Student Hunger Strikes, the Sansad March and the Unfinished Conversation Between Power and Democracy
By Ramphal Kataria
"The health of a democracy is measured not by the silence of its citizens but by the confidence with which they question those in power."
Twenty-Three Days
Twenty-three days without food.
By the third week, the protest site had ceased to resemble an ordinary demonstration. It had become a place where time was measured not by speeches or slogans, but by blood pressure readings, medical bulletins and the quiet determination of young people whose bodies had become instruments of political persuasion.
Neha Bora, National President of the All India Students' Association (AISA) and a doctoral scholar at Jawaharlal Nehru University, had refused food for twenty-three days. Beside her sat Manish Kumar, a fellow PhD scholar, equally resolute despite rapidly deteriorating health. Nearby, Aameen Amitoj, another student activist and doctoral researcher, continued the same fast. They had entered a territory where every additional day demanded not only conviction but physical endurance.
Elsewhere, Sonam Wangchuk had become the movement's moral conscience. His own indefinite fast had drawn national attention and reminded many Indians of a political tradition in which voluntary suffering seeks to awaken the conscience of those who wield power. Yet while Wangchuk occupied newspaper headlines, the three young students quietly carried the movement through its most uncertain days. Their sacrifice rarely dominated television debates, but it sustained the protest when public attention began to drift.
Then came an unusual delegation.
It was neither a government committee nor a police contingent.
Veteran actor and activist Shabana Azmi walked into the protest site alongside actor Prakash Raj. Political activist and social scientist Dr. Yogendra Yadav followed, accompanied by senior advocate Prashant Bhushan. Professor Atul Sood of Jawaharlal Nehru University joined them, together with Opposition Members of Parliament Manoj Jha of the Rashtriya Janata Dal, Rajaram Singh of CPI(ML) Liberation and Amra Ram of the CPI(M).
They did not arrive carrying resolutions.
They carried water and fruit juice.
Their appeal was simple.
The struggle ahead would be longer than the fast.
The students had already demonstrated extraordinary moral courage. Continuing indefinitely, they argued, might cost the movement some of its bravest organisers. Parliament had finally begun to notice. Public attention had expanded beyond university campuses. The agitation now required strategy, organisation and political engagement as much as sacrifice.
After twenty-three days, Neha Bora, Manish Kumar and Aameen Amitoj ended their fast.
It was not a surrender.
It was a recognition that democratic movements survive through organisation, not martyrdom alone.
The Government, however, remained largely absent from this defining moment.
That absence would shape everything that followed.
A Protest That Refused to Remain Local
Political movements rarely announce their arrival.
They emerge quietly, almost imperceptibly, before suddenly becoming impossible to ignore.
The Cockroach Janata Party—better known simply as the CJP—did not begin as a conventional political organisation. Its origins lay in digital satire and youthful frustration. What many dismissed as an internet phenomenon gradually acquired an unexpected political vocabulary. Young people facing repeated controversies surrounding competitive examinations, uncertainty in higher education, shrinking employment opportunities and a growing perception that institutions no longer listened found in the movement a language through which scattered anxieties could be expressed collectively.
Initially, few outside student circles took it seriously.
Governments seldom do.
Every administration believes that youth protests belong to a familiar cycle: they erupt, attract media attention, exhaust themselves and disappear.
History tells a different story.
The Nav Nirman Movement in Gujarat began over hostel fees and corruption.
The Bihar movement of 1974 began with students demanding accountability.
The Assam Movement emerged from campus politics before reshaping regional history.
The anti-corruption movement around Anna Hazare drew thousands of students who would later influence mainstream political discourse.
Even the year-long farmers' agitation depended heavily upon students and young volunteers who organised logistics, media outreach and legal support.
The beginning always appears small.
Only later do governments realise they were witnessing the first chapter of something much larger.
The present movement followed the same trajectory.
As university campuses mobilised, independent student groups, civil society organisations, teachers, lawyers and cultural figures gradually extended support. The movement was no longer speaking only about one examination or one administrative decision. It had become an expression of a broader generational unease.
The slogan changed.
So did the audience.
