400-plus Indian-origin signatories criticise protests

More than 400 Indian-origin students, researchers and alumni associated with 27 countries and four continents have signed an appeal criticising what they describe as efforts to weaken confidence in India’s democratic institutions through street protests. India Today reported on October 19 that the statement, titled “Spare India from Anarchy”, calls for political differences to be resolved within the constitutional framework.

The signatories defend the resilience of Indian democracy and argue that challenges to election results, judicial decisions and constitutional bodies are increasingly being taken into the streets rather than addressed through Parliament and established institutions. These are the signatories’ assessments: the report does not identify particular protests, disputed elections or court proceedings that substantiate their allegations.

A personal appeal, not a university endorsement

The group includes people currently based in, or who have studied in, countries including the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Germany, Japan, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates. The reported total of 27 countries therefore covers both present locations and educational connections.

Signatories have affiliations with institutions including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Oxford, Cambridge, Princeton, Harvard, Stanford, the London School of Economics and the National University of Singapore. The statement explicitly says those affiliations do not constitute endorsement by the universities.

The participants describe themselves as Indians with a stake in the country’s future. They maintain that India’s constitutional institutions have developed over the decades since Independence and that democratic checks and balances continue to function effectively.

What the statement alleges

The appeal objects to what its authors characterise as election denial and recurring challenges to institutional credibility. They contend that unfavourable electoral outcomes have triggered doubts about procedural integrity, while adverse court rulings have prompted attacks on judicial independence.

It also criticises the introduction of the Armed Forces into partisan arguments, describing the military as an apolitical institution. Separately, the signatories allege that cases still before the courts are being used to cast doubt on Indian democracy and that protests amplify those narratives.

The reporting does not identify the political actors responsible or provide evidence establishing unlawful interference or coordinated subversion. Criticism of institutions and lawful protest do not, by themselves, establish an attempt to undermine democracy; the statement’s characterisation of such activity remains an allegation.

Ambedkar and the constitutional route

The statement invokes B.R. Ambedkar’s warning about abandoning constitutional methods for revolutionary ones. Its authors argue that fraternity and constitutional governance should not give way to methods they regard as anarchic.

At the same time, the signatories acknowledge dissent as an essential part of democracy. Their appeal asks social and political groups to pursue disagreements through debate, dialogue and dissent within the constitutional order, while rejecting what they describe as attempts to weaken institutions in the name of protecting them.