Democracy Cannot Survive if It Stops Listening

There are moments in the life of a nation when politics must step aside and humanity must take over.

This is one of those moments.

For more than two weeks, Sonam Wangchuk—an engineer, education reformer and one of India’s most respected public intellectuals—has been on an indefinite hunger strike at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar. His fast is in solidarity with students demanding accountability after repeated examination failures, including the NEET-UG paper leak controversy and wider concerns over the integrity of India’s examination system. Among the demands being raised are the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, comprehensive examination reforms, and accountability for failures that have affected millions of students and, according to the protest movement, contributed to immense psychological distress for many young people. (Reuters)

As I write this, reports indicate that Wangchuk has lost significant weight during his fast, prompting medical concern and even intervention from the Delhi High Court, which has directed authorities to monitor his health and act if medically necessary. Yet the larger political response remains one of silence rather than engagement. (Reuters)

Whether one agrees with his demands or not is almost beside the point.

What matters is that in a democracy, peaceful protest deserves to be heard.

Not necessarily accepted.

Not necessarily agreed with.

But heard.

This Is Bigger Than Left or Right

One of the saddest developments of our times is that every issue is immediately forced into a political box.

If you speak, you are labelled.

If you question, you are branded.

If you protest, you are presumed to belong to one camp or another.

But democracy is not meant to work that way.

You can be right-wing.

You can be left-wing.

You can be a centrist.

Or you may reject political labels altogether.

Yet if citizens undertake a peaceful democratic protest, particularly one involving a hunger strike, the government of the day has a constitutional and moral responsibility to engage with them.

Engagement is not surrender.

Dialogue is not weakness.

Listening is not defeat.

It is democracy functioning exactly as it should.

We Have Seen This Before

Many people have forgotten what happened during Anna Hazare’s anti-corruption movement.

Whether one agreed with every demand or not, the government led by Dr Manmohan Singh did not pretend the protest did not exist.

There were discussions.

There were negotiations.

There was communication.

The administration recognised that when a citizen undertakes an indefinite fast, particularly on an issue that resonates with millions, silence is not an acceptable response.

The government engaged because democratic governments are expected to engage.

Today, many observers—including political leaders from across the spectrum—have drawn attention to what they see as a stark contrast between that approach and the response to Sonam Wangchuk’s ongoing hunger strike. (The Times of India)

The comparison is not about glorifying one government or demonising another.

It is about asking whether democratic norms should remain consistent regardless of who occupies power.

Students Deserve Better

Every examination paper leak is more than an administrative failure.

It is a betrayal.

Students invest years of their lives preparing for competitive examinations.

Families sacrifice financially.

Young people postpone careers, relationships and dreams.

When examinations are compromised, it is not merely a question paper that leaks.

Faith leaks.

Trust leaks.

Hope leaks.

This is why so many young Indians have found themselves standing beside Wangchuk.

Not because they agree on every political issue.

But because they believe accountability matters. (AP News)

My Voice, Too

Today I wanted to attend the CJB protest at Azad Maidan.

Life had other plans.

There was a death in the family.

I attended a funeral instead.

Sometimes grief rearranges your priorities before you have a chance to make your own choices.

But not being physically present does not mean remaining silent.

So I am writing.

Because expression matters.

Silence helps nobody.

I Remember the Delta Wave

Perhaps this affects me more deeply because I remember another time when ordinary people screamed into the void.

During the Delta wave of COVID-19, I lost my aunt.

I nearly died.

My sister nearly died.

Hospitals were overwhelmed.

Families begged for help.

People cried out in desperation.

Many of us felt unheard.

Many of us felt invisible.

Those memories never truly leave you.

They remind you that institutions exist for people—not the other way around.

When citizens cry out, the system must listen.

If it doesn’t, it slowly loses not merely efficiency but legitimacy.

The Cost of Refusing to Listen

History teaches us that democracies are not destroyed overnight.

They weaken gradually.

One ignored protest.

One dismissed concern.

One silenced voice at a time.

The tragedy is not disagreement.

Disagreement is healthy.

The tragedy is indifference.

When governments stop responding to peaceful dissent, citizens begin to wonder whether peaceful methods still have meaning.

That is a dangerous place for any democracy to find itself.

My Hope

I am not asking everyone to agree with Sonam Wangchuk.

I am asking that we defend something even more important.

The right of peaceful protest to receive a meaningful response.

That principle should not depend upon who is protesting.

Nor should it depend upon who is in power.

Governments change.

Democracy must endure.

If we fail those who peacefully seek accountability today, tomorrow there may be nobody left willing to believe that peaceful democratic action can still make a difference.

And that would be a loss far greater than any political victory.

Democracy does not die because people disagree.

It dies when those in power stop listening.