Young people who had never previously attended demonstrations began appearing at protest sites.
Parents who ordinarily discouraged political participation quietly accompanied their children.
Retired teachers visited.
Lawyers volunteered legal assistance.
Artists and writers lent their voices.
The protest stopped belonging to a handful of organisers.
It began belonging to everyone who recognised some part of their own frustration within it.
This transformation carried an important consequence.
Governments often find it easier to negotiate with organisations than with emotions.
Once a movement begins representing a generation's accumulated anxieties rather than a single administrative grievance, conventional methods of crisis management become inadequate.
The Silence Before the Conversation
The first weeks revealed a troubling pattern.
Letters were written.
Appeals were made.
Press conferences were held.
The hunger strike continued.
Medical conditions deteriorated.
Yet meaningful political engagement appeared elusive.
This silence mattered.
In democratic politics, silence is never neutral.
Every unanswered request gradually acquires symbolic weight.
Every postponed meeting strengthens the belief that those in authority are listening only after pressure becomes irresistible.
The irony was striking.
India prides itself on being the world's largest democracy.
Its constitutional architecture rests upon representative government, parliamentary accountability and public participation.
Yet one of the country's largest student mobilisations repeatedly found itself asking for what should have been routine in any democracy—a conversation.
It was only when the movement announced its "Sansad Chalo" march that the political atmosphere began to change.
The possibility of thousands of students converging near Parliament transformed what had been treated as a campus agitation into a national political question.
Barricades appeared across Delhi.
Police deployment increased.
Restrictions tightened.
Television cameras returned.
The Republic had finally begun paying attention.
But one question lingered over the unfolding events.
Why had it taken so long?
When the Streets Become the Last Institution
Every democracy possesses institutions designed to absorb public discontent.
Universities.
Legislatures.
Political parties.
Courts.
The media.
Civil society.
These institutions exist so that citizens do not have to occupy highways and public squares merely to be heard.
When protests expand despite their existence, the problem is rarely the protest alone.
It also reflects a weakening of the dialogue those institutions are expected to facilitate.
The Sansad March was therefore about far more than reaching Parliament.
It symbolised a painful democratic paradox.
Thousands of young citizens believed that the shortest route to being heard by Parliament was first to march towards it.
That should concern every government, irrespective of political ideology.
For when citizens begin treating the streets as their most effective democratic institution, it is not only governments that have failed.
Representative politics itself requires introspection.
The question was no longer whether the protest would continue.
The question had become whether those in power would finally choose conversation over confrontation.
And history, as India has repeatedly discovered, rarely rewards governments that wait until the streets become louder than the institutions meant to hear them.
The March That Changed the Movement
By the morning of July 20, Delhi had begun preparing for a confrontation.
Thousands of police personnel were deployed across the capital. Multiple layers of barricades appeared around Parliament Street, Jantar Mantar and adjoining routes leading to the national legislature. Metro stations witnessed heightened security. Internet restrictions were reported in parts of central Delhi. The government's preparations suggested that the proposed "Sansad Chalo" march was no longer being viewed as a student demonstration. It had become a law-and-order exercise.
Yet something fundamental had already changed.
The movement had escaped the boundaries of the protest site.
For nearly three weeks, the Government's response had largely remained administrative. The hunger strike continued. Appeals from academics, retired civil servants and civil society organisations multiplied. Opposition parties repeatedly demanded dialogue. Medical bulletins describing the deteriorating condition of Sonam Wangchuk and the three student hunger strikers circulated widely. Yet substantive political engagement remained elusive.
The message received by many protesters was unmistakable.
They would be heard only if they became impossible to ignore.
That perception transformed the movement.
The Sansad March of 20 July marked the defining moment of the movement. As thousands of students and protesters attempted to march towards Parliament, they encountered layers of barricades, heavy police deployment and repeated efforts to stop their advance. Protesters and civil society observers alleged that they were met with baton charges, tear gas, verbal abuse and physical force by police personnel, many of whom had covered their faces with masks. Videos and eyewitness accounts circulating widely on social media showed scenes of chaos and confrontation, though the authorities maintained that force was used only after attempts were made to breach security arrangements.
