Ranchi: Anyone who has followed Jharkhand’s recruitment examinations knows that the anger visible on the streets today did not begin with this protest.
For years, students preparing for JPSC and JSSC examinations have complained about delayed examinations, irregularities, cancellations and an uncertain recruitment process. For many of them, government-job preparation has become a cycle of waiting, preparing again and waiting some more.
That is why the current student agitation in Jharkhand needs to be seen beyond the immediate political arguments around it.
The students’ grievance is difficult to dismiss.
But what makes this protest particularly interesting is everything that has happened around that grievance: the distinct responses from the government and police, the media narrative, the entry of political parties, and the arrival of activists associated with the Jantar Mantar protest.
In fact, what remained only partly visible after the Jantar Mantar protest has become much clearer in Jharkhand.
The problems with JPSC and JSSC, however, did not begin with the Hemant Soren government. They have existed under successive governments, and the present government is also responsible for fixing them.
This Anger Has Been Building for Years
For a generation of Jharkhand students, JPSC and JSSC are not simply names of recruitment bodies. They are institutions around which many have spent years planning their lives.
The problem is not only that examinations are sometimes delayed. It is the uncertainty created by the entire process.
A student prepares for an examination, waits for a notification, prepares again, appears for the examination and then faces a controversy, delay or another round of uncertainty.
For a young person who has spent two, three or even more years preparing for a government job, another delayed examination does not simply mean waiting for a few more months.
It means another year of life.
That is the context in which the present protest has to be understood.
It would therefore be unfair to dismiss the agitation simply because political organisations are visible around it. The political affiliations of those participating can certainly be questioned, but that does not erase the original grievance or the central question: why has Jharkhand failed to create a transparent recruitment system where students can prepare with some certainty that the process will be completed on time and fairly?
Why Jharkhand’s Students Are So Angry
There is another interesting difference between the Jharkhand agitation and the recent Jantar Mantar protest.
The Delhi movement was strongly identified with Gen Z and younger students. The Jharkhand movement has a significant presence of an older generation of aspirants—millennials and others who have already spent years preparing for competitive examinations.
For them, this is not simply a protest about their future.
Their present has already been consumed by the recruitment system.
They have spent years preparing, waiting for examinations and dealing with uncertainty. Many have seen their peers move on to jobs, careers and other lives while they continue preparing for an examination that may or may not take place as scheduled.
That gives the Jharkhand movement a different kind of anger.
It is not only youthful impatience. It is accumulated frustration.
The Government Response Is What Makes Jharkhand Different
For nearly two weeks of protest, there has been no major confrontation between the protesting students and the Jharkhand Police.
That itself is worth noticing.
Even when the BJP’s student wing ABVP organised a march during the agitation, the police managed the situation without the kind of serious confrontation that has been seen during several student protests elsewhere.
This does not mean that the police should be described as being on the students’ side. But it does show a restrained approach.
A government does not have to accept every demand made on the street. But the first response to students raising genuine grievances should not automatically be force, detention or confrontation.
It should be engagement.
Jharkhand, so far, has largely followed that route.
The government was not immediately responsive. Chief Minister Hemant Soren initially said that a CID inquiry was underway and that he was waiting for its findings. But subsequently, the government formed a committee, ministers met student representatives and talks began.
More importantly, government representatives publicly acknowledged that the students’ demands were genuine and that resolving the issues could also help future generations of aspirants.
Former Jharkhand Pradesh Congress Committee president Rajesh Thakur, who met the protesting students, also spoke about the government’s response.
According to Thakur, Hemant Soren acted promptly by ordering the CID inquiry. He said the chief minister had even made it clear that if the investigation needed to reach his house, it could do so.
“Soon, there will be justice for the students,” Thakur said.
The statement puts the question of accountability at the centre of the government’s response.
The students, however, are asking for more than assurances.
After the latest round of talks, they said the protest would continue until August 10 and that they wanted the government’s response in writing.
That is important. A sympathetic statement is welcome, but eventually the students need a recruitment system that works.
Jantar Mantar vs Jharkhand: Why the Response Is Different
This is where the Jharkhand protest becomes particularly interesting.
At Jantar Mantar, students were protesting against a BJP-led government at the Centre. The movement became increasingly confrontational and the police response became an important part of the story.
In Jharkhand, the political equation is different.
Here, a non-BJP government is facing the students.
And the government’s response has been substantially different.
This does not mean that the Hemant Soren government should be given a clean chit. The problems with JPSC and JSSC have existed for years, under different governments, and the present government is also responsible for fixing them.
But the contrast in the response cannot simply be ignored.
It tells us something important about protest politics in India.
Does the way a government responds to a student movement depend on the nature of the grievance—or on which government is being challenged?
That question becomes even more relevant when political parties change sides between being in power and being in opposition.
What the Media Is Missing About the Protest
The role of the media in the Jharkhand protest is another important part of this story.
When students come out on the streets, the first responsibility of journalism should be to understand what brought them there.
