Why 2026 has been the year of the emergence of a new political vocabulary of dissent

Also read: Plastic waste to discarded clothing, how the devout are joining locals & activists in cleaning pilgrim spots

This is not simply a story about more people protesting. It is about who is protesting, how they are organising, what language they are using, who they are willing to hold accountable and, perhaps most importantly, how desperately Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government is struggling to counter and contain this new mutiny after having crushed those of the past decade with an iron fist.

“One of the defining features of this change is that protests are no longer necessarily being organised around the conventional architecture of political mobilisation even if the Congress party, the Left parties or anyone else from the INDIA bloc [opposition coalition] may be involved with them. Political parties remain present, lend organisational support, amplify demands and help convert public anger into political pressure, but they are not the sole drivers of these agitations,” says social commentator Rajendra Arora.

In Arora’s view, it is this “fundamental change” that has also made it difficult for Modi to snuff out such protests with ease because “if the protests are no longer following a conventional pattern and no longer have conventional actors, the response too cannot be conventional”. Police crackdown, shutting metro stations, barricading roads, filing cases, defaming protestors and all the other ways of controlling an agitation or intimidating its organisers and participants simply don’t work anymore, he says.

The emergence of the CJP is perhaps the most striking illustration. It began as a satirical social media movement and quickly evolved into a youth-led pressure group that mobilised students against alleged examination irregularities. Its methods were as unconventional as its name: humour, memes, masks, irreverent slogans and digital mobilisation, et al.

With its very first protest against examination paper leaks back in June, the movement drew students, parents, civil society representatives, activists and public intellectuals into a common agitation. Activist Sonam Wangchuk’s participation, including his hunger strike in support of the students, helped broaden its reach and, ironically, the brutal crackdown by Union home minister Amit Shah-controlled Delhi Police on youth protestors marching towards Parliament on July 20 only augmented the movement. The protests eventually culminated in the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan – the first instance since 2014 of Modi bowing to public pressure to sack a cabinet minister.

More than public mobilisation, the significance of the CJP, says its organisation in-charge Ajinkya Shinde, lies perhaps in the manner in which the outfit “challenged the established understanding of who can organise a political movement”. The CJP did not emerge from a party’s student wing, it possessed no cadre network it could call its own, nor did it operate within a conventional ideological framework. Its legitimacy came from its ability to “articulate a grievance that millions of students and families could identify with”, says Shinde.

The Jharkhand agitation, which was led by diverse groups of students and youth from the state and had no association with the CJP, offered another illustration of this expanding constituency. What began with job aspirants protesting alleged irregularities in competitive examinations gradually developed into a broader movement demanding accountability and transparency in public recruitment.

“Students from different districts pooled resources, travelled to Ranchi and sustained a prolonged agitation. Civil society groups and political formations subsequently joined the mobilisation and the pressure they collectively exerted forced (Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition) Rahul Gandhi to tell (chief minister and Congress ally) Hemant Soren to engage directly with the protestors. The Soren government had to cancel several recruitment examinations and put on hold the results of many others in which irregularities were suspected,” says Jharkhand Public Service Commission exam aspirant Ajeet Kisku, who participated in the Ranchi protests.

The current round of SIR protests has widened this landscape. Its concern is not restricted to students or job aspirants but touches not just every single Indian citizen eligible to vote now but, in a way, even their younger generations that are not, as yet, eligible voters. While the credit for the anti-SIR stir must go to Rahul Gandhi and his Congress party, the earliest to raise a stink on the issue through their ‘vote chori’ campaign, other Opposition parties of the INDIA bloc, student organisations, civil society groups and youth collectives have all found common ground in questioning the revision exercise and demanding accountability from the Election Commission.

The Election Commission, for its part, maintains that the exercise is intended to remove duplicate, deceased and otherwise ineligible entries. Yet, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s visibly dubious role in the entire exercise as revealed through various media reports over the past several months has left vast numbers of stakeholders in the Indian democracy doubtful of the integrity of the poll process.