Yet what distinguished the day was not merely the confrontation but the protesters' response to it. Despite provocation, humiliation and the pain inflicted by the police action, the overwhelming majority of demonstrators chose restraint over retaliation. They neither answered violence with violence nor abandoned the discipline that had defined the movement from its inception. They absorbed the blows, endured the indignity and continued to assert their demands through peaceful resistance. In doing so, they reclaimed one of the oldest traditions of democratic protest—the moral power that comes from refusing to mirror the force deployed against you.
For more than a decade, many critics have argued that fear has become an increasingly powerful instrument of political control in India, discouraging citizens from publicly questioning authority. Whether one accepts that assessment or not, the July 20 march revealed something significant: many young Indians appeared unwilling to let fear dictate their democratic participation. They refused to retreat in the face of coercion, yet they also refused to surrender to anger or disorder. Their determination lay not in defeating the police, but in overcoming the fear that had kept so many citizens away from public protest. In that sense, the Sansad March was not only a demonstration against a particular grievance; it became a declaration that democratic dissent would continue to claim its place in India's public life.
What began as a campaign centred on examination reforms and accountability gradually evolved into a broader argument about democratic responsiveness itself.
The Sansad March was therefore never simply a march.
It was a referendum on whether peaceful democratic pressure still compelled political attention.
The authorities appeared to believe that dismantling the protest site would bring the movement to an end. As the demonstrators left Jantar Mantar for the Sansad March, the stage was dismantled, tents were uprooted, electricity connections were disconnected, and access to the protest site was reportedly restricted to prevent the marchers from returning. It was a familiar administrative response—the assumption that removing the physical space of protest would also dissolve the political will that sustained it.
The protesters, however, returned. They came back not as a defeated crowd but as a movement that had discovered its own resilience. Like birds returning to their nest after a long and uncertain journey, they found their way back to Jantar Mantar. The stage was erected once again. Fresh tents appeared. Slogans that had briefly fallen silent echoed through the site with renewed conviction. What the authorities had sought to erase was rebuilt within hours—not merely with bamboo poles and canvas sheets, but with a deeper sense of purpose.
That evening, Jantar Mantar no longer looked like a protest site struggling to survive. It looked like a movement that had crossed an invisible threshold. The Sansad March had changed its character. It was no longer sustained merely by anger over examination irregularities or by the hope of immediate concessions from the Government. It was now sustained by a collective resolve that intimidation would not dictate its future. How long the agitation will continue, no one can say. Whether it ultimately secures all its demands remains uncertain. But one truth had already become evident: the Government had succeeded in dismantling a stage, not the spirit that had built it.
That is the quiet victory of every enduring democratic movement. Its greatest triumph is not necessarily the immediate acceptance of its demands, but the creation of a community that refuses to surrender hope. Once people lose their fear and return to the site of struggle with greater courage than before, the movement has already achieved something profound. Governments may dismantle structures, disperse crowds and clear public spaces. They cannot easily extinguish a conviction that has taken root in the minds of ordinary citizens.
Governments may dismantle structures, disperse crowds and clear public spaces. They cannot easily extinguish a conviction that has taken root in the minds of ordinary citizens.
The Government Finally Speaks
Only after the announcement of the Parliament march did the first significant political opening emerge.
Union Minister J.P. Nadda met representatives of the movement. According to reports, the meeting lasted for over an hour. The delegation reportedly placed three principal demands before him, including the resignation of the concerned Union Minister, an impartial judicial inquiry into the examination controversy, and structural reforms intended to restore public confidence in the examination system. Government representatives, however, did not immediately accept these demands, indicating that they would require further consideration and consultation. The protesters subsequently decided to continue the agitation. The reported meeting marked the first substantive political engagement after weeks of protest but did not produce an immediate resolution.
Politically, the timing mattered far more than the outcome.
Governments rarely appreciate how delayed dialogue changes public perception.
A meeting held on the second day of a protest conveys openness.
The same meeting held after twenty days of hunger strikes conveys reluctant accommodation.
In democratic politics, timing itself communicates intent.
