‘Sri Lanka, Bangladesh happen when protests are not allowed’: Sonam Wangchuk

Wangchuk’s central point was that protests can serve as a warning system for governments. They expose public anger and give leaders a chance to correct policies or decisions. In his view, restricting demonstrations does not remove dissatisfaction. It can make that dissatisfaction harder to manage and more damaging for the government.

He pointed to Sri Lanka and Bangladesh as examples. He said youth- and student-led demonstrations there culminated in the ouster of the incumbent governments. His message was direct: when people cannot express opposition through permitted protests, frustration may build into a much larger political movement.

The remarks came while Delhi faced protests seeking the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Wangchuk urged the Centre to avoid actions he considered unnecessary and to “do what is right.” The article records his warning, but does not say that similar upheaval will definitely occur in India.

The protests in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh became powerful enough to bring down the governments in office. The article describes them as youth- and student-led demonstrations and says they culminated in the ouster of the incumbent governments. Their significance in Wangchuk’s remarks lies in the political consequence: restricting protest can allow public anger to grow into a movement challenging national leadership.

Wangchuk invoked these neighbouring countries while arguing that governments should permit demonstrations. He said protests offer governments a way to improve their performance. His warning was that denying that outlet could produce a much more serious confrontation, rather than ending opposition.

The same examples then entered India’s political debate. Opposition leaders, civil society members and student leaders referred to Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, with some calling for “regime change.” They later clarified that they meant regime change through elections, after the BJP alleged an intention to topple the democratically elected Modi government.

A designated protest site is a place identified for demonstrations rather than allowing protests wherever organizers choose. The article describes Jantar Mantar as Delhi’s now-denotified designated protest site. This matters because the location of a protest affects how visible it is and how directly protesters can present their demands to the government.

Wangchuk contrasted India with the UK, Norway and Sweden, where he said protests are allowed right in front of Parliament. He argued that demonstrations in India were held far from Parliament. Even Jantar Mantar, he said, was “too far,” making the protest less immediate for the people being addressed.

His comments referred to the June and July demonstrations after the NEET-UG paper leak. They were held at Jantar Mantar, where Wangchuk fasted for over 20 days. The article does not explain the legal process behind Jantar Mantar’s denotification, but it records his criticism of distance and access.

Wangchuk undertook an indefinite fast during demonstrations over the NEET-UG paper leak in May. The article says he fasted for over 20 days, making the action a sustained form of protest rather than a brief public appearance. He was eventually removed and taken to a hospital, according to the report.

The demonstrations took place at Jantar Mantar in June and July. Wangchuk played a key role in them, using the fast to keep attention on the paper-leak issue. The article links the end of those protests to a major political development: the resignation of then-Union education minister Dharmendra Pradhan.

That resignation occurred on July 25. The report presents it as the political outcome that followed the protests, but it does not establish that the fast alone caused the resignation. It also does not provide further details about the resignation or identify what happened to the broader NEET-UG issue afterward.

The current Delhi protests are focused on the Election Commission and its chief. Protesters are demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Their stated reason, as reported, is an allegation of irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

The Special Intensive Revision is the electoral-roll exercise named in the article as the source of the alleged problem. The report does not specify which irregularities protesters allege or provide evidence for those claims. It does establish that the allegations have prompted continuing demonstrations in Delhi and have become part of a wider political confrontation.

The Centre responded by deploying extensive security measures. Opposition parties criticized that response, while Delhi Police made several protesters sign peace bonds promising peace and good behaviour. The protests also became linked to a debate over “regime change,” though some leaders clarified that they meant change through elections rather than removing the elected government outside voting.

A peace bond is an undertaking in which a person promises to maintain peace and good behaviour. In this article, Delhi Police made several protesters sign such bonds during demonstrations. The report does not give the bonds’ legal terms or say whether any protester breached one.

The practical effect can be significant. A protester who must sign a formal promise may feel that joining a demonstration carries extra personal risk. It can also make participation conditional on accepting restrictions set by authorities. That may reduce turnout or deter people from expressing opposition, even when the protest itself is peaceful.

Peace bonds therefore sit at the point where public order and the right to demonstrate meet. Authorities may use them to prevent disorder, but broad or intimidating requirements can chill lawful protest. In this case, the article says Delhi Police required the bonds and that opposition parties criticized the wider security response, without reporting a court ruling on their validity.

The difference is the route used to change political leadership. Regime change through elections happens when citizens vote and an election produces a new government. It works through the formal democratic process and allows voters, rather than protests alone, to decide who governs.

Removing a government outside the electoral process means seeking its ouster without an election determining the result. In the article, the distinction became important after some Indian leaders invoked Sri Lanka and Bangladesh and called for “regime change.” The BJP alleged that their real aim was to topple the democratically elected Modi government.

Those leaders clarified that they were advocating “regime change through elections.” Their clarification placed the demand inside the electoral process rather than outside it. The article does not describe any plan to remove the Indian government by force or other non-electoral means. It presents the dispute as a disagreement over what the phrase meant.