As the country witnesses a second wave of protests demanding this Resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh KumarThere is something completely different about these protests Protests in June 2026. The protests called for the resignation of the then education minister Dharmendra Pradhan faced a backlash from the state in the form of excessive forcewhich endangers the safety of the demonstrators. However, the second wave of protests is not just expected tough action by the state but also a wildcard entry: raids by non-state actors who describe themselves as “protectors” of either the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) or the Sangh and Hindutva.
The presence of such non-state actors, often referred to as right-wing “activists,” is a natural consequence of the far-right weaponization of India’s patriarchal norms to consolidate its power. Both the right wing and patriarchy in India are structures based on the oppression of certain sections of society, particularly religious and gender minorities.
The idea of obedience and patriarchy
A key component to maintaining any form of systemic oppression is obedience. While obedience can be described as a virtue, it is actually a form of non-optional social submission that only benefits those individuals in society who are considered to be authority figures. Under patriarchy, not only does it appear that women submit to men, but men also submit to other men who are perceived to have more “authority” than them. The decision about who holds higher authority is based on men’s intersectional identities, including caste, class, economic status, education and political influence – all unwritten social hierarchies that are rooted in nothing real. In these systems, obedience is not earned; It is granted based on a person’s identity (most commonly an upper-caste cisgender man) and is often confused with respect.
The Indian patriarchy cultivates this culture of obedience. In Indian families, it begins almost innocently with the words: “You should always listen to your elders.” When children leave home, this turns into messages such as: “It’s okay for teachers to discipline students if they don’t listen to them,” “Challenging traditions is bad,” or “Defying older family members is rebellious and undesirable.” For women, it almost always means, “Their fathers, brothers, and husbands know what is right and what is best.”
What Indian patriarchy essentially demands is uncritical, unconditional obedience. It encourages an unwillingness to question compliance and rewards it above all else, even at the expense of societal progress.
The paternal state: using obedience as a weapon to suppress dissent
When politics begins to exploit such a patriarchal culture, it enables the suppression of dissent. By constructing the idea of a paternalistic state, in which citizens are viewed as wards of the state and the state assumes the role of a fatherly figure, he demands unconditional obedience from citizens, even when it comes to the actions of the state. Such paternalism allows the state to assume responsibility for its citizens and decide what is in their best interests, on the assumption that citizens are incapable of reaching those conclusions themselves and therefore need “guidance.” It also holds the view that citizens must be punished if they disobey the state. One should always listen to what the state says; The state knows best.
This phenomenon can be observed in India alongside the rise of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi since 2014 “Protector” of Sanatana Dharma and more broadly, that the Prime Minister is not only a protector of the nation, but also also the worldestablishes a power dynamic in which those in positions of authority are portrayed as infallible and having a far greater understanding of what constitutes the “greater good” of the country than the average citizen.
Therefore, obedience to this ideal is publicly rewarded. Even situations that appear to have failed can be portrayed as “masterpieces” that are supposedly beyond the comprehension of an ordinary citizen. Such unconditional support for the party in power and its leaders is there rewarded with recognition by the state, while challenging authority is punished. Between 2014 and 2020 10,000 people were arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).Nevertheless, the conviction rate was only 2.5 percent.
Protests are an antidote to patriarchy and authoritarian regimes
In such an atmosphere, a protest site is seen as the ultimate threat to existing hierarchies and can be portrayed as antithetical or “against” Indian culture itself. The presence of disagreement and a physical place of protest is automatically perceived as something that needs to be corrected. This promotes a culture of vigilantism. When disobedience comes from young people, particularly women, men take it upon themselves to “discipline” them, a role that is ingrained in them as part of their perceived duty to uphold the patriarchy. This provides an opportunity for men on the right to direct their violent anger at young people, women and minorities under the guise of protecting the country and its culture and allowing them to see themselves as such “morally upright” citizens even if their Actions are criminal. Since obedience is rewarded by the state, such vigilantism is therefore perceived as heroic.
While the state cannot overtly reward obedience or punish those who challenge its authority, it can signal its support or disapproval in more subtle ways: through inaction when Protesters are being doxxed; when there are female protesters chastised for the language they use exploiting the problems they raise rather than addressing them; by encouraging, through inaction, men who endanger the safety of women; and by praising those who engage in such behavior.
Such subtle signals from the state can also lead to fringe protests for the establishment (a contradiction in terms), such as: Pro-patriarchy protest in Delhiwho desperately cling to the status quo. However, anyone who questions protesters who raise legitimate concerns or attempts to unlawfully disrupt such protests must remember that obedience and disobedience are circumstances; neither is it inherently moral nor immoral. Historically, however, civil disobedience to absolute power, particularly when rooted in student movements, is known to weaken that power and weaken oppressive strangleholds.
Civil disobedience is inherently a feminist practice that challenges patriarchal norms. It is also a reminder that imperfect citizens do have the right to question even seemingly perfect systems. However, imperfect systems cannot demand perfection from citizens before they commit to correcting themselves.
The dismantling of patriarchy goes hand in hand with the dismantling of authoritarian regimes and cultures. Consequently, the backlash against such protests is often about doubling down on and reinforcing patriarchal norms, usually to distract from the legitimate concerns being raised. In such situations, it is important to redirect the conversation back to the questions being asked and to recognize that challenging authoritarianism also weakens the patriarchal forces that support it. Feminism is an important antidote to the suppression of dissent at protest sites.
Sruthi (she/her) is a lawyer working in international development and committed to advancing justice through policy, law and data. With an international law and analytics background from NYU, she is deeply committed to redesigning and building systems from an intersectional and integrative perspective. Her responsibilities include advising on the Telangana Rising Vision 2047 document, contributing to inclusive digital ecosystems at UNDP, advising international development organizations and serving as a law clerk at the Telangana High Court.