Protests such as hunger strikes are a double-edged sword: they carry moral force, but they can also trap protesters in a position where finding a way to end them becomes difficult. Sonam Wangchuk, who is supporting the Cockroach Janta Party's demand for the resignation of Union education minister Dharmendra Pradhan over alleged irregularities in examinations such as NEET, now faces this dilemma. He has been hospitalised but continues his hunger strike, which is now approaching its 22nd day. Yet the strategic space for achieving his objectives has narrowed significantly.

On Sunday, the Delhi High Court upheld GoI's decision to shift Wangchuk to Safdarjung Hospital. Last week, responding to a PIL, the court directed GoI to ensure that Wangchuk received medical care. The PIL argued that state inaction amounted to abetting suicide, highlighting how maximalist demands can leave little room for constructive engagement. There is nothing inherently wrong with such intense, peaceful protests. However, there always needs to be a tactical Plan B, especially when there is every possibility that the state will refuse to respond.

So far, GoI has sidestepped its duty to act as a state that listens to dissent, as a robust democracy demands. While it may have won a cynical tactical game by allowing the protest to exhaust itself, it has displayed little statesmanship. By effectively pushing the massive examination system crisis down the road to next year, GoI has chosen cold, unyielding stonewalling. This refusal to engage, more than the successful conduct of elections, offers an inkling of the quality of a democracy. Ultimately, democracy is a partnership, and state indifference amounts to an abdication of that responsibility.