Youth Activists and Sonam Wangchuk Hold Fast at Jantar Mantar
Sonam Wangchuk and young left activists staged a fast at Jantar Mantar from June 28 to July 18 amid ongoing NEET-UG protests.
The NEET-UG protests have emerged as a significant expression of youth discontent in India, reflecting broader concerns about examination integrity and educational equity. The demonstrations follow reported irregularities in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test for undergraduate medical courses, which have sparked widespread student mobilization across multiple states. These protests represent a new phase of political engagement by Indian students, who are increasingly organizing around institutional accountability and transparency in high-stakes examinations that determine their professional futures. The movement has drawn attention to systemic issues in India's competitive examination framework and the government's response to allegations of paper leaks and administrative failures.
The stage of politics on the NEET-UG protests shifted on July 18, when Delhi police removed Sonam Wangchuk from the protest site at Jantar Mantar by stealth. Wangchuk and young left activists had been fasting there since June 28, a 21-day hunger strike intended to generate moral leverage through corporeal suffering and create a resilient atmosphere of resistance. The action was described as the first step of a nonviolent civil disobedience movement, drawing local citizens and civil society groups to the site in solidarity (The Hindu).
The police removal was widely perceived as highhanded and abrasive behaviour by the state. Two days later, on July 20, an outpouring of young students joined a protest march to Parliament, a moment described as ground-shifting. The movement, spearheaded by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) and its leader Abhijeet Dipke, had spilled over into a wider cross-section of people. The original hunger strike had generated enough moral steam for a new generation to react (The Hindu).
Observers framed the events as India’s Gen Z moment. While immediate comparisons arose with student uprisings in Bangladesh and Nepal, the differences were noted as more striking: students in Delhi did not march to topple a government or create anarchy, but to make their dissatisfied and dissenting voices heard by the government and the nation. There was shock and disbelief that the state responded to their demands with lathi charges and tear gas shells. State violence was characterised as paternal paranoia, a method to control disobedient citizens. The government’s radio silence on the CJP’s protest was read as political indifference, a sign of authoritarian deafness, suggesting that protecting the Education Minister—whose resignation was the CJP’s central demand—had become paramount for the state (The Hindu).
The government, it was argued, miscalculated not just public anger but the spirit of the young. Generational idealism peaks in the 20s, and how far it is prepared to go, what risks it will take for a cause, remains difficult to predict. The important difference between the people and the government in this instance is that the people risk their lives, while the government risks losing its sovereign power. Protesting students enter a zone of risk where they could face challenges to their politico-legal status. Political commentators and activists have described an “undeclared emergency” in India, a suspended state of exception where the game of politics plays out in an indistinct zone between life and sovereignty (The Hindu).
The Hindu