From “Cockroaches” to Citizens: Jantar Mantar and the Recovery of Democratic Courage

 

From “Cockroaches” to Citizens: Jantar Mantar and the Recovery of Democratic Courage

SR Darapuri I.P.S.(Retd) 

 Introduction

The events at Jantar Mantar have acquired a significance that extends far beyond the immediate political controversy surrounding them. What initially appeared to be a student protest gradually developed into a larger demonstration of democratic citizenship. Pratap Bhanu Mehta, in his Indian Express article, “‘Cockroaches’ have shown us what it means to be courageous citizens — not subjects,” interprets this episode as an assertion of political courage in an environment in which citizens can increasingly feel powerless before the state.

At the heart of Mehta's argument lies a fundamental distinction between citizens and subjects. A subject is expected to obey authority; a citizen possesses rights, political agency and the legitimate capacity to question those who exercise power. Democracy cannot survive merely through elections. It requires citizens who are prepared to challenge authority when governmental institutions fail to perform their constitutional responsibilities.

The Jantar Mantar protest therefore raises a larger question: What happens to democracy when citizens become afraid to challenge power? Conversely, what happens when ordinary people overcome that fear and reclaim their political voice?

The significance of the Jantar Mantar movement lies precisely in this recovery of democratic courage.

The Politics of the “Cockroach”

The word “cockroach”, used in the political controversy surrounding the protesters, acquired an ironic significance. An attempt to belittle or dehumanise protesters could have reduced them to objects of ridicule. Instead, it became a symbol around which political mobilisation could take place.

The transformation is politically revealing. Those who were allegedly regarded as insignificant demonstrated that they possessed precisely the qualities required of citizens in a democracy: courage, solidarity, political consciousness and the willingness to question authority.

The metaphor thus underwent a reversal. The supposed “cockroaches” became visible political actors. The people who were expected to remain powerless demonstrated that they could occupy public space, articulate grievances and demand accountability.

This is an important feature of democratic politics. Power frequently attempts to portray dissenters as unreasonable, disruptive or illegitimate. But democracy depends upon the recognition that dissent is not outside democratic politics; dissent is part of democratic politics.

Citizens versus Subjects

The most important conceptual distinction in Mehta's argument is between the citizen and the subject.

A subject exists under authority. A citizen exists within a constitutional order that recognises rights and political agency. The distinction is not merely semantic. It concerns the fundamental relationship between the individual and the state.

In an authoritarian political culture, citizens are gradually transformed into subjects. They are encouraged to obey rather than question, to receive rather than participate, and to accept governmental decisions rather than demand accountability.

A constitutional democracy requires the opposite relationship.

The citizen is not merely a beneficiary of governmental schemes or a voter who appears once every few years at an election. The citizen is a continuing participant in public life. The citizen has the right to ask:

• Why was a particular decision taken?
• Who is responsible for governmental failure?
• Are public institutions functioning independently?
• Are citizens' rights being respected?
• Is the police exercising power lawfully?
• Is the government accountable to the people?

The Jantar Mantar protesters, in Mehta's interpretation, demonstrated this active conception of citizenship.

The Recovery of Political Courage

The deepest significance of the movement lies in the recovery of political courage.

Fear is one of the most effective mechanisms through which political power operates. A government does not necessarily have to repress every critic. It can create an environment in which people begin to censor themselves. When citizens fear consequences for speaking, protesting or questioning authority, democratic institutions may continue to exist formally while democratic life becomes progressively weaker.

Political courage breaks this psychological mechanism.

The significance of the protesters was therefore not simply that they opposed a particular minister or policy. Their presence demonstrated that citizens could still occupy public space and publicly challenge governmental authority.

This is why peaceful protest is so important to democracy. Protest reminds governments that political power is temporary and conditional. The state possesses coercive authority, but its legitimacy ultimately depends upon constitutional limits and democratic consent.

Ministerial Accountability

The resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan assumes particular importance in this context.

In a parliamentary democracy, ministers are not merely political representatives. They occupy constitutional offices carrying public responsibility. The principle of ministerial accountability requires that political officeholders answer for the functioning of their departments and for serious failures occurring within their sphere of responsibility.

The resignation therefore has significance beyond the fate of an individual minister. It raises the question of whether accountability remains a meaningful principle of Indian democratic governance.

When ministers and governments are unable or unwilling to accept responsibility, democratic institutions become weaker. Conversely, when political authority is compelled to acknowledge responsibility, citizens receive an important message: public office entails public accountability.

The Jantar Mantar episode therefore represents a contest not merely over policy but over the meaning of political responsibility.

Higher Education and Institutional Failure

The protest also draws attention to deeper problems within India's higher education system.

Students experience the state not as an abstract constitutional entity but through universities, examinations, recruitment systems, bureaucratic procedures and regulatory institutions. When these systems fail, students experience the consequences directly.

Issues concerning examinations, institutional autonomy, administrative centralisation, corruption, ideological intervention and inadequate public investment can therefore become political questions.

The important point is that such grievances cannot always be dismissed as isolated administrative complaints. They may reflect deeper structural weaknesses in the relationship between citizens and public institutions.

Universities, in particular, should be spaces where questioning authority is encouraged rather than punished. Education should cultivate critical citizens capable of thinking independently. If educational institutions instead cultivate fear and conformity, democracy suffers beyond the campus.

When Institutions Fail, Citizens Take to the Streets

One of the most important implications of the Jantar Mantar episode is the relationship between institutional democracy and street democracy.

In a healthy democracy, citizens should have multiple channels through which grievances can be addressed: Parliament, courts, universities, regulatory bodies, political parties, civil society organisations, the media and administrative institutions.

