“The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of TheNews21.”
Sonam Wangchuk’s prolonged hunger strike has transformed a protest over the NEET controversy into a larger debate on government accountability, media responsibility and the resilience of Indian democracy.
Sonam Wangchuk’s hunger strike has shaken the conscience of the nation. What began as a peaceful protest has now reached a decisive and deeply concerning stage. On 16 July, the Delhi High Court issued clear directions to the Central Government and the Delhi Government that the activist on hunger strike must undergo daily medical examination by government doctors and that every possible effort should be made to protect his life. The order was passed by the Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tejas Karia after both governments assured the court that Wangchuk’s health would remain under constant medical supervision.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court that, acting on medical advice, the government would provide every necessary treatment to manage Wangchuk’s deteriorating condition. The Bench observed that the life of every citizen is invaluable and that the State has a duty to make every possible effort to preserve it. Appreciating the assurance given by the Solicitor General, the court further directed that Wangchuk’s condition be monitored continuously, both clinically and medically.
These directions came while hearing a public interest litigation filed by social activist and advocate Rakesh Kumar Saini. The petition sought immediate medical intervention, arguing that a citizen exercising his constitutional right to peaceful protest should not be allowed to drift towards a life-threatening situation. A day earlier, the High Court had treated the matter as urgent and sought responses from both the Union Government and the Delhi Government. During that hearing, the petitioner had submitted that it was deeply unfortunate that a social activist fighting for an issue concerning millions of students had been compelled to risk his own life. The matter was briefly adjourned because the Central Government’s counsel was unavailable, though the court had assured that the issue would receive serious consideration.
Today, the hunger strike has crossed three weeks, and Sonam Wangchuk’s health has become a matter of national concern. Reports indicate that prolonged fasting has considerably weakened him. Doctors have advised continuous monitoring, and on medical advice he has now been shifted to Safdarjung Hospital in Delhi for treatment. While the authorities maintain that the decision was taken solely to safeguard his health and in accordance with the High Court’s directions, organisers of the agitation have alleged that he was removed against his wishes. Whatever the differing versions may be, one reality cannot be ignored—the health of a man engaged in a peaceful democratic protest has reached a critical stage.
Support for Wangchuk has also come from different sections of public life. Actress Sonakshi Sinha appealed to the government to respond sensitively to the concerns being raised by the protesters. Congress MP Shashi Tharoor, while urging Wangchuk to end his fast, observed that the hunger strike had already succeeded in awakening the conscience of the nation and appealed that the struggle now continue through democratic and parliamentary means. He also emphasised that an issue concerning the future of students deserved wider discussion within democratic institutions.
Meanwhile, the Cockroach Janata Party has announced that, on the opening day of Parliament’s Monsoon Session, it will organise a peaceful march from Jantar Mantar to Parliament House. Following Wangchuk’s hospitalisation, the movement has declared that the agitation will continue. Consequently, what was once viewed as the protest of a single individual has now evolved into a larger national debate over the credibility of the country’s education system and the accountability of those responsible for safeguarding it.
What is unfolding at Jantar Mantar today, and the indifference with which it is being viewed, should have become a matter of national concern much earlier. A government that repeatedly speaks about the aspirations of India’s youth ought to have made an effort to understand the anguish behind this movement. Instead, silence has prevailed. Equally disturbing is the silence of large sections of the mainstream media. A protest that directly concerns the future of millions of students has struggled to receive the attention it deserves.
For nearly a month, the Cockroach Janata Party has continued its agitation in the national capital. Across the country, young men and women have organised demonstrations demanding accountability for the alleged irregularities in the NEET examination and seeking the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. Their argument is straightforward: when an examination that determines the future of millions comes under serious question, someone in authority must accept responsibility.
The issue, however, extends beyond the resignation of a minister. It concerns the larger question of how our institutions respond when public confidence in an examination system begins to erode. It also raises an equally important question: why did it require a prolonged hunger strike by Sonam Wangchuk before the concerns of students received serious national attention?
The concerns being raised by the protesting students are neither unreasonable nor new. Their central question is simple: who will accept responsibility for the chaos that surrounded the NEET examination? The issue is no longer confined to the demand for the resignation of the Union Education Minister. It is about restoring public confidence in an examination system that determines the future of millions of young Indians every year.
The controversy surrounding NEET has shaken the confidence of students and parents alike. Allegations of paper leaks, irregularities and administrative lapses have repeatedly surfaced over the past few years, creating an atmosphere of uncertainty. Although the examination was reconducted after the controversy, lakhs of students were compelled to undergo the mental trauma of preparing and appearing once again. For many families, it was not merely another examination but another emotional and financial burden.
Several tragic incidents of student suicides reported during this period have further intensified public concern. While every such case may have its own circumstances, the recurring reports of young aspirants taking their own lives have forced society to confront a painful reality—the enormous psychological pressure associated with India’s highly competitive entrance examinations. These incidents deserve far greater sensitivity than they have received so far.