Had dialogue begun when Sonam Wangchuk first announced his indefinite fast—or when Neha Bora, Manish Kumar and Aameen Amitoj entered the second week of their fast—the Government might have projected confidence rather than compulsion.
Instead, many protesters concluded that negotiation had been forced by public mobilisation rather than initiated by democratic instinct.
Whether that conclusion was fair or not is less important than the fact that it became politically persuasive.
Perception is one of democracy's most powerful realities.
The Students Who Carried the Movement
One aspect of the movement deserves greater public recognition than it has received.
The moral authority of the protest did not rest on celebrity endorsements or social media campaigns.
It rested upon students who quietly endured twenty-three days without food.
Neha Bora.
Manish Kumar.
Aameen Amitoj.
These names deserve to be remembered alongside Sonam Wangchuk because they represent a tradition deeply embedded in India's democratic history—the willingness of ordinary young citizens to bear extraordinary personal costs in pursuit of public causes.
Unlike elected politicians, they possessed no constitutional authority.
Unlike established political parties, they commanded no organisational machinery.
Their only instrument was personal sacrifice.
That sacrifice altered the movement's legitimacy.
Governments may dismiss speeches.
They find it considerably harder to dismiss prolonged voluntary suffering.
It is therefore unsurprising that the hunger strike ended not because the Government intervened directly but because respected public figures persuaded the students that the struggle had entered a new phase.
Shabana Azmi did not ask them to abandon the movement.
Prakash Raj did not ask them to withdraw.
Yogendra Yadav, Prashant Bhushan, Professor Atul Sood, Manoj Jha, Rajaram Singh and Amra Ram offered a different argument.
A living movement needs living organisers.
The Republic required their voices more than it required their martyrdom.
The symbolism was profound.
Civil society—not the State—became the bridge between protest and political process.
That should concern every democracy.
A Movement That Outgrew Its Founders
Yet even as the Government struggled to respond, another challenge was quietly emerging within the movement itself.
History teaches that every successful mass mobilisation eventually reaches a point where its original organisational structure becomes too small for its expanding social base.
The CJP appeared to arrive at precisely such a moment.
What had begun as a tightly managed initiative gradually attracted thousands of students, independent activists, teachers, civil society organisations and established student unions. The movement's social legitimacy expanded much faster than its organisational framework.
This produced inevitable questions.
Who represented the movement?
Who decided its negotiating position?
Who selected the delegation that met the Government?
Why did organisations whose members had sustained the sit-in, organised volunteers and undertaken prolonged hunger strikes remain largely outside the principal negotiating process?
Several participants and observers raised concerns that decision-making remained concentrated within a narrow leadership group even as the movement itself became increasingly diverse. These perceptions reflected a broader debate over representation rather than a settled factual conclusion, but they became an important part of the movement's internal conversation.
Such questions are not signs of weakness.
They are signs of democratic growth.
Mass movements that never confront internal debate rarely survive long.
The Lesson from the Farmers' Movement
Perhaps the most instructive comparison is the Samyukt Kisan Morcha.
The farmers' agitation survived more than a year not because every participating organisation agreed on every issue.
Quite the opposite.
It survived because no single organisation claimed ownership of the movement.
More than forty farmers' unions shared responsibility.
Negotiating committees reflected regional diversity.
Press briefings rotated among leaders.
Important decisions emerged through consultation rather than unilateral announcements.
The Government knew that any negotiated settlement required broader acceptance.
Equally, ordinary farmers knew that no individual leader could privately determine the movement's future.
Collective leadership became institutional strength.
The present student movement offers an equally important lesson.
Charismatic leadership can ignite public imagination.
Institutional leadership sustains democratic legitimacy.
As the movement expanded, many participants expected a broader coordination committee that included representatives of major student organisations, hunger strikers, university campuses, independent academics, legal advisers and civil society groups. Such a structure could have diversified both strategy and negotiations, ensuring that the movement's rapidly widening support base was more visibly reflected in its leadership.
Instead, the concentration of public visibility and negotiations within a relatively small circle became a point of discussion among supporters themselves. Whether justified in every respect or not, this perception underscored a familiar democratic principle: movements, like republics, draw strength from representation.
