Government must draw lessons; CJP should choose its path

Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation as the Union Education Minister on Saturday that brought an end to the 36-day-old protest at Jantar Mantar in Delhi, has raised an important question: what caused it? His own explanation is an attempt to make a virtue of necessity. In a two-page resignation letter addressed to “my young friends,” he wrote, “Considering the situation at Jantar Mantar and across the country—with the aim of preventing anti-national forces from exploiting it, preserving national unity, ensuring that not a single Indian student’s future gets entangled in legal complexities, and allowing our children to devote their time to studies and focus on building their careers—I have submitted my resignation to the Prime Minister.”

Notice the moralistic tone and tenor of the statement—and that too from the man who implemented the disastrous National Education Policy 2020, introduced the divisive UGC Regulations, and presided over the broken system in which NEET and other papers were leaked. Home Minister Amit Shah also said that the country, youth, and students are far more important than any position for Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) workers, and Pradhan’s resignation exemplifies this principle. In a similar vein, Madhya Pradesh Minister Kailash Vijayvargiya claimed that Pradhan had offered to resign on the very first day of the student agitation in Delhi.

While such remarks are good for public perception, the BJP-led government at the Centre must not get carried away by the heroic stoicism they hint at. A volitional exit would have been heroic on the very day the NEET paper leak was exposed; what happened on Saturday was forced eviction. Those who matter must clinically examine what ails the examination process, indeed the entire education system. Plus, cure it on an urgent basis lest the young suffer more. On its part, the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) should also brainstorm its role in the future. It has undoubtedly demonstrated its ability to mobilise students, parents, and ordinary citizens around an issue of widespread public concern.

Does it want to remain a pressure group, organising people now and then against something as horrible as paper leaks? Or does it want to become a serious political party? If the CJP chooses to stay as a pressure group, it must continue to cultivate its reputation as a principled citizens’ movement that keeps governments accountable, irrespective of political affiliation.

Such a role is valuable in any democracy because it creates public pressure for transparency, institutional reform, and administrative accountability without necessarily seeking electoral power. Yet, if the CJP wants to become a regular political party, episodic protests alone will not suffice. Transforming into a serious political party requires much more than the ability to organise demonstrations. It demands a coherent ideological framework, well-researched policy positions, organisational depth across states, internal democratic practices, credible leadership, and the capacity to engage with the complex realities of governance. Education itself presents an opportunity for such political maturation.

Beyond opposing paper leaks or demanding resignations, the party must articulate comprehensive reforms that address examination security, university autonomy, teacher recruitment, public funding, curriculum design, digital infrastructure, and equitable access to quality education. It should also demonstrate how these proposals could be implemented within existing constitutional and fiscal constraints. Its next steps will determine its future course of action.