Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government has intensified its crackdown on youth-led protests, detaining organisers, deploying thousands of security personnel and imposing restrictions across New Delhi in an effort to contain public anger and reassure uneasy coalition partners, according to an analysis by The New York Times.
The strategy marks a shift from the government's earlier response to the youth movement, which erupted over shortcomings in the education system during the summer and resurfaced this autumn over allegations of manipulation of India's electoral rolls.
The initial protests caught Modi off guard. Police baton charges, tear gas and social media campaigns failed to contain the demonstrations. The government eventually made a rare concession by sacrificing its education minister, temporarily bringing the protests to a halt but also emboldening the opposition.
When demonstrators announced a fresh rally in New Delhi earlier this month over changes to voter lists, leaders within Modi's governing coalition grew concerned about the movement's potential to challenge the government's authority.
According to The New York Times, interviews with more than half a dozen senior coalition figures suggest that the government has since adopted a two-pronged strategy: suppressing attempts to revive the independent youth movement while allowing demonstrations organised by established opposition parties to proceed.
The approach seeks to separate public anger from the broader political opposition and portray the unrest as a familiar contest between Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its traditional rivals, rather than a wider challenge to the government's record.
The youth movement, which initially focused on education-related grievances before expanding to concerns about electoral integrity, has struggled to maintain momentum amid the state's response.
Protest organisers have faced repeated detentions, legal proceedings and restrictions on their movements. Security forces have imposed lockdowns around protest locations, deployed large numbers of personnel and prevented demonstrators from reaching the capital. Some activists have reportedly been intercepted while travelling by train or bus, while others have been confined to their homes or university campuses.
Television networks considered supportive of the government have subsequently portrayed the relatively small gatherings as evidence that the protests have failed to attract public support.
The crackdown has also complicated efforts by youth organisers to sustain a movement that initially drew participants from beyond traditional opposition constituencies, including young people from families that supported the ruling BJP.
The New York Times reported that demonstrators had used placards, memes and public criticism to mock Modi, with some openly questioning the government's performance despite their political backgrounds.
The opposition Congress Party and its allies, meanwhile, have gained visibility from the unrest. However, the opposition alliance remains divided by competing interests across India's states, limiting its ability to turn public dissatisfaction into a sustained political challenge.
The BJP has sought to frame the agitation as an attempt by Rahul Gandhi, the opposition bloc's leader, to remove Modi from power through violent means.
Smriti Irani, a senior BJP leader and former cabinet minister, accused Gandhi of pursuing regime change, describing him as an unelectable political heir seeking power.
Despite the government's show of strength, the protests have exposed underlying dissatisfaction within Modi's own political camp, according to the report.
Some BJP figures and leaders of allied parties have expressed frustration over the centralisation of decision-making and what they see as limited consultation by Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah, the prime minister's powerful second-in-command.
The discontent comes as the BJP has become increasingly reliant on state institutions and electoral strategies, potentially at the expense of grassroots political engagement, party figures and analysts told The New York Times.
Durga Nand Jha, an academic who leads a think tank affiliated with the BJP's parent organisation, said the government's difficulty was not simply the opposition but the failure of its own supporters to defend it during the unrest.
He suggested that some supporters were actively opposing the government, while others remained silent or disengaged.
Nevertheless, BJP leaders expressed confidence that the party remained electorally stronger than the Congress, which has struggled to translate Gandhi's growing popularity into a broader revival of its local organisation.
Krishna Kant Shukla, a BJP leader in Uttar Pradesh, dismissed the electoral significance of demonstrations involving several thousand protesters, including students, farmers and businesspeople. Uttar Pradesh, India's most populous state, is scheduled to hold elections next year.
Modi's political position has become more dependent on coalition partners since the BJP lost its parliamentary majority in the 2024 general election.
The government's handling of the youth movement could therefore have implications beyond the demonstrations themselves. If the protests expand and public dissatisfaction deepens, coalition partners may begin to view their association with the BJP as a political liability.
Leaders from two allied parties complained that Modi and Shah rarely consult even their own party colleagues, let alone coalition partners. One ally reportedly compared Modi's leadership style with that of former prime minister Indira Gandhi, who suspended democratic freedoms during the Emergency from 1975 to 1977.
The government has also allowed a large gathering organised by the Congress and its opposition allies in central New Delhi, even as it restricted independent youth-led demonstrations. The distinction has helped the BJP portray the unrest as a struggle for political power led by Gandhi rather than an expression of broader public dissatisfaction.
However, critics of the crackdown argue that the strategy could ultimately undermine the government's standing among younger Indians.
Anish Gawande, a spokesperson for an opposition party who maintains close ties with youth movement leaders, argued that merging the movement with established opposition parties could undermine its independent character and serve the government's political narrative.
He said the movement needed to adapt to government repression but maintained that the crackdown could strengthen its broader demand for accountability by exposing the authorities' response to peaceful demonstrations.
Gawande also questioned how long the government could sustain such an extensive security deployment in the capital, arguing that protesters could continue their mobilisation even as the state sought to exhaust them.
The protests have thus presented Modi with a challenge that extends beyond immediate crowd control: containing an independent youth movement while maintaining coalition unity and addressing public concerns that established political parties may struggle to absorb.