Christ University has agreed to advance the supplementary examinations of 13 law students who were unable to progress to the fourth year because of pending papers, following a protest by Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) activists.

The decision was reached after discussions between university officials and protesters on Sunday, August 23, following which the protest was called off.

Backlog exams to be held earlier

The university is yet to announce the revised examination schedule. According to reports, the dates will be finalised after discussions with the examination committee.

Supplementary examinations are generally conducted around November. Advancing the exams will allow the affected students to clear their backlogs and potentially avoid losing an entire academic year.

ABVP media coordinator Tanishq Sishodia said the university had assured protesters that the students would be given an opportunity to clear their pending papers.

University to provide academic support

The university has also reportedly agreed to arrange doubt-clearing sessions and provide library access to the students to help them prepare for the examinations.

The 13 students had accumulated backlogs from their first and second years. Some reportedly had six to eight pending papers, while others failed to meet the minimum qualifying requirements in certain subjects.

ABVP protest began on August 21

The protest began on August 21, when around 20-25 ABVP activists entered the university's Ghaziabad campus demanding that the students be allowed to progress to the fourth year.

On August 22, protesters staged a sit-in outside the university's main gate. The university subsequently approached Nandgram police, alleging trespassing, vandalism and assault on women security personnel and sought registration of an FIR.

However, Nandgram ACP Ziauddin Ahmad said on August 24 that no FIR had been registered, as the university and protesters had reached an agreement.

The university has maintained that its promotion and backlog rules apply uniformly across its six campuses.

The Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) has called off its proposed September 5 protest march in Delhi after the Centre moved to withdraw cases registered against student protesters. The decision came on Tuesday, September 1, just a day after the Supreme Court refused to pass an immediate order stopping the planned march. The CJP said it was withdrawing the protest call in view of the steps taken by the Centre on the issue of the FIRs.

The development is significant because the Supreme Court did not order the CJP march to be cancelled. On August 31, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant declined to intervene in the proposed September 5 demonstration and said there was no reason at that stage to presume that anything untoward would happen. The court said protesters and law-enforcement agencies were expected to act peacefully and within the law, while leaving law-and-order decisions to the authorities.

The immediate issue behind the CJP's decision was the FIRs filed after the July protests. The Delhi Police has approached the Supreme Court seeking to quash 13 FIRs registered in connection with the CJP-led protests between July 20 and 25. The police said that, following the Centre's decision of July 25, it no longer wished to pursue those cases and sought the Supreme Court's approval under Article 142 of the Constitution.

The government's move, however, does not mean that every person who was present during the protests will automatically be cleared of any investigation. Delhi Police has also sought permission to register a separate FIR concerning 2,873 people who were allegedly present at the protest site and were identified as having serious criminal antecedents, with their individual roles in alleged offences to be investigated.

The proposed CJP September 5 march had been announced after the organisation accused the Centre of failing to honour assurances made when its earlier 36-day agitation was withdrawn on July 25. The planned demonstration was to begin at India Gate and proceed towards the Delhi Police Headquarters, with the group saying it would be peaceful. The protest was linked to demands concerning FIRs against protesters and allegations surrounding police action during the July agitation.

The latest development therefore changes the situation within just 24 hours. The Supreme Court did not stop the September 5 march; the CJP withdrew it after the Centre and Delhi Police took steps towards resolving the FIR issue. The Supreme Court is continuing to hear matters connected with the July protests, including the Centre's application concerning the FIRs. Four states: Maharashtra, Assam, West Bengal and Bihar, have also approached the court seeking permission to quash cases arising from the protests.

For now, the proposed September 5 CJP Delhi march will not take place. The focus has shifted from street mobilisation to the Supreme Court proceedings over the FIRs and the government's implementation of the assurances that led to the withdrawal of the earlier agitation.

Does a college degree guarantee success in technology? The careers of some of the world's most influential tech entrepreneurs suggest that it does not.

As artificial intelligence transforms the workplace and university education becomes increasingly expensive, more young people are questioning whether a traditional degree is the only route to a successful career. Long before the current AI boom, several technology founders made the unconventional decision to leave college and focus on building companies.

Here are 15 tech leaders who did not complete college and went on to create some of the world's most valuable technology businesses.

1. Bill Gates — Microsoft

Bill Gates left Harvard University in 1975 to start Microsoft with childhood friend Paul Allen. Although he initially considered the departure temporary, Gates never returned to complete his degree. He led Microsoft as CEO until 2000 and later devoted much of his time to philanthropy through the Gates Foundation.

2. Paul Allen — Microsoft

Paul Allen left Washington State University after two years and moved to Boston, where he worked as a programmer. He and Gates founded Microsoft together. Allen later stepped away from day-to-day operations but remained involved with the company as a director until his death.

3. Steve Jobs — Apple

Steve Jobs dropped out of Reed College after one semester but continued attending selected classes. He later credited a calligraphy course with influencing the typography and design of the Macintosh. Jobs cofounded Apple in 1976 at the age of 21.

4. Larry Ellison — Oracle

Larry Ellison attended the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and later the University of Chicago but did not complete either programme. He moved to California and cofounded Oracle in 1977, eventually becoming one of the world's wealthiest technology entrepreneurs.