A protest seeking greater accountability from the State is often strengthened when it also embraces accountability within its own structures.
When Fear Leaves the Streets
Every generation believes its struggle is unique.
History suggests otherwise.
India's democratic journey has advanced through repeated confrontations between authority and dissent. The names change. Governments change. Slogans change. Yet the underlying conversation remains remarkably constant.
In 1974, students in Gujarat launched the Nav Nirman Movement against corruption and inflation. Few imagined that what began in college campuses would eventually shake the political establishment. The same year, students in Bihar invited Jayaprakash Narayan to lead what became the movement for Sampoorna Kranti—Total Revolution. Those protests did not merely challenge a government; they questioned the relationship between citizens and political power.
The Emergency that followed attempted to restore order through censorship, arrests and administrative control. It succeeded in silencing dissent for a time. It failed to extinguish it. When elections were finally held in 1977, it was not merely a government that changed. The Republic itself rediscovered the value of dissent.
That lesson has echoed through every decade since.
The Assam Movement demonstrated the organisational capacity of students to reshape regional politics. The Mandal protests revealed the intensity with which questions of representation could divide and redefine Indian society. The anti-corruption movement led by Anna Hazare transformed public discourse on transparency. The farmers' movement forced one of the most significant policy reversals in recent history.
Each movement was different.
Yet each carried the same democratic message.
Governments may enjoy parliamentary majorities, but they cannot permanently govern without public legitimacy.
The present student mobilisation belongs within that longer democratic tradition.
Its ultimate success will not be measured solely by whether every immediate demand is accepted. Nor will it be judged only by the outcome of negotiations with the Government.
History will ask different questions.
Did it enlarge democratic participation?
Did it encourage more young people to engage peacefully with public life?
Did it remind institutions that accountability cannot end with elections?
Those questions matter far more than any single political victory.
The World's Young Democracies Tell the Same Story
India is not alone.
In Nepal, the People's Movement transformed the political order by bringing ordinary citizens onto the streets in defence of democratic aspirations. In Sri Lanka, the Aragalaya protests began with economic hardship but evolved into a broader demand for accountable governance. In Bangladesh, student-led demonstrations again showed how youth movements can rapidly reshape national politics when governments underestimate the depth of public frustration.
The political contexts differ profoundly, and direct comparisons have limits. India remains a constitutional democracy with regular elections and an independent judiciary. Yet these movements share a broader lesson: when citizens believe institutions are no longer sufficiently responsive, they seek new democratic spaces through collective action.
That lesson should be understood not as a warning against protest but as a reminder of the importance of dialogue.
The Constitution Does Not Fear Dissent
The framers of India's Constitution had themselves been protesters.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Patel, Maulana Azad and countless others understood that freedom had been won through organised public mobilisation against colonial authority. They therefore drafted a Constitution that protected not only elections but also the freedoms of speech, peaceful assembly and association.
Article 19 was never intended to protect only agreeable opinions.
Its true purpose is to protect disagreement.
Democracy is not sustained by applause.
It is sustained by the confidence that citizens may question power without surrendering their constitutional dignity.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed this principle. In Himat Lal Shah, Ramlila Maidan, Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan and other decisions, the Court has recognised peaceful protest as an essential democratic right while also acknowledging the State's responsibility to maintain public order. These judgments do not eliminate tension between liberty and administration; they insist that neither value should automatically eclipse the other.
The Constitution therefore asks something difficult of both governments and protesters.
Governments must resist the temptation to treat every protest primarily as a policing problem.
Movements must resist the temptation to confuse passion with representation.
Both must remain accountable to democratic norms.
The Government's Lesson
No government, regardless of ideology, should wait until a hunger strike enters its third week or a march reaches the gates of Parliament before beginning meaningful political engagement.
Dialogue is not a concession.
It is one of democracy's first responsibilities.
Governments often fear that early engagement will encourage future protests.
Experience suggests the opposite.
When citizens believe institutions remain open to conversation, protests are often resolved before they become confrontations.
Silence creates suspicion.
