The CJP movement stands today at its defining moment.
Sonam Wangchuk has ended his fast after the government assured him that his demands would be examined. In an unusual midnight announcement, the Prime Minister promised a stringent law against examination paper leaks and fast-track courts for speedy trials. Yet the nationwide agitation continues, its central political demand unchanged—the resignation of the Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.
Whether this movement now gathers greater momentum or gradually loses steam will depend on what happens over the next few days. More importantly, it will determine whether India’s youth can force systemic reform in governance without the backing of political parties, caste mobilisations or ideological campaigns.
The government reached out too late with very little. For nearly three weeks, fasting protest by students and youth evoked little political engagement. There was no meaningful dialogue with the protesters and no visible attempt to politically defuse an increasingly volatile situation. By the time the march towards Parliament was announced, the administration had no option but to stop it. The result was almost inevitable—a bloody confrontation on the streets of the national capital.
118 police personnel and about 70 protesters were injured. Such clashes follow a familiar pattern. Every mass protest unfortunately attracts fringe elements willing to provoke the police by pelting stones, damaging barricades or attempting forced entry into prohibited areas. Once violence begins, police reaction is swift and often uncompromising. But allegations that plain-clothes personnel wielded lathis, tear-gas shells were fired directly at protesters rather than in a safe trajectory, bystanders were assaulted and volunteer doctors were chased away – deserve serious scrutiny. Equally, attacks on policemen performing their lawful duties are indefensible.
The more important question is, wasn’t this confrontation predictable? When thousands of youth announce a march to Parliament, everyone knows that Parliament cannot be allowed to be breached. Once protesters cross barricades, police must physically stop the advancing crowd. There is no magical concept called a “mild lathi charge”. Crowd-control options—negotiation, barricading, water cannons, tear smoke and, as a last resort, physical force—exist precisely because Parliament and other protected installations cannot be left vulnerable.
The real failure, therefore, was political rather than operational. Senior ministers should have engaged with the students before tempers reached breaking point. Good governance is about preventing situations from deteriorating into street confrontations.
What happened next has been witnessed repeatedly in India over the decades.The original issue disappeared. Instead of discussing the collapse of examination integrity, the country began debating police brutality. Television screens filled with images of injured students, bleeding policemen, tear gas and baton charges.
That is unfortunate because the crisis in India’s examination system is far deeper than one paper leak or one recruitment scam.
The demand for the resignation of the Education Minister cannot be dismissed as political theatre. Repeated leaks in conduct of national examinations point towards administrative failure at the highest level and accountability cannot end with the arrest of middlemen or impersonators. Ministers must alevel, for institutional failures occurring under their watch along with the top administrative hierarchy. India’s education sector today is largely managed by generalist IAS bureaucrats, and repeated failures have raised legitimate questions about governance, supervision and professional competence.
Its time that National examinations should be insulated from bureaucratic control and entrusted to professionals. The leadership of institutions such as National Testing Agency should be selected through an open, transparent process from among distinguished academicians and education administrators. They should have fixed tenures, operational autonomy and clearly defined responsibility. If they fail, they should be dismissed.
Beyond NEET lies an even bigger challenge. India’s education ecosystem has become entangled with powerful vested interests. The coaching industry has evolved into a multi-thousand-crore enterprise where competitive success becomes critical for survival. In several states, teacher recruitment and transfer systems are mired in corruption. Politicians run numerous educational institutions, while thousands of government schools suffer shortages of teachers, laboratories, computers, toilets, drinking water and even boundary walls.
Perhaps the most remarkable feature of the present agitation is that it’s not built around caste identities, religion, regional aspirations or partisan politics. Nor has it been driven by established political parties or ideological organisations. It is essentially a youth-led demand for better governance, which explains why it has generated support extending far beyond campuses.
It also represents something relatively new in Indian politics—a nationwide mobilisation centred almost entirely on administrative competence and institutional accountability. The movement, too, faces a decisive test. The CJP must guard against infiltration by disruptive elements and ensure that its campaign remains rooted in constitutional methods.
The character of the agitation appears to be changing. What began as a youth-led movement centred on examination integrity and educational reform is showing signs of widening into a broader coalition, with farmers’ organisations and other civil society groups expressing solidarity. Such expansion can increase political pressure on the Government by enlarging the support base and transforming a specific grievance into a wider debate on governance and accountability. But every broad-based agitation brings together groups with differing priorities and agendas and the original demand for reforming the education system can become diluted. Fringe elements may also exploit large gatherings, increasing the possibility of confrontation.
The way forward lies not in escalation but in structured engagement. The Government should move beyond assurances and announce a time-bound roadmap for institutional reforms, including independent oversight of national examinations, professional leadership of testing agencies, fixed accountability for officials, and periodic public reporting on implementation. Equally, the movement’s leadership must preserve its non-partisan and peaceful character, resist attempts at political appropriation, and remain focused on clearly defined educational reforms rather than allowing the agenda to fragment. The success of the agitation will ultimately be judged not by the size of its rallies but by whether it produces durable institutional changes that restore public confidence in India’s education system.
This movement will not be remembered merely for a march to Parliament. It will be remembered as the moment when an entire generation demanded accountability from the State—and refused to accept anything less.
(Yashovardhan Jha Azad, is a retd IPS officer, who has served as the Central Information Commissioner, Secretary Security GOI and Special Director IB)