When Two Judges Can Move Thousands of Dogs—but Five Judges Won’t Move on Marriage Equality

India just witnessed something extraordinary: a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court ordered Delhi–NCR to round up every stray dog and move them into shelters within eight weeks, warning of contempt for anyone who resists. The order, passed on 11 August 2025, explicitly rubbishes the government’s own Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023—which require sterilise-vaccinate-return (SVR) and bar relocation. Meanwhile, on the fundamental question of marriage equality, a five-judge Constitution Bench in Supriyo v. Union of India (17 Oct 2023) declined to recognise same-sex marriage, saying Parliament must act. The contrast is stark—and troubling.       

The duplicity problem

• On stray dogs (2025): Multiple outlets report the Supreme Court directed MCD/NDMC/Noida/Gurugram/Ghaziabad to remove all street dogs to shelters and never release them back—contrary to ABC 2023’s core SVR principle. Reports also quote the bench calling the “sterilise and return” rule “absurd”, and warning NGOs not to obstruct. Subsequent coverage shows the CJI indicating the Court “will look into” conflicts with earlier SC positions that barred killing/relocation.     

• On marriage equality (2023): A five-judge bench held that recognising same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act is for Parliament, not the Court. The Court acknowledged discrimination against LGBTQ+ people but refused to read queer couples into the SMA, instead suggesting a government committee to consider limited benefits.    

If a two-judge bench can, in effect, override a central rule and upend the ABC policy nationwide (de facto, via a Delhi–NCR precedent), why was a five-judge bench unwilling to interpret the SMA to uphold equal citizenship? The institutional posture flips: muscular, near-legislative urgency for dogs; judicial restraint for queer families.

Why the dog order is legally and practically dangerous

• Conflicts with law & policy: The ABC Rules, 2023 (notified under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act) codify sterilisation, vaccination, and return to the same locality. They also provide for designated feeding points and humane management. The SC’s relocation directive collides with this framework.   

• Unworkable on the ground: Delhi–NCR lacks the shelter infrastructure to permanently house tens of thousands of dogs. Civic bodies and activists warn of overcrowding, disease, and cruelty if mass detention is attempted. Even cities outside NCR are saying they simply cannot emulate this model.   

• Counterproductive for public health: ABC’s SVR model is designed to reduce bites and rabies by stabilising territorial packs and maintaining vaccination coverage. Forced removals often trigger ecological gaps, influx of unvaccinated dogs, and more conflict.  

Given these risks, the Court’s willingness to make a sweeping, arguably suo motu-style intervention (as several reports characterise it) feels less like adjudication and more like policy-making.  

Meanwhile, queer couples are told to wait for Parliament

In Supriyo, the Court affirmed dignity and non-discrimination but declined to provide a workable remedy through interpretation—despite doing exactly that in many rights cases. It was content to ask the executive to study “benefits” while keeping the door shut on equal marriage and adoption. For LGBTQ+ Indians, the message is: your equality is a legislative grace, not a judicial guarantee.  

Is this about politics?

I worry this sudden, headline-grabbing “law-and-order” posture on dogs is a political distraction at a time when allegations about election integrity are flaring. Rahul Gandhi and the Congress have launched campaigns on “vote theft,” citing manipulation across dozens of constituencies and fake voters—charges that, if true, strike at the heart of democracy. These remain allegations, and must be investigated transparently; but the timing is conspicuous.   

What the record shows (for readers who want the receipts)

• Stray dog order (Aug 11, 2025): Reuters, Indian Express, DD News and others report the Court directed capture and relocation to shelters within eight weeks; follow-ups note possible review because of conflicting past orders.     

• ABC Rules, 2023 (Mar 10, 2023): Government-notified rules mandate sterilise-vaccinate-return, designated feeding areas, and humane management by local bodies/AWOs.   

• Marriage equality (Oct 17, 2023): Five-judge bench in Supriyo declines to recognise same-sex marriage; says Parliament must decide; suggests an executive committee for limited rights. Official judgment and reputable summaries available.   

• Election integrity claims (Aug 2025): Rahul Gandhi alleges “vote-chori” in 48 seats, protests announced; these are currently claims by the opposition, not findings by a court or inquiry.   

My stance

When courts flex power to reorder city life overnight—but plead restraint on core constitutional equality—the result feels like duplicity. Stray dogs are not pawns in a political game; they are sentient beings protected under our laws. Delhi–NCR should implement ABC 2023 rigorously—high-coverage sterilisation, mass anti-rabies vaccination, monitored feeding points, quick response to aggression—rather than unlawful, unscientific mass detention. And LGBTQ+ Indians deserve more than dignity in theory; they deserve equality in fact.

If we can uproot an entire animal-management regime with two signatures, surely we can find the constitutional courage to read equality into our marriage laws—or at the very least, to stop treating queer rights as someone else’s homework.

Note on sources & fairness: I’ve cited mainstream reporting, government notifications, and the Supriyo judgment. The bench composition and some characterisations (e.g., “absurd” remark on SVR) come from multiple reports; if the Court issues a formal clarification or stay, that will need to be reflected. Allegations of “vote theft” are presented as claims by Rahul Gandhi and the Congress, pending independent verification.         

