An authoritarian regime always tends to be afraid of an armed insurrection. However, a democratic government should be wary of something completely different - the politically aware generation. 

It is well known from history that whenever the politically indifferent citizens turn politically conscious and form movements in demand of accountability, then the governments have to make a choice between dialogue and debate through democratic institutions and repression. The first scenario builds up democracy, whereas the second leads to the emergence of the very movement which authorities would try to prevent.

Repression Magnifies Protest Movements

A perfect case in point in that respect is the standoff between the current Indian government led by the BJP and the youth political movement called Cockroach Janta Party (CJP). From the very beginning what seemed to be just a student-led political movement focused on examination reform, youth unemployment, and institutional accountability, became a more general movement that challenged the government's democratic legitimacy. Quite paradoxically, not only demands but also the reaction of the government played a crucial role in its development.

Clashes have been reported in New Delhi between protestors and police who have resorted to use of tear gas, baton charges, and mass arrests of demonstrators. CJP has also accused Delhi Police of using pellet guns on protestors, although this claim has been denied by the Delhi Police. Whether or not this particular accusation is proven to be true, the general picture of hurt students, clashes with the police, and the violent dispersal of demonstrators has gained prominence in the national narrative. The manner in which the government is managing the protests is politically as important as the complaints that led students out on the streets in the first place.

Charles Tilly, a political theorist, posited that repression often mobilizes protest movements more than compliance. Governments usually think that using coercive methods will intimidate protestors into submission. History shows time and again that repression brings out sympathy and media coverage, turning local grievances into political causes. By trying to repress a protest movement, governments are often creating momentum for it.

Given the Movement National Recognition

The phenomenon is seen increasingly clearly in today’s political situation in India. The CJP is no longer seen simply as a movement conducted by students for educational reforms. It is gradually turning into a broader political movement calling for democratic governance, openness and political participation. The forceful actions taken by the government have unintentionally granted the movement the visibility, legitimacy, and national recognition that many new political movements take years to acquire.

One of the most illustrative developments is the fact that CJP invited opposition parties to come together against the ruling BJP. By reaching out to other political groups to support what they see as a wider fight against political oppression and democratic rollback, the movement has gone from speaking about exams and job opportunities to defending the constitutional rights of young citizens to organizing and participating in protests against elected governments. 

Equally crucial in understanding this development is the theory of polyarchy propounded by Robert Dahl. Democracy cannot survive just because there are elections. It needs political competition, freedom of association, assembly, and the right of citizens to organize political opposition without being subjected to an overly repressive response from the state. The primary reaction of a government to a political movement spearheaded by the youth via policing raises doubts about the sustainability of democracy itself.

But the issue goes beyond just one political party. Youth has always been the agent of regeneration of democratic processes throughout the world. They raise challenges against the political order, raise questions against governance shortcomings, and provide fresh perspectives to the political discourse. Governments which consider themselves democratically legitimate will always welcome the youth into the political process even if the latter is uncomfortable to them.

Governments that use coercion more and more may signal something else altogether: Political participation is permissible as long as it doesn’t disturb those in power.

Perception Influences Politics

There is no doubt that it is the BJP regime that has the duty to maintain order, especially within the national capital. Nevertheless, democratic rule demands that security operations be proportionate and not violate the Constitution. If the images from television capture students fighting against the riot police and not politicians addressing their grievances, the impression created will have an impact on the way the public perceives the situation. Perception is always considered to be politics in the real sense.

Another interesting idea from Albert Hirschman comes with his idea of Exit, Voice and Loyalty. Democracies stay strong due to the fact that people who are dissatisfied with the situation have various means of voicing their dissatisfaction. Political parties, protests, elections and civil organizations are different examples of voices identified by Albert Hirschman. Once these avenues seem restricted and responded to via coercive methods, democracy loses its credibility among the citizens.

Ironically, what the government has done may very well end up achieving exactly what the movement would never have managed to achieve alone. By persecuting rather than marginalizing the Cockroach Janta Party, the government has turned it into a recognized political actor. By persecuting the movement rather than limiting it to a cause affecting only those students whose examinations were affected by it, the government has ensured that it touches on issues of democratic accountability and civil liberties. 

A Test for India's Democracy

Governments are rarely remembered for their efficiency in dispersing protests. Governments are remembered for whether they made democracy stronger or weaker. India's reputation as a democracy has been based on its belief in pluralism, competition, and peaceful political participation. Such a test comes not when governments deal with complacent citizens but when they deal with dissent.

However, if India's youth finds that their participation in politics in a peaceful manner is responded to not by discussion but by using brute force, the implications will go beyond this current form of protests. There is no decline of democracy when youths ask for accountability. There is decline when governments start seeing democracy as something threatening to government power. 

The rise of the Cockroach Janta Party is not only the rise of yet another protest group. It is testing how India's democratic system is secure enough to accommodate and to be questioned by the very same generation who will take over from it.

(The author is a political analyst and columnist with a deep interest in South Asian geopolitics, international diplomacy and policy reform. He graduated from King's College London with a focus in global governance and is passionate about narrowing the disparity among academia and policy making.  The views expressed are personal. He can be contacted at aaravsharmaa245@gmail.com)