conveniently the youth are sidelined from the national conversation. When the CJI (Supreme guarding of our constitution) likened unemployed youth to "cockroaches," it seemed as though he had forgotten that the "I" in CJI stands for India and, above all, its people.

The Constitution has become India's most photographed book. It appears every Constitution Day, smiles politely in government offices, and then quietly returns to storage until the next ceremony.

But when videos emerge excessive force against peaceful protesters, suddenly CJI Suryakant becomes very busy. 

Apparently, there is always enough time for lengthy observations, but not always enough time to watch uncomfortable evidence.

At times, it feels as though we have been transported back to the colonial era. The methods may look uncomfortably familiar, even if the rulers have changed.

The British Empire had a simple strategy. It censored newspapers, arrested editors, and tried to suppress dissent.

Independent India proudly learned from history. Britisher were ruthless so the current regime.

But we expect some shame and accountability  from India’s government

During colonial rule, Bal Gangadhar Tilak started Kesari. Mahatma Gandhi published Young India and Harijan. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar founded newspapers like Mooknayak and Bahishkrit Bharat. Across the rest of India, countless publications emerged because the mainstream establishment rarely gave space to voices challenging power.

Back then, newspapers challenged the rulers.

Today, television studios challenge only the opposition, while independent journalists with a camera, a backpack, and unreliable internet continue doing what journalism was originally invented for.

History has a peculiar sense of humour.

The technology changed from printing presses to smartphones.

The job description remained the same.

Be vocal, use your Insta accounts, raise your voice and keep asking questions regardless of who occupies the throne.

The freedom movement united Indians against colonial rule. Today's young Indians often find themselves trying to unite people across religion, caste, language, and region against something equally dangerous.

Because indifference is democracy's most loyal enemy.

Rights survive only when citizens exercise them.

Perhaps that is why Gen Z deserves appreciation. Not because they are always right. No generation is. 

But because they refuse to believe that citizenship begins and ends with voting once every five years.

They protest, They record. They question. They organise.

They are mocked, ignored and praised only after history changes its mind.

Every generation that challenged authority was first described as irresponsible, emotional, misguided, or influenced by invisible enemies. 

Time has an amusing habit of promoting yesterday's troublemakers into tomorrow's heroes.

So thank you, Gen Z.

Thank you for reminding older generations that democracy is not maintained by hashtags praising power but by citizens willing to question it.

Thank you for standing where many preferred to remain seated.

Thank you for taking criticism, ridicule, and sometimes even batons so that younger generations may inherit not just elections, but the freedom to disagree.

Whether history ultimately applauds or criticises your methods is for history to decide.

But one thing is certain.

A democracy where young people stop asking questions is not a strong democracy.

It is merely a quiet one.

Don’t celebrate too early, its not over yet.

Satyagraha

 

There was a time when governments feared a man sitting quietly under a tree.

Today, governments fear hashtags for about six hours.

India gifted the world Satyagraha

The idea that truth, non-violence, and moral courage could defeat brute power. 

Gandhi carried no sword, Bhagat Singh carried conviction, millions carried empty stomachs and full hearts. The British jailed them, beat them, censored them.

But every lathi charge became tomorrow's headline.

Every arrest created another freedom fighter.

Every attempt to silence dissent only amplified it.

Somewhere along the journey from Empire to Republic of India, power attended a management workshop.

Lesson One: Never create a martyr.

Lesson Two: Just don't reply to protestors.

The British imprisoned protesters.

But the modern rulers simply leave them on like a blue tick on whatsapp tick “Seen”

Today, power doesn't always silence dissent with force. Sometimes it simply ignores critics, knowing that public attention fades and exhaustion replaces outrage. 

Instead of banning voices, it lets time and indifference diminish their impact.

The government proudly launches ambitious missions.

Digital India.

Startup India.

Skill India.

Swachh Bharat.

Perhaps the most successful doctrine has never been officially announced.

Ignore the protest.

From farmers to students, from scientists to judges, from wrestlers to Olympians, the response often seems the same. Wait. Let public attention fade. Let silence do what force once did.

Eventually television finds another controversy.

They have media houses under control to fade those memories with new propaganda or fake news.

Mission accomplished.

No negotiation required.

Ganga is Sacred. Unless Someone Dies Saving It.

Professor G.D. Agrawal spent his life studying rivers.

He fasted to protect the Ganga.

The very river that many called “Maa Ganga” worship with folded hands.

One would assume that a scientist sacrificing his life for India's holiest river might create urgency.

Instead, it created…. silence.

Apparently the Ganga is sacred enough for speeches.

Perhaps the clean river flows only during election campaigns.

The rest of the year it merely carries press releases & alarms.

Earlier the question was, What is your demand?

Now the question is, Who sent you?

Need clean rivers ? Will add milk in it and pollute further more.

Want constitutional safeguards, you have a foreign agenda.

Question government policy,  you are Urban Naxal.

Demand accountability? You are Anti-national.

The beauty of labels is that once someone becomes "anti-national," nobody has to answer what they actually said.

It is the political equivalent of covering your ears and shouting… 

“NAMO NAMO…. I CAN'T HEAR THIS CONSTITUTION!"

Sonam Wangchuk fasts.

They didn’t ask whats happening in Ladakh, instead they ask who is funding you.

Imagine applying the same logic elsewhere.

Doctor: You have cancer.

Patient: Before treatment, tell me who supports this diagnosis Vedic Science or Modern Science.

When arguments become less important than identities, truth quietly leaves the room.

Filmmakers discover a strange law of physics.

The closer a film moves toward uncomfortable reality, the heavier the certification process becomes.

Some films run marathons through approvals.

Others sprint straight into theatres.

Apparently freedom of expression now depends on whether it disturbs power or merely entertains it.

People once celebrated the mythical 56-inch chest.

It turns out the real achievement wasn't the chest.

It was developing 56-inch thick skin (Moti Chamdi).

No effect, whether you criticise, protest, environmental warnings.

Imgine Gandhi protesting today.

Day One.

Breaking News.

Day Three.

Panel discussion.

Day Five.

Celebrity divorce trends.

Day Seven.

Cricket series begins.

Day Ten.

Nobody remembers why the old man is fasting.

History taught governments how protests succeed.

Modern politics taught governments how to fails protests.

Don't arrest everyone.

Don't negotiate either.

Just let attention die.

The nation scrolling shorts & reels faster than conscience.

Outrage expires every forty-eight hours.

Democracy has entered the age of disposable memory.

Every October, politicians place flowers before Gandhi's statue.

They quote Satyagraha, they praise non-violence, they even celebrate civil resistance.

& 

Then they spend the remaining 364 days ensuring that peaceful resistance changes absolutely nothing.

Gandhi has become India's most respected decorative icon. Garlanded, photographed, and lit by candles, he is admired the way Gen Z admires aesthetics. The image is celebrated, but the ideology is often ignored.

The real tragedy isn't that governments reject protests.

The real tragedy is that they no longer need to.

In today's democracy, the loudest weapon is not the lathi.

It is silence.

And perhaps that is the most dangerous evolution of power.

Not the ability to crush dissent, but the confidence to pretend it never existed.