Politics is often less about what is happening than about what people are persuaded to look at. Governments understand this instinctively. They know that public attention is finite and that every controversy competes with another for space in the national conversation. As Parliament convenes, therefore, the timing of events outside its walls becomes as politically significant as the debates within them. That is what makes the developments of the past few days so intriguing.

A student movement that had begun gathering national attention suddenly finds one of its most visible faces, Sonam Wangchuk, ending his fast after receiving largely half-baked assurances from the government, despite none of the movement's headline demands having been decisively met. And almost simultaneously, the Prime Minister appears in a selfie-style video speaking (or reading out) about the seriousness of examinations and the aspirations of students. Whether by design or coincidence, the combined effect is unmistakable. The movement loses some of its moral intensity and the national conversation begins to shift.

The question here is not whether governments attempt to shape narratives. That is a given, and every government does it. The real question is whether this particular movement has now lost the momentum required to become something larger than itself. That question assumes even greater significance because Parliament is meeting against the backdrop of serious allegations surrounding financial irregularities linked to the Ayodhya temple project. Those allegations are politically explosive precisely because Ayodhya is not merely another public works project. It is the emotional and........

© Mathrubhumi English