New Delhi has recently seen tens of thousands of demonstrators, primarily students and opposition supporters, clash with armed police in a bid to secure space for sit-ins and demand the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. This latest wave of agitation, which follows the ouster of the education minister three months prior, marks another significant challenge to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s administration.
The current government has characterized these demonstrators as acting against national interests, yet India’s history reveals a different narrative. As Rasheed Kidwai, a New Delhi-based political analyst, noted, street protests have been central to the country’s story since the freedom struggle against the British Empire. Despite frequent opposition from successive governments, these movements have consistently shaped modern India.
Historical precedents demonstrate how public dissent has compelled powerful leaders to yield. In 1965, violent anti-Hindi agitations in southern India, led by Tamil nationalist figures like CN Annadurai and M Karunanidhi, forced then-Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri to guarantee that English would remain an official language alongside Hindi. The unrest resulted in the defeat of the Congress party in Tamil Nadu and became a defining moment for regional federalism.
Similarly, the JP Movement of the mid-1970s, sparked by student protests against corruption in Gujarat and Bihar, evolved into a nationwide challenge against Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Though it preceded the declaration of a national emergency, the movement ultimately contributed to the Congress party’s defeat in the 1977 elections and established the principle that leaders are accountable to mass dissent.
Other pivotal moments include the early 1990s protests against the Mandal Commission’s recommendations for OBC reservations, which saw over 60 students die by suicide, and the 1992 Supreme Court ruling that upheld the quota system. The economic liberalization reforms of 1991 also faced widespread labor strikes, although they failed to halt the government’s push for foreign investment.
More recent history includes Anna Hazare’s 2011 anticorruption movement, which led to the creation of a statutory watchdog, and the massive 2012 demonstrations following the gang rape of a young woman in Delhi. That tragedy spurred the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 2013, although activists argue that legal changes have not sufficiently addressed entrenched misogyny.
The 2019-2020 protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act further illustrated the power of decentralized resistance, particularly through women-led sit-ins at Shaheen Bagh. These events, along with the 2020 Delhi riots, highlighted ongoing tensions regarding secularism and minority rights.
Today, the call for CEC resignation continues this long tradition. As India’s most populous nation, it remains a country where the street has historically served as a potent arena for political accountability and social change.
The article needs more data on the economic impact of these prolonged strikes. It feels a bit too romanticized about dissent.
But do street protests actually lead to lasting policy changes, or just temporary concessions? I question the long-term efficacy.
I was genuinely surprised by the deep historical parallels drawn here. The continuity from 1965 to today is striking and well-researched.
Finally, someone acknowledges that protests are not anti-national but integral to our democracy. We need more historical context like this.