NEET agitation: A wake-up call for both the government and Opposition

The NDA government that entered the Monsoon Session of Parliament from a position of political strength with near two-third majority with the support of new allies and leaders from other parties, expected a smooth passage of several key legislations, including the Delimitation bill, Women’s Reservation, the Uniform Civil Code bill, amendments to the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, and the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026.

Instead, it found itself on the defensive over the NEET paper leak controversy. What initially began as a genuine grievance of students quickly snowballed into a political confrontation, exposing weaknesses in the government’s political management and intelligence assessment. It perhaps needs better political Dhurander’s.

The government clearly underestimated the brewing discontent among Gen Z. By the time it realised the scale of public anger, the protests had acquired political overtones that became difficult to contain. This should serve as a reminder that governance today requires not merely administrative efficiency but also political sensitivity and timely outreach.

Intelligence agencies must be alert not only to security threats but also to emerging public sentiment before legitimate protests become vulnerable to political exploitation or lawlessness. The government eventually responded and announced fast-track courts for paper leak cases, secured Cabinet approval for a tougher anti-paper leak law, agreed to a debate in Parliament, constituted a high-powered committee to reform the examination system and reached out to student groups.

It also held extensive back-channel negotiations that persuaded Sonam Wangchuk to end his 26-day fast. Most of these steps, however, came after the agitation had escalated. Had the government engaged with students earlier, much of the confrontation could perhaps have been avoided. Politically too, the government missed an opportunity.

The Opposition’s principal demand was the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. Had the minister voluntarily offered to resign on moral grounds before Parliament convened, the government could have projected it as an example of political accountability while retaining the option of rejecting the resignation after a full debate. Such a move might have neutralised the Opposition’s campaign while reinforcing the government’s commitment to high standards of public morality.

Politics is often about anticipating the opponent’s next move. The BJP should have expected the Congress, Samajwadi Party, Trinamool Congress and AAP to seize upon the controversy ahead of the session. With crucial Assembly elections due in Uttar Pradesh and Punjab in 2027, every issue is likely to be viewed through an electoral lens. The government’s political managers failed to read the mood in time.

The Opposition, however, fared no better. Sensing an opportunity to corner the government, opposition parties sought to convert both the NEET controversy and Wangchuk’s fast into a larger political movement. Instead of allowing Parliament to function and extracting political mileage through debate, they resorted to repeated disruptions and street mobilisation. In the process, they appeared to lose control over sections of the protest, allowing lumpen elements to hijack the narrative.

During my nearly five decades in journalism, I have witnessed Opposition parties confront formidable governments led by prime ministers such as Indira Gandhi. Those confrontations were often fierce but largely disciplined and strategically focused. Today’s parliamentary disruptions frequently resemble a theatre rather than a serious democratic engagement. Disruptions have their place in parliamentary politics, but they should be aimed at securing discussion—not preventing it.

Endless slogan shouting and adjournments may generate headlines but rarely produce reforms. The Opposition also committed a tactical error by constantly shifting its demands. One moment it insisted on the Education Minister’s resignation; the next it demanded fresh examinations; then it expanded the agitation into a broader anti-government campaign. Such inconsistency inevitably raises questions about their intentions. Was the movement primarily about securing justice for students or about politically targeting Prime Minister Narendra Modi ahead of future elections?

There is nothing undemocratic about opposing the government. Indeed, that is the Opposition’s constitutional role. But effective politics also requires strategy. Once the government agreed to debate the issue, the Opposition should have accepted the opportunity, presented concrete reforms for examination systems, demanded accountability and forced the government to respond point by point.

Instead, competitive politics among opposition parties resulted in one-upmanship rather than constructive pressure. Unfortunately, the confusion also created space for disruptive elements. As protests intensified, reports emerged of individuals raising derogatory slogans against Lord Rama, making controversial remarks about the armed forces, expressing sympathy for terrorists.

There were also images of Nihangs standing on the roofs of moving vehicles brandishing swords and some foreign-based participants raising anti-government slogans. Such incidents diverted attention from the legitimate concerns of genuine students and complicated the issue.

According to Deputy Commissioner of Police Delhi, Sumit Jha, 482 Pakistan-linked social media accounts were blocked after investigators found coordinated misinformation campaigns, including edited videos and fabricated rumours intended to inflame tensions around the NEET protests. If hostile foreign actors attempt to exploit the situation, it underscores the need for greater vigilance in the digital information space. Equally disturbing were reported statements allegedly suggesting that decisions should be taken on the streets rather than through Parliament. If such remarks were indeed made, they strike at the heart of India’s constitutional democracy.

In a parliamentary democracy, protests are legitimate, but they cannot become substitutes for elected institutions. Questions have also been raised about the unusually detailed advisory issued by the US Embassy about four days ahead of the ‘Chalo Parliament programme’’ cautioning its citizens against visiting specific protest locations, including Jantar Mantar. This has fuelled speculation about possible foreign interest in domestic political developments.

Another feature of the protests that attracted attention was the presence of individuals who appeared to have little connection with NEET itself. Several participants reportedly admitted that they were neither NEET aspirants nor candidates, while some struggled even to explain what NEET stood for.

Such incidents strengthened the perception that the original student movement had gradually been overshadowed by political mobilisation. Meanwhile, the government has initiated several corrective measures. Besides persuading Wangchuk to end his fast, it transferred the Education Secretary, announced the constitution of a high powered panel consisting of VCs from 10 to universities. Delhi University and Jawaharlal Nehru University also advised their students to stay away from protest sites, reflecting concerns that the agitation was drifting away from its original purpose.

The larger question now is what the Opposition has achieved. Beyond media attention and parliamentary disruption, there is little evidence that its strategy produced any meaningful gains for students. Instead of prolonging the confrontation, it would be more productive to return to Parliament and focus on comprehensive reforms that make India’s examination system transparent, technologically secure and resistant to future leaks.

The Opposition is entitled to question the government, demand accountability and seek the resignation of ministers. But it should also acknowledge that paper leaks are not a new phenomenon. Numerous examination leaks occurred during previous governments as well, yet resignations at the highest political levels were rare. Moral accountability cannot be invoked only when politically convenient.

The government, too, must draw lasting lessons from this episode. Administrative reforms alone will not suffice. It must strengthen its political feedback mechanisms, engage students more proactively, respond faster to emerging crises and ensure that public grievances are addressed before they become national flashpoints.

The NEET controversy has exposed weaknesses on both sides. The government was slow to anticipate public anger; the Opposition was quick to politicise it but failed to convert outrage into constructive reform. Students deserved better than a battle of political optics.

Ultimately, India’s education system requires credible safeguards that make examination leaks virtually impossible. That—not partisan point-scoring—should be the national priority. Only by ensuring transparent, fair and foolproof examinations can the government reinforce public confidence and give real meaning to its vision of a ‘Viksit Bharat’.

(The author is former Chief Editor of The Hans India)