This doubt, says Congress member of Parliament (MP) Imran Pratapgarhi, makes Kumar’s position as CEC untenable. “He has to resign not simply because political parties or the people are protesting but because the vast majority of this country believes elections cannot be free and fair as long as Gyanesh Kumar is in charge,” says the MP.

Also read: Not for better or worse? When adoptive parents seek to hand over custody of child

What connects these otherwise different agitations is the emergence of a citizen constituency that is willing to participate in politics without necessarily becoming part of a political party.

Perhaps the most consequential change is generational. All India Students’ Association president Neha Bora and CJP’s Abhijit Dipke, Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka are today as familiar to Indians as Narendra Modi or Rahul Gandhi. The younger protesters are not simply borrowing the language and methods of political movements that preceded them. They are developing their own vocabulary.

Screenwriter and lyricist Varun Grover, whose stand-up acts provide arguably among the most perceptive commentaries on India’s changing socio-political milieu, pithily captured the essence of this novel protest vocabulary. In one of his acts that came soon after the CJP’s July protests at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar, Grover pointed out how Faiz Ahmed Faiz’s iconic poem Hum Dekhenge (We will see), which had come to define political resistance, had been knocked off its pedestal by Chhappan Inch a Chhota Bandar (a 56-inch small monkey. We all know the line that follows, don’t we; a spin on the familiar macho 56-inch chest reference used by Modi).

Grover’s turn had his audience in splits, but in that fleeting analogy, he summed up what had changed about India’s protests. For decades, political protests in India relied on familiar symbols: party flags, banners, slogans, speeches, marches and hunger strikes. These remain relevant, but the newer generation has supplemented them with digital satire, internet humour, visual messaging and an unapologetic irreverence towards authority.

Here again, perhaps, the CJP is emblematic of the shift. Embracing the cockroach as a political symbol turned an insult into an instrument of resistance. Instead of responding to a perceived slight with the solemnity expected of a conventional political movement, young protesters appropriated it, made it their identity and used humour to expose what they considered the insensitivity of those in power.

‘Hum Dekhenge’ gave way to Chhappan Inch ka Chhota Bandar; the perfunctory ‘Zindabad’ and ‘Murdabad’ protest slogans gave way to ‘It’s Done Bro’ and as for the posters, memes and jingles that the agitated but inspired youth came up with, we could all agree they’ve been way too cheeky to be reproduced in print.

“What the protests threw at the ruling party and its cohorts, including social media trolls and mainstream media journalists, was completely alien not just to Modi but to any political leader across the spectrum. This is why till date the government is struggling to find a response that will tame the protests. Everything they have tried has only led to them being mocked with greater ferocity, be it Modi’s absurd videos on Instagram or BJP MPs making fools of themselves in Parliament and outside it trying to speak the Gen Z language in the misplaced hope that it would make them sound cool,” says documentary filmmaker Abhishek Sharma Roy.

This is not to suggest that the protests turned serious grievances into something frivolous. On the contrary, behind all that humour is a palpable sense of the youth’s anxiety about an uncertain future.

“If Modi and his people were not busy trying to discredit the protests, they would realise why all of this was happening. Who are these protestors? They are teenagers or those in their 20s and 30s. A vast number of them have grown up hearing promises made by Modi and thinking that once they are done with school and college, a very bright future awaits them,” says Srinivas BV, former president of the Indian Youth Congress (IYC) and current head of the Congress Seva Dal, both organisations that have been directly involved with various protests “since before the CJP’s inception”.

Srinivas adds, “the youngsters, their families invested heavily in their education... now when they are on the cusp of leaving school or college, of finding jobs, they see there is no bright future, exam papers are being leaked, recruitments are not happening and the government is busy shifting blame and diverting attention with communal politics.”

This gap between aspiration and opportunity has become particularly consequential now thanks to Modi’s own penchant for spending the last decade telling India that he will deliver them from all the problems of the past; problems earlier governments did nothing to resolve.

A generation encouraged to dream big, acquire qualifications and compete finds itself confronting limited employment opportunities, fierce competition and institutions that seem totally compromised. The protests have, thus, become an expression of accumulated frustration rather than just anger over a single issue.