When these mechanisms work effectively, public protest becomes one among many avenues of democratic participation.

But when institutional channels become inaccessible, unresponsive or distrusted, citizens increasingly turn to the street.

This should not automatically be interpreted as a failure of democracy. Peaceful public protest may instead be evidence that citizens are attempting to restore democratic accountability.

The street becomes a democratic forum when formal institutions cease to adequately represent public grievances.

Jantar Mantar has historically occupied precisely such a symbolic position in India's democratic imagination. It represents the right of citizens to make their grievances publicly visible.

The Police and the Right to Dissent

The role of the police in such situations is therefore crucial.

In a constitutional democracy, the police are not instruments for protecting governments from political criticism. Their responsibility is to maintain public order while simultaneously protecting citizens' fundamental rights.

The right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression are central democratic freedoms. Restrictions may sometimes be necessary for legitimate reasons of public order, but the exercise of police power must remain lawful, necessary and proportionate.

The crucial question is therefore not whether the government agrees with protesters. The question is whether protesters are being treated as citizens with constitutional rights.

If peaceful dissent is met with unnecessary force, intimidation or arbitrary restrictions, the distinction between citizen and subject becomes increasingly blurred.

This makes the events surrounding Jantar Mantar part of a much larger debate about the nature of police power in a constitutional democracy.

An Ambedkarite Interpretation

The significance of Mehta's argument becomes even deeper when examined through the ideas of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.

For Ambedkar, democracy was not simply a form of government. It was fundamentally a mode of associated living based upon liberty, equality and fraternity. Constitutional government could not function merely through institutions and legal texts. It required a democratic social consciousness.

Ambedkar's emphasis on constitutional morality is particularly relevant.

Constitutional morality requires citizens and institutions alike to respect the limitations imposed by the Constitution. Government officials cannot treat governmental power as personal authority. The police cannot treat citizens as subjects. Ministers cannot regard public office as unrestricted political power. Citizens, meanwhile, must recognise the rights of others even when they disagree with them.

From an Ambedkarite perspective, therefore, the Jantar Mantar protest can be understood as an assertion of constitutional citizenship.

The protesters were not merely demanding a particular administrative outcome. They were asserting a broader principle:

The people are not subjects of those who temporarily occupy governmental office. Those who govern are accountable to the constitutional order and ultimately to the people.

Democracy Requires Fraternity

There is another Ambedkarite dimension that deserves attention: fraternity.

Political democracy cannot survive indefinitely where citizens are divided into rulers and ruled, superior and inferior, insiders and outsiders. Fraternity requires recognition of the equal dignity of fellow citizens.

The language used against protesters becomes significant in this context. Describing citizens in degrading or dehumanising terms undermines the principle of equal civic dignity.

Democracy requires disagreement without dehumanisation.

Political opponents may be criticised, challenged and defeated electorally, but they cannot legitimately be stripped of their dignity as citizens.

The transformation of the “cockroach” metaphor into a symbol of courage therefore contains a larger democratic lesson: those who are politically marginalised can nevertheless become central actors in the defence of democratic values.

The Limits of a Single Victory

At the same time, the Jantar Mantar episode should not be romanticised.

A ministerial resignation, a successful protest or a temporary retreat by the government does not automatically restore democratic institutions. The deeper problems that generated the protest may remain.

The real test of democracy lies in whether institutions subsequently become more accountable, transparent and responsive.

There is also a danger that governments may learn to absorb individual protests without addressing their structural causes. A democratic movement therefore has to move beyond immediate victories and ask whether the institutional system itself is changing.

The question is not simply: “Did the protesters win?”

The larger question is: “Did the institutions become more democratic because citizens protested?”

Reclaiming the Republic

The Jantar Mantar movement can consequently be understood as part of a broader struggle to reclaim the Republic.

The Constitution begins with the words “We, the People of India.” Sovereignty in a constitutional democracy does not belong personally to the government of the day. Governments exercise delegated authority within constitutional limits.

This distinction is fundamental.

Elections give governments the authority to govern, but they do not give governments unlimited authority. Democratic legitimacy is continuously tested through accountability, transparency, judicial review, free expression, public criticism and citizen participation.

The citizen therefore remains politically relevant between elections.

This is precisely why public protest matters.

When citizens gather peacefully to challenge governmental authority, they are not necessarily weakening the Republic. They may be reminding the Republic of its constitutional foundations.

Conclusion

Pratap Bhanu Mehta's interpretation of the Jantar Mantar episode provides an important way of understanding contemporary democratic politics. The central significance of the movement lies not merely in the controversy over a minister, a policy or a particular institutional failure. Its deeper significance lies in the emergence of citizens who refused to remain silent.

The transformation from “cockroaches” to courageous citizens symbolises a larger democratic reversal. Those who were expected to be insignificant demonstrated political agency. Those who might have remained fearful entered public space. Those who could have accepted governmental authority demanded accountability instead.

The distinction between citizen and subject is therefore the central lesson.

A subject asks what the ruler permits.

A citizen asks what the Constitution guarantees.

A subject fears authority.

A citizen holds authority accountable.

A subject obeys.

A citizen participates.

The future of Indian democracy will depend substantially upon which of these two political identities becomes dominant.

In this sense, Jantar Mantar represents more than a protest. It represents a struggle over the meaning of citizenship itself. Its most enduring contribution may be the reminder that democracy requires not merely governments that claim legitimacy, but citizens courageous enough to demand that those governments live up to the Constitution.

And in an Ambedkarite understanding of the Republic, such courage is not rebellion against democracy. It is one of the conditions of democracy.