The question, therefore, is not simply whether another examination was conducted successfully. The larger question is whether those entrusted with protecting the integrity of the examination system have adequately accepted responsibility for the circumstances that led to such widespread public anxiety.
In any mature democracy, accountability is not merely a legal obligation; it is also a moral one. Ministers often accept responsibility for administrative failures even when they are not personally involved in every decision. Such gestures strengthen public faith in institutions. Unfortunately, in this case, no such example has been set. Instead, political leaders have repeatedly argued that resignations are neither necessary nor part of their political culture.
This raises another uncomfortable question. Should responsibility always remain anonymous whenever a major public institution fails? If millions of students and their families lose confidence in a national examination, should no one in authority be held accountable?
Equally troubling has been the silence from the highest levels of government. The Prime Minister’s Office, which frequently responds to issues of national importance, has made no substantive public intervention on a controversy that directly concerns the future of millions of students. Whether one agrees with the demands of the protesters or not, it is difficult to deny that such widespread public anxiety deserved at least a reassuring response from those entrusted with governing the country.
Preparing for examinations like NEET demands years of discipline, sacrifice and relentless hard work. Families invest their savings, students devote countless hours to study, and many leave behind their homes in pursuit of a dream. When controversies repeatedly cast doubt over the fairness of that process, the emotional consequences extend far beyond the examination hall. It is not merely marks or rankings that come under question; it is the faith of an entire generation in the fairness of the system.
This is precisely why the movement at Jantar Mantar has resonated with so many young people across the country. At its heart lies a demand for transparency, accountability and institutional credibility. Whether expressed through slogans on the streets or through Sonam Wangchuk’s prolonged fast, the underlying message remains the same: students deserve an examination system they can trust.
The government’s recent announcement that major competitive examinations may gradually become fully computer-based is undoubtedly intended to strengthen security and reduce the possibility of paper leaks. Yet such reforms also require careful planning. Large sections of rural India continue to face significant disparities in digital infrastructure, internet connectivity and access to computers. Unless these inequalities are addressed simultaneously, technological reforms alone cannot guarantee equal opportunity for every student.
Ultimately, the debate is not about opposing reform. On the contrary, students themselves are demanding stronger safeguards, greater transparency and more reliable examination processes. What they seek is not confrontation but confidence—a system in which merit alone determines success, free from doubts over irregularities or administrative failures.
For that reason, this movement cannot be dismissed as an ordinary political protest. It reflects a deeper crisis of trust between young citizens and the institutions responsible for shaping their future. Restoring that trust requires far more than administrative assurances. It demands openness, accountability and the willingness to acknowledge public concerns before they grow into national discontent.
The present movement cannot be understood merely through the prism of the NEET controversy. It has gradually evolved into a larger debate on how our democratic institutions respond when young citizens lose faith in the system. Every democracy is tested not only by the strength of its institutions but also by its willingness to listen to voices of dissent before they turn into voices of despair.
The emergence of the Cockroach Janata Party may initially have appeared unusual, even symbolic. Its origins can be traced to a remark that many young people believed reflected an insensitive attitude towards students. What began as a spontaneous expression of anger on social media soon transformed into an organised movement questioning the credibility of the examination system. Thousands of young people, many of whom had never before participated in public protests, found a common platform through this campaign.
Whether one agrees with every slogan raised by the movement is beside the point. Democracies are not strengthened because every protest is correct; they are strengthened because every peaceful protest is heard. The real issue is not the name of the organisation or the political opinions of those associated with it. The real issue is whether the questions being raised deserve a serious and reasoned response.
Those questions remain remarkably straightforward.
Who is responsible for repeated irregularities in competitive examinations?
How will confidence in the examination system be restored?
What safeguards will ensure that deserving students are never again forced to question the fairness of a process that determines their future?
And perhaps the most disturbing question of all—why did it require a prolonged hunger strike by Sonam Wangchuk before these concerns began receiving wider national attention?
Equally troubling has been the response of the mainstream media.
For weeks, thousands of students have continued their peaceful demonstrations at Jantar Mantar despite the intense summer heat and the arrival of the monsoon. Several participants have required medical attention as their health deteriorated during the agitation. Yet, despite the significance of the issue, sustained coverage has remained surprisingly limited.
This silence raises uncomfortable questions about the priorities of contemporary journalism.
The future of millions of students is undoubtedly a matter of national importance. An examination system that repeatedly comes under public scrutiny deserves rigorous reporting, independent investigation and sustained public debate. Yet, much of this movement has survived in the national conversation largely because of social media, independent journalists and citizens who continued documenting developments on digital platforms.
Had social media not amplified these voices, it is quite possible that large sections of the country would have remained unaware of the scale and persistence of the protest unfolding in the national capital.
This reality deserves serious reflection.
