Protest in elite spaces does not tarnish India’s image

The recent shirtless protest by leaders of the Indian Youth Congress at an AI summit has triggered sharp reactions from the ruling party and unease even within sections of the opposition.

The BJP dismissed the act as theatrical, inappropriate and damaging to India’s global image. Such criticism, however, misunderstands both the nature of protest and the functioning of a democratic opposition.

A country’s international standing is not built on the absence of dissent. It is shaped by the strength of its institutions, the credibility of its governance, living standards, academic integrity, and indicators such as press freedom.

Protests, by definition, cannot be confined to basements. They must be visible to be meaningful.

The choice of a high-profile AI summit was therefore deliberate. It represented a space where questions of governance, transparency and technological ambition intersect with power.

Across the world, demonstrations frequently accompany global gatherings — from the annual meetings of the World Economic Forum in Davos to protests around major cultural platforms like the Academy Awards.

These events have not lost prestige because dissent appeared at their doorstep; rather, they underscore that open societies permit disagreement even within elite spaces.

One of the issues raised by the protesters concerned allegations of exaggerated technological claims linked to Galgotias University. When educational institutions are perceived to misrepresent achievements for prestige, questioning those claims becomes a legitimate democratic act by the opposition party.

Academic credibility and intellectual property integrity are central to India’s ambition of becoming a knowledge economy. It is the erosion of these standards — not public questioning — that risks reputational damage.

Grand showcases of technological progress lose credibility when they are not matched by transparency, coordination and inclusivity. In such contexts, protest becomes a political act highlighting that gap.

The anger expressed by Youth Congress activists also reflects unresolved questions of justice in the country. For example- ases such as the Hathras gang rape and the Unnao rape case became national flashpoints not only because of the crimes but because of institutional failure and delayed accountability.

More recent incidents — including reports from Dehradun of a Muslim shopkeeper being pressured to change his shop’s name — feed wider anxieties among minorities about equal protection under the law.

Democracies are judged not by how comfortably the majority lives, but by how securely minorities feel. It is persistent questions around justice, rights and institutional credibility that shape global perception — not the visibility of protest.

The shirtless demonstration itself was symbolic. It communicated urgency, vulnerability and refusal to be ignored. Youth Congress activists chose dAI summit to send out a political message, exercising a constitutional right. Democracies do not weaken because young citizens protest; they weaken when dissent is delegitimised or dismissed as spectacle.

India’s reputation as the world’s largest democracy rests on the resilience of its press, universities and civil society. Allowing dissent at a technology summit does not diminish India; it signals that technological ambition coexists with political pluralism.

A confident nation does not fear protest at a summit. It listens, engages and proves its strength through reform.

Mohammad Modassir Shams is an advocate at Patna HC, and Vice President, Bihar Youth Congress