PM’s call to forgive must be heard by the police and his own party

The Prime Minister’s message was clear. He urged forgiveness for those who used abusive language against him during the recent student protests triggered by the NEET exam paper leak. Punishing them, dragging them to court and hounding them, is not the way forward, PM Narendra Modi said in an Instagram video on Friday. It was a welcome intervention, one that recognised that such excesses are best addressed through persuasion rather than prosecution. But if his words are to carry weight, they must be honoured by law enforcement agencies, by his party, and by the troll armies that are affiliated to it or support it.

Unfortunately, that seems easier said than done. Ever since the protest was called off on July 25, a relentless backlash is being faced by many who took to the streets. Cases were filed against protestors, notwithstanding the government’s assurance that legal action would not be taken, even as some state governments have, since then, withdrawn cases. Online, self-appointed enforcers of “morality” have shared photographs and videos of those who participated, demanding “action” against them. Trolls have doxxed several of the protestors, making their names, phone numbers, addresses and other personal details public, thus exposing them to sustained harassment. Young women, in particular, have drawn much of this ire.

The resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan — one of the key demands of the satirical online platform, Cockroach Janta Party, which led the protests — showed that the government was listening to the youth. The significance of that moment lay in the state recognising that it had to resist its instinct to turn a deaf ear to grievances or to criminalise dissent. The PM’s call to forgive the protestors is an important part of that acknowledgement. But forgiveness cannot remain a sentiment expressed on Instagram while intimidation continues on the ground. Certainly, some of the language used during the demonstrations was crude, falling on old sexist tropes. It was unbecoming of a movement that was otherwise defined by a fresh and creative energy. But while these protests must become an opportunity for the young — and, indeed, the old — to learn from their mistakes, they cannot be used as a pretext for the state and online mobs to target them vindictively. The Prime Minister has spoken. The police and party faithful should listen to him.

Overall Analysis

The editorial argues that Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s appeal to forgive students who used abusive language during the NEET protest should not remain a symbolic statement but must be reflected in the actions of the police, the ruling party, and its supporters. The central message is that democracy is strengthened by tolerance towards dissent, not by intimidation or excessive legal action.

The editorial opens by appreciating the Prime Minister’s statement as a positive and mature intervention. It acknowledges that while offensive language used during protests is undesirable, responding with criminal cases and prolonged harassment is disproportionate. The author sets a balanced tone by appreciating the PM’s message while simultaneously questioning whether it will translate into action.

The second part shifts to a more critical tone by highlighting the gap between words and reality. It points out that despite assurances, legal cases were registered against protestors, while many participants became victims of online harassment, doxxing, and intimidation. By mentioning the targeting of young women, the editorial appeals to both legal and moral concerns. The author suggests that punishment has continued through both state institutions and unofficial online groups, thereby contradicting the Prime Minister’s appeal for forgiveness.

The editorial then broadens its argument by discussing the resignation of the Education Minister as evidence that the government had, at one stage, responded positively to public grievances. According to the author, this demonstrated democratic responsiveness. However, the writer argues that such goodwill loses significance if protestors continue to face legal action and public harassment. The editorial carefully distinguishes between condemning inappropriate language used during protests and defending the democratic right to dissent. It stresses that mistakes made by young protestors should become learning experiences rather than excuses for vindictive action.

Overall, the editorial presents a reasoned argument that democratic leadership requires consistency between public statements and administrative action. It emphasizes that forgiveness is meaningful only when it is accompanied by restraint, accountability, and respect for civil liberties. The language remains formal, persuasive, and balanced, relying on logical reasoning rather than emotional rhetoric.

Important Vocabulary (5)

1. Persuasion – the act of convincing someone through reasoning rather than force.
2. Relentless – continuing without stopping or becoming less intense.
3. Doxxed – publicly revealing someone’s personal information online without consent.
4. Vindictively – in a manner intended to seek revenge or punish someone harshly.
5. Pretext – a false or convenient reason used to justify an action.

Conclusion & Tone

The editorial concludes that the Prime Minister’s appeal for forgiveness should be implemented in both spirit and practice. It argues that peaceful democratic dissent should not be met with intimidation, legal overreach, or online harassment. Instead, governments must uphold constitutional values by ensuring that criticism and protest are addressed through dialogue rather than coercion.

Tone: Balanced, analytical, persuasive, and constructively critical.