Youth protests: Why India’s streets have become the new floor of the House

Every democracy has two arenas of politics. One is formal: legislatures, courts, committees, elections and party offices. The other is informal – streets, campuses, public meetings and citizens’ movements. The health of a democracy depends on the relationship between these two spaces.

In a functioning republic, parliament absorbs public anxieties and converts them into debate, legislation and accountability. Movements outside parliament push institutions when they become complacent. The two are part of the same democratic ecosystem.

India’s present crisis lies in the weakening of that relationship.

Social scientist and activist Yogendra Yadav recently argued that the Opposition must stop viewing elections as the beginning and end of politics and rediscover the tradition of democratic resistance. It is an argument with deep roots in Indian political history.

The freedom movement was not a parliamentary exercise. The movements against the Emergency were not conducted through legislative procedure. Many of India’s most significant democratic gains came when citizens stepped outside formal institutions and demanded that those institutions live up to their constitutional promises.

The question before the Opposition today is whether it can recover that political imagination.

Parliament remains India’s highest democratic institution in theory. In practice, however, its ability to scrutinise power has weakened considerably. The suspension of an unprecedent 146 Opposition MPs in 2023, the shrinking role of parliamentary committees and the ease with which elected representatives defect to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party have damaged public confidence in legislative politics.

A parliament that does not adequately represent disagreement cannot expect citizens to confine their democratic frustrations within its walls.

This is why the street has acquired renewed importance. It has become a place where citizens make visible what institutions fail to acknowledge. Student protests, workers’ movements, farmers’ demonstrations and civil society campaigns have historically acted as reminders that democracy is more than the periodic act of voting.

The Opposition’s mistake has been to approach such movements as opportunities instead of obligations. Parties arrive with cameras, statements and flags, only to return to their familiar electoral routines.

But movements do not exist to consolidate parties. Parties exist, at their best, to give political expression to democratic demands already emerging from society.

This does not mean opposition parties should abandon elections or dissolve their ideological differences. A democracy requires and depends on disagreement. Congress, the Left parties and regional organisations will continue to disagree over economic policy, federalism and social questions.

That is healthy.

But there are moments when democratic survival expects a temporary suspension of ordinary competition. The defence of free expression, institutional independence and the right to dissent belongs to that category.

The challenge is that political parties are not naturally designed for such moments. They are organisations built around elections, alliances and calculations of power. Movements inherently require a different operational model. It needs patience, sacrifice and a willingness to stand beside citizens without immediately asking what electoral benefit can be gained.

Student protests have thrown a lifeline to a dying opposition. If this movement is allowed to wither, Narendra Modi’s India will offer no second chance.

Democratic resistance has always carried costs. Those who entered the streets during the freedom struggle, the Emergency, and later movements against corruption and authoritarian tendencies understood that politics outside institutions can invite repression.

The students protesting today are confronting that reality. The issues that brought them onto the streets are only the beginning. At stake is the ability of citizens to question power and expect accountability.

Our institutions have lost their ability to hear. Our democracy must find other ways to speak.

Pius Fozan is a photojournalist and an advisor at the Political Tech Summit.