How Long Must Ordinary Indians Tolerate Anti-India Agendas Under the Cover of Protests?
There is an old principle in warfare that a nation must secure itself against threats from within before confronting enemies beyond its borders. Fighting an adversary across the frontier is difficult enough, but fighting on two fronts, particularly when one threat operates from within, presents an entirely different challenge. India has spent decades strengthening its military capabilities, securing its borders and preparing for an increasingly complicated geopolitical environment. Yet national security cannot be measured exclusively by the strength of the armed forces or the sophistication of military equipment. It also depends on whether the country can identify and confront unlawful activities that threaten its sovereignty, internal stability and constitutional order.
Recent developments across India have revived uncomfortable questions about the direction of political agitations and the agendas that sometimes emerge alongside them. Protests concerning university administration, competitive examinations, electoral processes and government policies are increasingly prominent in public discourse. These movements originate from different grievances, but controversies involving separatist slogans and extremist messaging have raised concerns about whether certain individuals are exploiting the visibility of public protests to promote entirely unrelated causes. For ordinary Indians who simply want to work, travel, conduct business and raise their families peacefully, the concern is not merely political. It is about the kind of society in which they are expected to live and the security they expect their country to provide.
When Political Protests Become Platforms for Anti-India Agendas
The recent controversy at Jamia Millia Islamia illustrates why these questions deserve attention. Students had been protesting for the restoration of their elected students’ union when graffiti carrying messages such as “Free Kashmir” and “Free Sharjeel Imam” was reported on university walls. The administration condemned the graffiti and said it was attempting to identify those responsible. The connection between the graffiti and the protesting students has not been established, but the appearance of such messaging amid an agitation over university elections raises an obvious question. What does the demand for restoring a students’ union have to do with Kashmir or with an accused individual facing serious criminal proceedings?
Similar concerns emerged when the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad alleged that slogans including “Free Umar Khalid” and “Long Live Naxalbari” had appeared on walls at Jawaharlal Nehru University. Those allegations require independent verification, but they demonstrate the controversy surrounding the appearance of such messages in university spaces. Neither Umar Khalid nor Sharjeel Imam has been convicted in the Delhi riots conspiracy case, and their guilt remains a matter for the courts. Nevertheless, the larger question remains relevant: are individuals with separatist or extremist agendas attempting to attach their causes to unrelated student and political movements? Identifying those responsible and establishing their intentions should be a priority wherever credible concerns arise.
India Cannot Afford to Ignore Threats Operating Within
The danger of an internal security threat lies partly in its ability to remain concealed behind otherwise ordinary political activity. An external adversary can be identified through its military deployments, hostile actions and strategic objectives. Unlawful networks operating domestically may be considerably harder to detect. Their activities can involve recruitment, financing, clandestine coordination, propaganda intended to support violence and attempts to exploit existing social tensions. This is precisely why national security cannot end at the border. A country must remain equally vigilant about those attempting to undermine its sovereignty through criminal activities within its territory.
India has already experienced the consequences of violent extremism, terrorism and insurgency over several decades. Those experiences make it important to distinguish between provocative political rhetoric and evidence of organised unlawful activity. An objectionable slogan may be intended merely to attract attention, while another incident may lead investigators towards something more serious. The answer is to investigate credible suspicions thoroughly rather than dismissing every incident as political theatre. Where evidence reveals links to terrorism, violent extremism or unlawful conspiracies, the law must be enforced firmly. Allowing genuine threats to develop unchecked would only make them harder to confront later.
The Ordinary Indian Is Tired of Paying the Price
I write this not from the comfort of a lavish house or the back seat of a luxury car, but from the perspective of an ordinary Indian who uses public transport, eats at local restaurants, visits neighbourhood markets and interacts with people whose lives revolve around earning an honest living. These interactions offer a perspective often missing from televised political arguments. Most people are occupied with their jobs, businesses, children’s education, household expenses and the struggle to build a better future. They cannot afford to lose working hours whenever political tensions spill onto public roads, markets or transport networks. For them, disruption is not an abstract political issue. It can mean lost income, missed appointments and additional expenses that their families must somehow absorb.
Consider the letter written by Delhi’s Chamber of Trade and Industry to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in October 2026. The traders’ association requested the postponement of the opposition’s proposed November 1 rally at Ramlila Maidan until after the festive shopping period, warning that business worth approximately ₹10,000 crore could be affected. The association also estimated that previous demonstrations and road closures had already caused losses of around ₹3,000 crore during October. These figures represent the association’s estimates, but the anxiety behind the letter deserves attention. Imagine a small trader preparing for the most important sales season of the year, having invested heavily in inventory, only to worry that political mobilisation and traffic restrictions might keep customers away. The fact that business owners felt compelled to appeal for their livelihoods to be considered is a troubling illustration of the burden political disruption can place on ordinary citizens.
