Toolbox

Have you heard of confirmation bias? We all have it, and rarely notice it.

It’s our tendency to believe and remember information that supports what we already believe, while ignoring or dismissing information that challenges it.

With the ongoing protests, you may support the cause, oppose it, or be somewhere in between. That’s your choice, you right, and I respect it.

But I’d request you to read this piece with an open mind keeping that confirmation bias aside. If something doesn’t align with your thoughts, it doesn’t necessarily mean I’m attacking your beliefs. We can agree to disagree.

After all, the point isn’t to prove who’s right. Its to understand whether we are looking at the issue objectively.

The Toolbox –

Let’s say you want to repair your old house and make it smooth and functional. Now, to make these repairs you’ll need a toolbox containing different tools — a hammer, a chisel, a wrench, and so on.

Would you use the same tool for every repair? Obviously not. You choose the tool based on the nature and severity of the problem.

Likewise, resignation is one of the tools to fix what’s broken in a democracy. It should be used when the facts justify it — not simply because it is the loudest available tool.

A democracy needs an entire toolbox.

• If there is an administrative mistake, demand a judicial review.
• If there is a lack of transparency, demand an audit.
• If there is a serious misconduct, demand an independent investigation.
• And if the findings establish serious failures, resignation may be a legitimate demand.

Demanding resignation without proven guilt may be emotionally powerful but fundamentally it is incomplete.

So, is it justified to protest and demand greater transparency? Absolutely.

Is the IEC resignation automatically justified simply because these controversies exist? No.

Accountability doesn’t always mean resignation. Sometimes, it means solidifying the guardrails.

Scope of the Outrage –

The NEET paper leaks controversy deserved serious attention, and it received it. But it also raises a question worth asking — are the same standards being applied when similar controversies occur elsewhere?

Similar cases were recorded in two other states, Punjab and Jharkhand, but no campaigns were ever launched over those controversies.

Two facts worth considering –

Fact #1, Punjab is governed by the Aam Aadmi Party, while Jharkhand has a coalition government led by JMM.

Fact #2, Members of this activist group have previously been associated with the Aam Aadmi Party.

These facts, on their own, don’t prove political bias. Nor do they establish that the group is deliberately protecting any government.

But they do raise a reasonable observation — an organization that claims to defend students must hold every government to the same standard, including governments it may sympathize with. If not, it is just selective outrage.

Opposing a political party that you don’t agree with does not mean opposing the country… but at the same time creating ruckus, believing in misinformation, and damaging national property to oppose a political party you don’t agree with is definitely questionable.

You don’t burn down your house just because you don’t like the furniture.

Half Information can be worse than No information –

While social media and internet has made everything easily accessible, it has also made misinformation or half-truths more prevalent.

I think by now, most of us have heard about our right to protest.

Does article 19 give citizens the right to protest? Yes.

But do you know what it also says in article 19(3), it says the government can impose reasonable restrictions to maintain public order. Section 163 says that gatherings can be banned to prevent disturbance of public tranquility, or a riot.

And here’s an important distinction: the right to protest doesn’t automatically mean an unrestricted right to protest at any particular venue, at any particular time.

In case of the on-going protests, the denial of permission to protest at Jantar Mantar does not mean denial to protest at all.

When your mom tells you not to buy milk from a particular store, does she mean don’t drink milk at all? Obviously not.

Will you protest saying drinking milk is my right and it is taken away?

When reels replace deeper reading, and algorithm becomes the primary source of truth, complicated public issues get reduced to convenient slogans.

General masses don’t read the details of Form 6 or the details of SIR. They can reduce a complicated issue to just “They are deleting your votes”. That’s incredibly dangerous to democracy.

You don’t need to understand everything to have the right to protest. But you have a responsibility not to treat a claim as truth merely because everyone around you believes it.

Social proof is not evidence.

The Path Forward –

If your love for the country is shown through defending a political party or opposing one, then unfortunately what you are defending isn’t the country at all, but your own political preferences.

A responsible protestor should be able to distinguish between

• What we know
• What we suspect
• What we don’t know yet

Because being responsible doesn’t mean staying silent until every doubt has been resolved. It means being able to differentiate between facts and narratives.

Stand up for what is wrong, for what is necessary, and for what is justified. Trust but verify. If not, you are just getting played.

If resignation becomes the default response to every controversy, it risks disrupting the government’s ability to function effectively, maintain policy continuity, and uphold the country’s credibility on the global stage.

The focus, therefore, should be on bringing about meaningful change, and not treating resignation as the ultimate solution. After all, shouldn’t our goal be to improve the bureaucracy and the processes that govern us, rather than destabilize the very system we want to fix?

Why burn down your house when what you truly want is to improve the furniture?