5 min readAug 12, 2026 01:38 PM IST
First published on: Aug 8, 2026 at 02:22 PM IST
Recently, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, via a video message, “forgave” the students and young people, women in particular, who participated in the protests at Jantar Mantar and used profanities; and called for others to do the same. I find this framing problematic for two reasons.
First, it is based on the flawed premise that the protesters — irrespective of how they expressed their rage — had committed an offence. In a constitutional democracy, protest is not a favour extended by the state. It is a fundamental right. Citizens do not require absolution for exercising that right, even if many find their words offensive or unbecoming. The language of forgiveness is misplaced, and positions the state as a benevolent patriarch dispensing mercy.
Second, the PM’s remarks had a deeply paternalistic undertone to them. By bemoaning how “our daughters” could speak such a language, he infantilised them and reduced them to “misguided children” who need to be “corrected” and brought to the right path.
This is beyond semantics; it indicates the larger problem of disregarding women’s agency. For instance, whenever men engage in aggressive or profane language during protests, society normalises it as passion or political conviction. But when women express themselves similarly, it becomes a debate about morality, upbringing, and “cultural shock”. The political grievance becomes invalidated due to conduct. Their decisions are cast as ill-informed or misled, and in need of constant policing.
This paternalistic tendency is prevalent all over society and the state. The most striking illustration of this mindset is in the landmark Hadiya case (2018) where the Kerala High Court went so far as to annul the marriage of an adult woman on the assumption that she was “weak and vulnerable”. It ultimately required the Supreme Court to intervene and reinstate her fundamental right to make choices about her own life, religion, and partner. The message was clear: The state cannot override the agency of an individual.
The same condescension surfaces repeatedly in everyday life. Whenever a woman reports sexual violence, the first questions society asks are often about her. What was she wearing? Why was she out at that hour? It is often her morality that is put on trial before any action is taken, and the burden shifts from the criminal to the woman’s conduct.
The response to the NEET protesters followed this same script. Thousands of protestors hit the ground asking the government for accountability, but public discourse became about the language some young women and girls used. Their choice of words became more important than the institutional failures they sought to expose. In fact, the only demonstrable crime that occurred at the protests was when students were assaulted. A young woman suffered life-threatening injuries. The discourse didn’t follow the actual crimes but hyperfixated on someone’s hurt feelings. Young women and minors have been doxxed, harassed online, and publicly vilified. Television debates declared them as evidence of failed morality and femininity.
Certainly, some of the language used was crude. But the right to free speech under Article 19 also includes expression that is impolite, provocative and even offensive, subject only to the reasonable restrictions provided under Article 19 (2). And let’s not forget that any protest, by its very nature, is born out of frustration at the prevailing system. Citizens cannot be expected to sanitise their anger before they are heard.
Ironically, we have seen many male politicians use profanities and abusive language in the legislative chambers, election rallies, and television debates. It rarely translates into national debate. This double standard clearly highlights political theorist Carole Pateman’s argument that the formal citizenship of boys and men accounts for more than that of girls and women due to the privileges of patriarchy. Further, feminist scholar Nancy Fraser theorised that there can be no social justice without participation parity.
It is high time women are treated as rights-bearing citizens. Their political and personal agency should not be ignored based on patriarchal norms of civility. They do not need forgiveness; they need to be seen and treated as full individuals. Democracies become hollow without equality.
Aribam is a political activist and the author of The Fifteen: The Lives and Times of the Women in India’s Constituent Assembly
Certainly, some of the language used was crude. But the right to free speech under Article 19 also includes expression that is impolite, provocative and even offensive. 
Share