Investigate the Threat, Identify the Networks and Enforce the Law
India already possesses laws and investigative institutions capable of addressing serious threats to national security. What citizens should expect is their effective and consistent application. Whenever credible evidence suggests that an individual or organisation is involved in terrorist recruitment, unlawful separatist activity, extremist financing or criminal conspiracies, the relevant authorities should investigate thoroughly. The objective must be to establish whether a particular incident involves an isolated provocateur seeking publicity or a wider network engaged in unlawful activities. Where the evidence supports prosecution, the authorities should proceed under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act or other applicable legislation, according to the offences established and the requirements of the law.
The distinction between rhetoric and criminal conduct is important because it makes effective enforcement possible. India does not need to treat every controversial opinion as a security threat, nor should political affiliation become a substitute for evidence. But equally, genuine criminal activity must not escape investigation simply because it occurs in a politically sensitive environment. The state should be capable of identifying unlawful networks, examining their connections, tracing illicit financing where evidence warrants it and pursuing prosecution through the courts. For ordinary citizens, the expectation is straightforward: serious threats should be investigated seriously, and those proved responsible for criminal offences should face the full consequences prescribed by law.
Public Protest Cannot Come at the Cost of Public Life
There is another issue that deserves equal practical attention. Large demonstrations should not unnecessarily paralyse commercial districts, transport corridors, hospitals or essential public infrastructure. India has ample experience of political rallies and mass gatherings, and the authorities are capable of establishing appropriate arrangements for them. Properly designated protest grounds, including suitable locations away from critical commercial and transport routes, can provide space for prolonged demonstrations while reducing the inconvenience experienced by people who have no involvement in the dispute. Protesters can make their demands, address supporters and continue peaceful demonstrations without indefinitely occupying roads on which thousands of other citizens depend.
The Supreme Court addressed this question in its October 2020 judgment concerning the Shaheen Bagh protest, recognising both the constitutional right to peaceful protest and the need to prevent indefinite occupation of public roads. That balance is particularly relevant when traders, commuters and daily-wage workers face the consequences of repeated disruptions. A political movement should not acquire greater importance simply because it can cause greater inconvenience to the public. The country needs arrangements that permit democratic expression while preserving the ordinary functioning of cities, commercial centres and transport systems. Protecting these everyday activities is not a concession to any political ideology. It is an essential part of maintaining public order.
National Security Must Include the Security of Ordinary Citizens
India’s national security conversations understandably focus on Pakistan, China, cross-border terrorism, military modernisation and strategic competition. These are serious concerns, and the country must remain prepared to confront them. However, the security of a nation also depends on what happens within its cities, universities, commercial centres and communities. Any individual or organisation found to be assisting terrorism, organising violence or participating in unlawful activities against India’s sovereignty represents a matter for the country’s law-enforcement and security institutions. Such conduct cannot be excused because those responsible claim a political cause or attempt to associate themselves with a wider public movement.
For an ordinary Indian, national security has a more immediate meaning as well. It means being able to travel without unnecessary disruption, operate a business without fear of intimidation, send children to educational institutions and live in a society where criminal activities are investigated and the law is enforced. Political disagreements will always exist in a democracy as large and diverse as India, but they cannot become an excuse for violence, unlawful intimidation or the deliberate obstruction of everyday life. A secure nation should be capable of protecting both its constitutional freedoms and the citizens whose daily lives depend on peace and stability.
Deal With the Threat Within Before Confronting the Enemy Outside
The original principle remains relevant. A nation preparing to confront external adversaries cannot afford to become complacent about genuine security threats operating within its borders. India must be prepared to identify unlawful networks, investigate credible evidence of extremist activity and prosecute those responsible for criminal conduct. It must also ensure that political demonstrations do not unnecessarily impose economic hardship and disruption on ordinary citizens. These are connected responsibilities because internal stability depends not only on countering serious security threats but also on preserving the conditions in which people can work, trade, travel and live peacefully.
I do not seek special privileges from my country. I do not expect political disagreements to disappear, nor do I expect every citizen to share my opinions. What I expect is that India’s sovereignty will be protected, that unlawful activities threatening national security will be confronted through the law, and that ordinary people will not repeatedly be forced to bear the costs of political confrontations. The shopkeeper preparing for Diwali, the commuter travelling to work and the family struggling to build a better future deserve that much. India cannot neglect the threats within while preparing for those outside. Above all, its citizens should not have to plead for the simple right to live and earn in peace.