Another important feature of the emerging protests is that they do not fit neatly into most political and social categories that defined agitations of the past decade.

Consider some of the prominent protest movements of India witnessed since 2014.

The farmers’ agitation against the three (now repealed) controversial farm laws, despite its geographical spread and considerable public support, was anchored in the interests of agricultural communities and the concerns of farmers over the future of their livelihoods.

The award-wapsi campaign drew heavily upon writers, filmmakers, academics and other public intellectuals expressing concern over the political and cultural climate.

The ‘Not In My Name’ protests were particularly visible among urban, socially conscious and relatively privileged sections of society responding to incidents of mob violence and communal polarisation.

Each represented a significant expression of dissent. Their constituencies, however, were more readily identifiable, whether through occupation, social location, intellectual affiliation or the specific political and ideological concerns around which they mobilised.

The protests of 2026 have a somewhat different character.

The grievance over examination integrity, for instance, cuts across caste, religion, region and political affiliation. A student from a small town in Jharkhand and one from an urban middle-class family in Delhi or Mumbai may have little in common socially or ideologically, but both understand the consequences of an unfair recruitment or examination process. Similarly, the question of electoral participation concerns every eligible voter, irrespective of political affiliation, religion, caste, gender or region.

This gives these protests a more universal vocabulary and participation. Their demands are framed around fairness, accountability, transparency, institutional credibility and equal opportunity; all principles that resonate across an otherwise sharply divided political landscape.

That does not mean these movements are entirely free of social or political distinctions. Access to protest, the ability to sustain an agitation and the experience of state action are not uniform across communities. Nor does the SIR agitation represent a politically neutral mobilisation: the INDIA bloc, its leaders such as Rahul, Akhilesh Yadav, MA Baby, Mamata Banerjee, Tejashwi Yadav, have all been central to this mobilisation. Nevertheless, the issues being raised have touched a chord with the proletariat. That is an important distinction.

There is, however, a danger in reading too much into this emerging phenomenon. A movement's ability to mobilise people around a common grievance does not automatically translate into a durable political organisation or a coherent programme for change.

The CJP's success in securing a major political response to its demands does not, by itself, establish that it can sustain the same momentum across other issues. The anti-SIR protests over the past two months have, in fact, shown the INDIA bloc reclaim its centrality in political protests from the CJP. Likewise, the electoral implications of or unity of purpose across these disparate agitations over recruitment, education and electoral rolls cannot be assumed.

The relationship between these citizen-led movements and established opposition parties remains complicated. Political parties can provide resources, visibility and organisational reach, but their involvement can also risk subsuming an independent agitation within conventional electoral rivalries. The farmers’ protests was a classic example, where political outfits were told by farm unions they could extend solidarity but not appropriate the protest’s platform as their own. The challenge for newer movements is to retain their autonomy without becoming organisationally or politically isolated.

The state response is another important part of this story. The police action against protesters, allegations of excessive force and the eventual denotification of Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site can’t be glossed over or wished away.

Jantar Mantar was not just another geographical location in the national capital. Over the past four decades since its notification as a protest site, it became THE political space where citizens could make themselves visible to the powers that be, even without the backing of powerful organisations. Its changing status is therefore significant in the context of a year in which citizens have been increasingly assertive about occupying public spaces.

Ultimately, the defining question about India's protests in 2026 is not whether they will produce a new political formation or alter the electoral balance. It is whether they signal a more enduring change in the relationship between citizens, political parties and institutions.

Also read: Why Indians may be living a longer life, but unable to fully enjoy being alive

For a long time, political mobilisation was understood largely through the ability of parties to bring people onto the streets. The emerging protests suggest the possibility of a reversal in the terms of this relationship: citizens organise around an issue, create their own platforms and then compel political parties to respond.

The distinction is consequential. Dissent is no longer necessarily waiting for a political leader to give it direction, a party to provide it an identity or an ideology to give it legitimacy. Increasingly, it is finding its own voice. This may well be the most important change that 2026 has brought to the grammar of Indian protest.