5. Mark Zuckerberg — Meta

Mark Zuckerberg studied psychology and computer science at Harvard before launching Facebook from his dorm room in 2004. He left during his sophomore year to focus on the company full-time. Harvard later awarded him an honorary degree.

6. Jack Dorsey — Twitter and Block

Jack Dorsey attended the University of Missouri-Rolla before transferring to NYU. He left one semester before graduation and went on to cofound Twitter. He also cofounded payments company Square, now known as Block.

7. Evan Williams — Twitter

Evan Williams left the University of Nebraska-Lincoln after around a year and a half. After working in technology and freelancing, he cofounded Twitter and later established venture capital firm Obvious Ventures.

8. Jan Koum — WhatsApp

Jan Koum attended San Jose State University while working in technology. He eventually dropped out and later cofounded WhatsApp with Brian Acton. Facebook acquired the messaging platform in 2014 for $19 billion.

9. John and Patrick Collison — Stripe

Irish brothers John and Patrick Collison left Harvard and MIT respectively to pursue entrepreneurship. After selling their first company, Auctomatic, they launched Stripe in 2010, creating one of the world's leading digital payments companies.

10. Daniel Ek — Spotify

Daniel Ek enrolled at Sweden's KTH Royal Institute of Technology but left after only a few weeks. He pursued technology jobs before cofounding Spotify in 2006 and eventually becoming a billionaire following the company's public listing.

11. Melanie Perkins — Canva

Melanie Perkins was studying at the University of Western Australia when she began developing the idea behind Canva. She left university to pursue the business and eventually launched Canva in 2013 after years of pitching the concept to investors.

12. Sam Altman — OpenAI

Sam Altman studied computer science at Stanford University before dropping out at 19 to build Loopt. After leading startup accelerator Y Combinator, he cofounded OpenAI in 2015 and later became its CEO.

13. Mustafa Suleyman — Microsoft AI

Mustafa Suleyman studied philosophy and theology at Oxford but left before completing his degree. He later cofounded DeepMind in 2010. In 2024, he became CEO of Microsoft AI.

14. Alexandr Wang — Scale AI

Alexandr Wang studied mathematics and computer science at MIT before leaving at 19 to launch Scale AI. He became one of the world's youngest self-made billionaires and later joined Meta as its chief AI officer after Meta invested heavily in Scale AI.

15. Paul Allen and the Bigger Lesson

While several founders on this list became billionaires, their stories should not be interpreted as evidence that dropping out of college automatically leads to success.

In fact, many of these entrepreneurs entered highly selective universities before leaving them. Their decisions were driven by a specific opportunity, business idea or technology project they believed required their full attention.

The lesson is therefore more nuanced. The absence of a degree did not create their success. Their vision, timing, technical ability, persistence and willingness to take risks did.

For students considering dropping out, these stories should be inspiration rather than instruction. A college degree can provide knowledge, networks, mentorship and opportunities that are difficult to replicate.

The real takeaway is not “college is unnecessary.” It is that unconventional paths can work when backed by exceptional ideas, execution and determination.

India’s judicial system is in an “unbelievable mess” and urgent reforms may need to be led by the judiciary itself, former Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia has said.

In an interview with ThePrint, Ahluwalia, who played a key role in India’s 1991 economic reforms, said the Centre may have limited ability to overhaul the judicial system and suggested that the Supreme Court could take the lead in reforming the system.

“Quite honestly, the judicial system is in an unbelievable mess. Unfortunately, I don't think the central government can set it right,” Ahluwalia said, adding that judicial reform would have to come from within the judiciary.

His comments come amid concerns over the enormous backlog of cases across Indian courts.

Over 11 Lakh Cases Pending for More Than 20 Years

According to data provided by Union Minister of State for Law and Justice Arjun Ram Meghwal last month, 11,73,509 cases had been pending for more than 20 years across the Supreme Court, High Courts and district and subordinate courts as of July 16, 2026.

The Allahabad High Court had the highest number of cases pending for more than two decades, with 1,61,598 cases.

Across the Supreme Court and High Courts, more than 4.52 lakh cases had remained pending for over 20 years.

Separately, Supreme Court Justice MM Sundresh said in April that around 4.81 crore cases were pending across courts in the country.

Ahluwalia's comments also come against the backdrop of concerns that judicial delays are affecting businesses and India's broader economic ambitions.

Labour Law Reforms Need More Change

On labour reforms, Ahluwalia said the government had consolidated 27 central labour laws into four, but argued that substantive changes remained limited.

One major change has been the increase in the workforce threshold requiring government permission for retrenchment from 100 to 300 workers.

Ahluwalia noted that the threshold had earlier been reduced from 300 to 100 in 1980, meaning the latest change largely restores the position that existed around 1990.

However, he said the Centre had given states greater flexibility to raise the threshold further through their own legislation.

States Should Compete for Investment

Ahluwalia urged states to use this flexibility to attract more domestic and foreign investment.

He suggested that states seeking to compete with countries such as Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia could consider raising the threshold to 1,000 or even 5,000 workers, depending on their economic strategy.