Conversation creates trust.
A government that talks early does not appear weak.
It appears confident.
The Movement's Lesson
The movement, too, carries important responsibilities.
Its greatest achievement was not merely mobilising thousands.
It was convincing a generation that peaceful democratic participation still matters.
That achievement should now be protected through broader democratic organisation.
As movements expand, leadership must also expand.
The twenty-three-day sacrifice of Neha Bora, Manish Kumar and Aameen Amitoj demonstrated extraordinary courage. Hundreds of volunteers organised logistics. Student organisations across ideological traditions contributed to mobilisation. Teachers, lawyers, artists and civil society groups extended solidarity. Such diversity deserves institutional expression through representative coordination committees, transparent decision-making and inclusive negotiating teams.
History repeatedly shows that movements endure when they become larger than their founders.
The Indian National Congress during the freedom struggle evolved into a broad national platform.
The Samyukt Kisan Morcha united dozens of farmers' organisations under a collective leadership model.
Successful democratic movements institutionalise participation.
They do not centralise it.
If this student movement embraces that lesson, it may yet become more influential than its founders initially imagined.
Conclusion
A Protest May End. Democracy Must Not.
When the history of this movement is eventually written, it should not begin with barricades.
It should begin with three young researchers who chose hunger over silence.
It should remember Sonam Wangchuk's moral appeal.
It should remember Neha Bora, Manish Kumar and Aameen Amitoj, whose twenty-three-day fast reminded the country that conviction sometimes speaks most powerfully through sacrifice rather than slogans.
It should remember the public figures who persuaded them that preserving life was itself an act of commitment to a longer democratic struggle.
It should remember thousands of unnamed students who travelled across states not for personal gain but because they believed the Republic still belonged to them.
It should also remember that governments are strongest when they listen before protests become crises.
And movements are strongest when they become as democratic internally as the democracy they seek to defend.
The July movement was never only about examination reforms.
It was about something larger.
It asked whether young Indians still believed their voices mattered.
Their answer was unmistakable.
They marched.
They fasted.
They organised.
They questioned.
They refused to surrender hope.
Whether every demand is eventually accepted is a question for politics.
But another verdict has already been delivered.
For twenty-three days, three young scholars risked their health because they believed democratic conversation was worth the sacrifice.
Thousands walked towards Parliament because they believed the streets could still remind elected representatives of their constitutional responsibilities.
And in doing so, they reaffirmed a truth older than the Republic itself:
Democracy is not preserved by the absence of dissent.
It is preserved by the courage to hear it.
References
1. Government of India. (2024). The Constitution of India (Updated Edition), Ministry of Law and Justice.
2. Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, (1973) 1 SCC 227.
3. Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 1166.
4. Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India, (2012) 5 SCC 1.
5. Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India, (2018) 17 SCC 324.
6. Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police (Shaheen Bagh Case), (2020) 10 SCC 439.
7. Ambedkar, B.R. Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. VII–XI.
8. Austin, Granville. (1966). The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation. Oxford University Press.
9. Guha, Ramachandra. (2007). India After Gandhi. HarperCollins.
10. Guha, Ramachandra. (2018). Democrats and Dissenters. Penguin Random House.
11. Jayaprakash Narayan. (1978). Towards Total Revolution. Popular Prakashan.
12. Bipan Chandra et al. (2008). India Since Independence. Penguin.
13. Tarrow, Sidney. (2011). Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics. Cambridge University Press.
14. Tilly, Charles. (2004). Social Movements 1768–2004. Paradigm Publishers.
15. Arendt, Hannah. (1958). The Human Condition. University of Chicago Press.
16. Gandhi, M.K. (1927). The Story of My Experiments with Truth. Navajivan Publishing House.
17. The Hindu. Coverage of the July 2026 student protests and Sansad March.
18. The Indian Express. Reports on the student movement, July 2026.
19. The Times of India. "Requested some time: CJP leaders meet JP Nadda with 3 demands; Amit Shah meets Pradhan amid Parliament march", July 2026.
20. Supreme Court Observer. Articles on freedom of assembly and protest jurisprudence.
No comments:
Post a Comment