Democracy, dissent and the ‘national image’ debate

The dramatic ‘shirtless’ protests by the Indian Youth Congress (IYC) at the India AI Impact Summit on February 20 triggered a debate on the limits of dissent and the response of the ruling party. As soon as the visuals of IYC workers going shirtless to protest the India-U.S. trade agreement went viral, several leaders from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) were quick to describe it as an “anti-national” act and called Congress leader Rahul Gandhi a “traitor” who was determined to tarnish India’s global image. The Delhi Police quickly filed charges, including rioting and promoting enmity between groups, and arrested 14 IYC members.

Does protesting against the government in front of international delegates at the AI summit dent the country’s image? While there can be a debate on the manner of protests, it is not uncommon to find protesters at international events. Such protests are often seen as a demonstration of democratic credentials.

Perspective that might not sit well

In democracies, dissent is often considered a safety valve through which citizens not only express disapproval of a particular policy but also participate in the governance process. Such a view, however, does not fit well into the narrative of parties that seek to project strong and decisive leadership, where the personality and charisma of the leader drive the decision-making process.

In 1976, when former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi imposed the Emergency in the country, Congress president Dev Kanta Barooah had famously said, “India is Indira, Indira is India.” Though no BJP leader has gone to the extent of equating Prime Minister Narendra Modi with the country, they routinely brand any serious criticism of him or his government as “an attack on the nation”.

The projection of an all-pervasive leadership often blurs the line between the government and the state. In theory, though, there exists a clear one: the state is sovereign, permanent and supreme, while the government manages the affairs of the state. The executive, or the government, is another organ of the state, just as the legislature and the judiciary are. In a democracy, the state would also include a healthy opposition that would provide the checks and balances.

How this distinction plays out in practice depends largely on the institutional design of the state, the distribution of power within it and how a ruling party frames its relationship with them.

Federal structure tensions

The concept of an all-pervasive “strong leader” necessarily leads to the notion of a strong state, where the distinction between dissent and sedition may dissolve. The extent to which this tendency manifests itself, however, is shaped by the constitutional arrangement of the state.

In the Indian context, the Constitution has been described as a document that is federal in structure and unitary in spirit. While there is a neat division of responsibilities in the central and the State Lists, the Union government has been accorded primacy in the Concurrent List — subjects over which both State governments and the Centre have jurisdiction.

Parties arguing for a “strong” state often adopt a reading of the Constitution that focuses on the unitary spirit of the document, and any contrarian position is viewed as an attempt to weaken the Centre. From this perspective, excessive regional assertions are sometimes seen as carrying the potential to encourage centrifugal tendencies.

Those who insist on the federal structure of the Constitution emphasise its pluralistic design, with different linguistic, cultural and ideological currents coexisting within the constitutional framework.

Political parties or ideologies alone do not shape our understanding of the state and the government; it is also influenced by the historical experience of the state with separatist movements and internal security challenges.

Intelligence and security agencies prefer political messaging through mass media that pushes towards creating a ‘one nation, one identity’ narrative. Such messaging not only reinforces a strong and powerful Centre but also acts as a safeguard against any centrifugal force.

And the mass media acts as a force multiplier, especially when political communication has become visual and performative. Every evening, TV anchors issue certificates of patriotism and sit in judgment on what constitutes an anti-national act. In doing so, they merge the line between the government and the country, often arguing that criticism, when amplified globally, are used by actors to question the legitimacy of the state.

Be it the protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) in 2019 or the farmers’ agitation of 2020-21, a large section of the mass media accused the protesters of playing into the hands of the forces that are inimical to the country. And, therefore, a protest against policy became a protest against the nation.

The tension between these two approaches reflects a deeper debate about the nature of nationalism in a democracy — whether unity is best preserved through a celebration of diversity or the assertion of a singular national identity.

Deeper questions

The debate sparked off by the IYC protests goes beyond what constitutes a ‘decent’ protest. It raises larger questions about how a democracy negotiates the space for dissent while maintaining national cohesion.

A confident nation derives its strength not merely from uniformity but also from its ability to accommodate competing voices within the constitutional framework, while remaining alert to attempts that may challenge the unity and integrity of the State.

The real test of democratic maturity lies not in the absence of dissent but in the willingness to engage with it without conflating criticism of the government with disloyalty to the nation.

sandeep.phukan@thehindu.co.in

Published – March 26, 2026 12:08 am IST