In Jharkhand, however, sections of the media have spent considerable time focusing on political affiliations, activists and issues that have little to do with the core JPSC-JSSC grievance. At times, the focus has shifted towards communal and political angles rather than the examination and recruitment issues at the heart of the agitation.
The people associated with the Jantar Mantar protest became part of this narrative as well.
There was a strange irony to it.
Some people questioned why activists associated with the Delhi protest had not come to Jharkhand. When some of them eventually arrived, their presence itself became the focus.
Instead of asking why Jharkhand’s students had to spend years waiting for recruitment examinations, the conversation increasingly became about who had come to support them.
A political organisation can be questioned. An activist can be questioned. The motives of anyone entering a protest can be examined.
But those questions should not become a substitute for reporting the original grievance.
The central question should remain: why are Jharkhand’s students having to protest for a recruitment system that should have been functioning in the first place?
Why Neha Bora’s Ink Attack Changed the Story
The arrival of AISA president Neha Bora added another dimension.
Sections of the political and media ecosystem had questioned the absence of activists associated with the Jantar Mantar protest and challenged them to come to Jharkhand.
Bora eventually came.
On August 7, while marching towards the Jharkhand Assembly, ink was thrown at her. Police detained a man in connection with the incident.
Bora and her organisation alleged that the incident was linked to BJP-RSS supporters. The allegation needs to be investigated and should not be treated as an established fact.
But the incident itself cannot be ignored.
What is striking is how quickly the focus moved away from the students’ original demands.
The discussion became about Neha Bora, her political affiliations and the identity of the person who attacked her.
Yet neither the attack nor the political noise around it should divert attention from why thousands of students were driven onto the streets in the first place.
Sandeep Jaiswal, Jharkhand president of the Revolutionary Youth Association (RYA), was with Bora when the incident took place. Jaiswal had also spent a month with her during her campaign for CPI(ML) candidate Vinod Singh in the 2024 Lok Sabha election in Koderma.
He described Bora as someone who would not allow the incident to weaken her resolve.
“Neha is not the kind of girl who will lose her spirit or her resolve to fight against the system because of an incident like this. This is not going to stop her,” Jaiswal said.
He also said the incident should be seen as a warning and expressed hope that the state government would ensure her security.
For Jaiswal, therefore, the attack is not simply about ink being thrown at an activist. It is part of a larger political contest over a student movement that has increasingly attracted people and organisations from outside Jharkhand.
Who gets to own a student protest?
If AISA supports the students, does that make the entire protest an AISA movement?
If BJP or ABVP supports the students, does that make the students BJP supporters?
The answer should be no.
A student can accept support from a political organisation without becoming a member of that organisation.
Similarly, the presence of Left activists does not mean every student on the street is a Left activist.
The students need to be heard in their own voices.
That is particularly important in Jharkhand because the recruitment crisis predates the present political contest.
The BJP, which is in opposition in Jharkhand, has supported the students and attacked the Hemant Soren government over the JPSC controversy.
That is the job of an opposition party.
But another question naturally follows.
The BJP was on the other side of the political equation during the Jantar Mantar protest. It was then the party in power at the Centre.
The question, therefore, is not whether the BJP should support Jharkhand’s students. Of course it can.
The real question is whether political parties believe in the right to protest only when they are in opposition—or also when they are in power.
And this question should be asked of every party, not just the BJP.
What Jharkhand Has Made Clear
Perhaps this is the most important part of the entire story.
The Jharkhand government has not solved the JPSC-JSSC problem yet. It cannot claim success simply because ministers have met the students.
But it has shown that a government can respond to a student movement through dialogue.
The police have shown that a protest can be managed without turning it into a confrontation.
Ministers have publicly acknowledged that the students’ demands are genuine.
Now the government has to take the next step.
The students are asking for written assurances because they know that statements made during a protest can disappear once the protest ends.
They want examinations to be held on time.
They want accountability for irregularities.
They want a transparent recruitment system.
And they want the government to ensure that the next generation of students does not have to spend years fighting the same battle.
The Jantar Mantar protest raised many questions about how a government, police and media respond to student dissent.
Jharkhand has provided another part of the answer.
Here, the same kind of student anger has met a different political environment.
The government has chosen dialogue. The police have largely remained restrained. Civil society groups have entered the debate. Political parties have tried to position themselves around the movement. Sections of the media have tried to frame it through political and communal lenses.
And the arrival—and subsequent attack—of an activist associated with the Delhi movement has made those contradictions even more visible.
This is why the Jharkhand protest is important.
It is not merely about JPSC or JSSC.
It is also about what happens when students protest, and what everyone else does when they do.
Perhaps the biggest lesson is simple: a democratic government should not first ask who is supporting the students. It should first ask whether the students have a legitimate grievance.
In Jharkhand, even the government has acknowledged that they do.
Now it has to prove that acknowledgement through action.
The students have asked for the answer in writing.
Until they get it, the story is not over.