Vaccinate

I wanted to make sense of the Vaccines, because to me, it was a confusing arena. Especially since my brain is caught up with the heavy stupor or steriods and blood anti-coagulants and antibiotics. So here is what I have drafted, from sources online. If I have made any mistakes, please feel to let me know, in the comments section.

The Table has EIGHT columns.

The Table has TEN rows.

VaccineCovishield (Vaxzevria) (BBV152)Atrazeneca (AZD1222)CovaxinSputnik VPfizer (tozinameran)ModernA (mRNA-1273)Johnson and Johnson (Ad26.COV2.S,)
Main:Serum Institute of India  Oxford University and AstraZeneca,  Bharat Biotech LimitedGamaleya Research Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology.  BioNTech  ModernaJanssen Pharmaceuticals  
Tool:Viral Vector VaccineViral Vector VaccineInactivated VirusViral 2 Vector VaccinemRNA vaccine  mRNA vaccine  Viral vector vaccine
Contains:Chimpanzee RNA. Inactivated adenovirus with segments of Coronavirus, Aluminium Hydroxide Gel, L-Histidine, L-Histidine Hydrochloride Monohydrate, Magnesium Chloride Hexahydrate, Polysorbate 80, Ethanol, Sucrose, Sodium Chloride, and Disodium Edetate Dihydrate.Chimpanzee RNA.
Inactivated adenovirus with segments of Coronavirus, Aluminium Hydroxide Gel, L-Histidine, L-Histidine Hydrochloride Monohydrate, Magnesium Chloride Hexahydrate, Polysorbate 80, Ethanol, Sucrose, Sodium Chloride, and Disodium Edetate Dihydrate. 
Human RNA Inactivated  Coronavirus, Inactivated polio vaccine. Aluminum Hydroxide Gel, TLR 7/8 Agonist, 2-Phenoxyethanol and Phosphate Buffered Saline [NKA1].    Human RNA, 2 human adeno viruses – common cold virussynthetic messenger RNA no live virussynthetic messenger RNA no live virusHuman RNA Inactivated adenovirus with segments of Coronavirus,
Infections:Viral vectors cannot cause infection with COVID-19 or with the virus used as the vaccine vector.  Viral vectors cannot cause infection with COVID-19 or with the virus used as the vaccine vector.  Not harmfulViral vectors cannot cause infection with COVID-19 or with the virus used as the vaccine vector.     
Time interval:The time interval between two doses – 4 to 8 weeks.  Two doses given intramuscularly (0.5ml each) with an interval of 8 to 12 weeks. The second dose of Covaxin can be taken 4 to 6 weeks after the first.     Single dose  
EfficacyAffects 6 weeks, after first dose around 63% – 2 dose should be delayed to 12 weeks and efficacy improves to 81.3%Affects 6 weeks, after first dose around 63% – 2 dose should be delayed to 12 weeks and efficacy improves to 81.3%Vaccine affects after 6 weeks, after one dose 71% and vaccine efficacy is 81%  After two doses – 85%After 7 days of the second dose – 91.3%After 14 days of the second dose – 94.1%One dose efficacy rate at 66% The vaccine is around 85% effective at preventing severe disease from COVID-19  
Side effects– blood clots – avoid this if you’re younger than 50 years.   side effects are more after the first dose – fever headacheblood clots – avoid this if you’re younger than 50 years.   side effects are more after the first dose – fever headacheheadache, fatigue, myalgia, malaise, pyrexia, chills and arthralgia, nausea  Headache and sorenessside effects are more after second shot – allergic reactions most common  side effects are more after second shot – fatigue, muscle pain, and headache.    – blood clots – avoid this if you’re younger than 50 years. headache, fever, chills, nausea, pain anaphylaxis is rare
If infected post first dose:Wait for 8-12 weeks before second dose Wait for 4 weeks before second dose    
India:Available?Available?NoNo 
  1. Even if you have comorbidities – vaccinate!
  2. If after first dose you have anaphylactic problems. Don’t take the second dose
  3. If you are on Steroids, don’t take.
  4. Pregnant lactating woman should be vaccinated with Pfizer, moderna, no side effects.
  5. Vaccines working against all strains. But with two doses.
  6. If you get infected after the first dose – infection will be mild
  7. WHO states you can wait for 6 months between first and second dose of vaccination.
  8. 80% efficacy after first dose, for that duration, if shortage in vaccination. Do not panic.
  9. If you have been infected by COVID the combination of antibodies (Natural immunity) and vaccine is the best protection – and you may just need one dose of vaccination.
  10. Vaccines don’t work instantly.
  11. Astra is best in efficacy long term
  12. Even if u do vaccinate you may get COVID- it’s 94-95 % effective.
  13. If you have been infected with COVID-19, wait for 6 months to get vaccinated.
  14. Ask the Government to bring in mRNA vaccines!