In recent years, Indian journalism has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to cover elections, international diplomacy and political spectacles with remarkable energy. There is nothing objectionable in that. But when a peaceful youth movement concerning the credibility of the country’s education system struggles to receive similar attention, legitimate questions naturally arise about editorial priorities.
The media has never been expected to endorse every protest. Nor should it become an extension of any movement. Its constitutional responsibility is far simpler—and far more important. It must place verified facts before society, ask uncomfortable questions of those in authority and enable informed public debate.
Silence serves neither democracy nor journalism.
The role of the media becomes even more significant when those protesting are not demanding personal favours or political office but are raising concerns about institutional accountability. Whether one ultimately agrees with the protesters or not, their arguments deserve scrutiny rather than neglect.
Democracy does not weaken because questions are asked.
It weakens when questions stop being heard.
Today, the debate extends beyond one examination, one hunger strike or one minister. It concerns the larger relationship between citizens and institutions. Public trust, once lost, cannot be restored merely through official statements. It must be rebuilt through transparency, accountability and an honest willingness to engage with criticism.
If the present movement has exposed anything, it is not merely the shortcomings of an examination process. It has also exposed the growing distance that many young citizens feel between themselves and the institutions meant to safeguard their future.
That, perhaps, is the most important question India must confront before another generation begins to believe that peaceful protest is no longer enough to make itself heard.
The strength of Indian democracy has always rested on its ability to accommodate differences of opinion. Dissent has never been an obstacle to democracy; rather, it has been one of the forces that has kept democratic institutions accountable and responsive. Whenever we proudly describe India as the world’s largest democracy, we also accept the responsibility of ensuring that those who question the system are heard with patience rather than dismissed with indifference.
Today, allegations of irregularities in competitive examinations that determine the future of millions of students have once again placed that democratic spirit under scrutiny. The prolonged hunger strike undertaken by education reformer Sonam Wangchuk has now become much more than an individual act of protest. It has emerged as a symbol of the anxiety being felt by countless students and parents whose confidence in the fairness of the examination system has been repeatedly shaken.
It is important to recognise that Wangchuk is not pursuing this movement for personal gain. Nor is he seeking political office. His support for the Cockroach Janata Party has been rooted in a larger concern—that the voices of students demanding accountability should not go unheard. At the heart of this movement lies the future of lakhs of young people who are increasingly questioning whether merit alone is sufficient in a system repeatedly clouded by allegations of paper leaks and administrative irregularities.
Equally significant is the concern of parents across the country. For years, families have invested their hopes, savings and aspirations in their children’s education. Every major controversy surrounding competitive examinations weakens that faith a little further. Whether every allegation ultimately proves correct or not is a matter for investigation and due process. What cannot be denied, however, is that public confidence in several important entrance examinations has suffered. Restoring that confidence should become an immediate priority for policymakers.
Democracy does not demand that every protest be accepted. Nor does it require the government to concede every demand placed before it. What democracy does require, however, is a willingness to engage in dialogue before distrust deepens into alienation. Governments derive their strength not merely from electoral victories but from the confidence that citizens place in their institutions. That confidence grows when people believe they are being heard.
Prolonged neglect of a peaceful movement only widens the distance between the government and the governed. Opening channels of communication with protesters should never be viewed as a sign of weakness. On the contrary, meaningful dialogue reflects the confidence and maturity of a democratic government. At the same time, those leading public movements also carry a responsibility to engage constructively and remain committed to peaceful and democratic methods.
The present deadlock serves no one’s interests. A credible committee, functioning independently and within a clearly defined timeframe, could examine the concerns raised by students, recommend institutional reforms and help rebuild public trust. Transparency in the investigation of alleged irregularities, stronger safeguards for future examinations and regular public communication would go a long way in reassuring both students and parents that their concerns are being addressed sincerely.
There is also a deeply human dimension that should not be forgotten. Every hunger strike is both a moral appeal and a medical emergency. While the State has an unquestionable responsibility to protect the life of every citizen, it must do so in a manner consistent with constitutional values, medical ethics and respect for the individual’s democratic rights. Protecting life and respecting peaceful protest are not contradictory obligations; in a democracy, they must go hand in hand.
Ultimately, this movement is about much more than one examination, one organisation or one individual. It is about the relationship between citizens and the institutions that govern them. It is about whether young people continue to believe that peaceful democratic engagement can still bring about meaningful change. And it is about whether those entrusted with public office are prepared to respond with empathy, transparency and accountability when that trust begins to erode.
History has repeatedly shown that societies become stronger not by silencing difficult questions but by confronting them honestly. The concerns being raised today by students deserve precisely that response. If this moment leads to transparent reforms, greater institutional accountability and renewed public confidence in the examination system, the present crisis may yet become an opportunity for meaningful change.
For that to happen, however, dialogue must replace silence, sensitivity must replace indifference, and public trust must once again become the guiding principle of governance. That is not merely what the protesters seek—it is what Indian democracy itself demands.
