Democratic societies need protest. They need citizens who question authority, challenge injustice and remind governments that public power is never absolute. A society without dissent gradually loses its democratic vitality. In that sense, the resurgence of public protest in India deserves to be welcomed. At a time when many had begun to believe that speaking out had become futile, the willingness of young people to occupy public spaces and articulate disagreement has restored an important democratic impulse.

Yet an important historical question remains largely unasked: Does protest by itself create a new politics? A student of history of modern India would find this question more significant than asking whether a movement is for or against a particular government. The real test of any movement is not the intensity of its resistance but the quality of the political vision it leaves behind. Protest is indispensable, but protest alone does not transform societies. Movements become historically significant only when they create a new political imagination.

This distinction is particularly important in contemporary India. A movement that begins in a university campus and spreads to Delhi or other metropolitan streets undoubtedly acquires visibility. It may dominate public debate and television screens. But geographical expansion should not be confused with social expansion. A movement that reaches the national capital does not automatically become a national social movement. India is not defined only by its universities, metropolitan middle classes or politically articulate urban youth.

It is also the India of farmers, industrial workers, informal labour, small entrepreneurs, women, unemployed youth, Dalits, Adivasis, religious minorities, lower middle classes, small towns and villages. Each inhabits a different social reality, carries different anxieties and nurtures different aspirations. A movement acquires national significance only when these diverse sections begin to recognise their own concerns within its language and programme. Visibility is not the same as social legitimacy. A crowd in the capital is not necessarily the voice of the nation. Therefore, the challenge before any contemporary movement is not merely to travel from the campus to the street. It must travel from the street to society. That journey requires far more than organisational expansion. It requires listening before mobilising.

It requires understanding India’s cultural memories, moral traditions, social diversity and democratic experiences. Only then can protest evolve into a new political vision. History offers valuable lessons. The Indian national movement was undoubtedly a struggle against........

© The Statesman