Opinion I am a vocal member of the Opposition. CJP protest carries a lesson — and a warning — for us

The lessons from this student-led movement transcend the immediate political fallout; they expose a dangerous erosion of institutional independence, a striking vacuum in the political opposition, and a worrying national drift away from parliamentary processes toward street-veto politics.

The primary and most urgent lesson of this crisis is that no government, regardless of its legislative majority, can permanently escape accountability or evade genuine public conversation. By treating student grievances as mere law-and-order disruptions or partisan conspiracies, the government misjudged the depth of the public anxiety that prevails.

For years, there has been a visible trend toward the centralisation of power and the systematic undermining of the independence of statutory agencies and autonomous educational institutions. The ED, the CBI, Income Tax, Election Commission of India have all been undermined in the government’s relentless pursuit of centralisation of power. When institutions like national testing boards or regulatory bodies are perceived as compromised or overly managed, public faith in them collapses. Open dialogue, institutional autonomy, and a willingness to acknowledge systemic failure are not signs of executive weakness; they are the fundamental prerequisites of stable governance. With the government now in overdrive to undo the damage and manage the political fallout of the protests, the question is: Have they learnt the right lessons, or is everything driven from the perspective of cutting political losses? The recent decisions prove it to be the latter.

The student protests, however, simultaneously show the mirror to India’s political opposition. There is an unmistakable pattern emerging in the landscape of Indian dissent. Whether it was the farmers’ protests against the three black laws, the CAA protests, ecological crusades, or the recent youth-led agitations, the public has repeatedly chosen to bypass mainstream political parties. Instead, citizens have placed their faith in non-opposition, civil society figures or, in this case, the online popularity of the Cockroach Janta Party, reflecting on the ground. Surprisingly, both Congress and the BJP accuse the CJP of being a front for the Aam Aadmi Party. But the fact is that government representatives dealt with them rather than with opposition parties. This spoke volumes about the vacuum that prevails.

The opposition must introspect deeply on why it remains a bystander in moments of intense civic friction. Despite possessing parliamentary platforms and pan-India organisational networks, political parties have failed to convert widespread public anger into a cohesive political narrative.

There is also a persistent trust deficit: The protesting public fears that the involvement of mainstream opposition parties will dilute, politicise, or weaponise their legitimate grievances for immediate electoral gains. A functional democracy requires an opposition that does not merely exploit grievances after they erupt, but one that structurally articulates them within the framework of formal politics.

The current narrative vacuum indicates that while people are deeply dissatisfied with the ruling establishment’s arrogance, they remain unconvinced by the opposition’s alternatives, and I say this as someone who is a vocal member of the opposition. We will need to inspire confidence in the people. We owe the country a strong, consistent and unified opposition.

The third and perhaps the most worrying consequence of this entire episode is the visible loss of faith in India’s parliamentary process. When citizens conclude that the only way to extract accountability or force a policy correction is to hit the streets, the formal architecture of democracy suffers a body blow. Parliament is meant to be and should be the central platform for national anxieties, a space where grievances are debated, scrutinised, and resolved through the legislative process. When the floor of the House becomes a site of perpetual disruptions rather than substantive debate, the street inevitably takes over.

This systemic shift from Parliament to the street opens a window of vulnerability. Street-driven politics, by its very nature, is unpredictable and volatile. When formal institutional channels are closed, it creates a fertile breeding ground for bad state actors and external adversaries eager to exploit India’s internal societal fissures. If every policy decision or institutional failure can only be arbitrated through prolonged public standoffs and blockades, the foundational stability of democratic institutions is fundamentally weakened. It normalises a dangerous precedent where executive capitulation only occurs under the duress of mass disruption, rather than through routine democratic oversight.

The resignation of an education minister may provide temporary political relief or a convenient scapegoat for an administration under siege. It does not cure the underlying issues in governance. To prevent the further decay of India’s polity and policy, a collective course correction is required from all stakeholders.

Both sides, the Treasury benches and the Opposition, must work together to restore the dignity and utility of the parliamentary process, ensuring that the elected representatives of the people can debate, dissent, and deliver solutions within the walls of the legislature. India’s youth deserves stable institutions, not a republic governed by the volatility of the streets.

The writer, a former Rajya Sabha MP, is with Shiv Sena (UBT)