He also called for a shift in how businesses engage with governments.

According to Ahluwalia, industries should focus more on state governments rather than concentrating their lobbying efforts on New Delhi, as a significant share of business compliance requirements falls under state jurisdiction.

He argued that competitive labour policies, easier compliance and stronger state-level reforms could help India attract investment and accelerate economic growth.

The comments underline two major challenges for India's development agenda—judicial efficiency and state-level economic reforms—both of which Ahluwalia believes require significant attention if the country is to achieve its long-term growth ambitions.

Iran has warned that not a single drop of oil could be exported through the Strait of Hormuz or the wider Persian Gulf if the United States continues what Tehran describes as an “economic war” against the country.

The warning from Supreme National Security Council Secretary Mohsen Rezaei came as Washington intensified economic pressure on Tehran. The United States on Monday announced a sweeping new sanctions campaign, dubbed “Operation Economic Outcast,” aimed at cutting Iran’s financial and trade links with the global economy.

Why is Iran threatening to halt oil exports?

Rezaei said Iran could stop oil exports altogether if US economic pressure continues. He also warned that countries participating in or supporting Washington’s campaign could be considered by Tehran to have committed an “act of war.”

The threat raises fresh concerns over shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial energy chokepoint. The waterway has already seen severe disruption during the conflict, with attacks and threats to shipping sharply reducing maritime traffic.

What sanctions is the US imposing?

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced an expanded sanctions campaign targeting Iran’s financial and trade networks. Washington said the objective is to sever the economic lifelines supporting Tehran and isolate the country from international commerce.

The measures target dozens of Iran-linked entities and businesses across sectors including shipping, aviation, technology and finance. The US has also warned countries that continue doing business with Iran that they could face secondary sanctions.

How has Iran responded?

Iranian officials have rejected the US strategy and warned that increased economic pressure will not force Tehran to surrender.

Rezaei’s warning represents a significant escalation because any attempt to restrict oil shipments through the Gulf could affect not only Iran but also international energy markets.

Why is the Strait of Hormuz so important?

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world's most important routes for oil and gas shipments. Any prolonged disruption could reduce energy supplies and increase volatility in global crude markets.

Reuters reported that shipping through the waterway has already been severely affected during the conflict, while Iran retains military capabilities that could be used to threaten maritime traffic.

For major energy-importing countries, prolonged disruption could mean higher crude prices, increased transportation costs and renewed inflationary pressure.

What could happen next?

The confrontation is now increasingly shifting towards economic warfare. Washington is seeking to squeeze Iran financially, while Tehran is threatening to use its strategic position in the Gulf as leverage.

The immediate risk is a further escalation involving shipping and energy supplies. Even without a complete shutdown, continued uncertainty around the Strait of Hormuz could keep global oil markets volatile.

The latest developments come after months of confrontation between Washington and Tehran, with the conflict approaching its six-month mark and diplomatic efforts still uncertain.

Himachal Pradesh Chief Minister Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu has directed that the caste column be removed from school admission forms from the 2027-28 academic session, saying the move is aimed at reducing caste-based discrimination and promoting equality and fraternity among students. The decision was announced during a meeting of the Himachal Pradesh Scheduled Caste Welfare Board (HPSCWB) on Wednesday.

Sukhu said the state government was committed to eliminating caste-based discrimination from society and that removing caste details from school admission forms would be a step towards addressing casteism at the grassroots level. He said children should not be identified by their caste in schools.

The Chief Minister, however, clarified that the decision would not prevent eligible students from Scheduled Castes and other socially and educationally backward sections from accessing government welfare schemes. Such students would continue to be able to provide the required caste-related information through their parents or guardians wherever it is necessary to avail themselves of government benefits.

The decision was taken while Sukhu chaired the meeting of the Himachal Pradesh Scheduled Caste Welfare Board. During the meeting, issues related to the welfare and development of Scheduled Caste communities were also discussed. State Social Justice and Empowerment Minister Dhani Ram Shandil said the government was implementing various schemes aimed at the social and economic upliftment of disadvantaged sections.

Himachal Pradesh Education Secretary Rakesh Kanwar said the Education Department would formulate a detailed policy and mechanism to implement the Chief Minister's decision. He said the policy would take into account the need to ensure that no eligible child is deprived of government-sponsored welfare schemes because caste details are no longer part of the regular school admission form.

The move is expected to require changes in school admission procedures and related records. While caste details would not be sought as a routine part of school admission, the information would remain accessible through an appropriate mechanism wherever it is legally or administratively required for welfare benefits.

Sukhu said the decision was intended to promote a sense of equality among children from the beginning of their schooling. The government has framed the measure as part of its broader effort to address caste-based discrimination and strengthen social harmony in the state.

The decision comes at a time when caste-related information continues to play a role in accessing reservation and welfare benefits in India. The Himachal Pradesh government has said that removing the caste column from school admission forms will not affect the eligibility of students entitled to such benefits, with a separate mechanism to collect the necessary information where required.

 Teachers across Uttar Pradesh will have to complete 10 sensitisation videos before participating in the screening of children under the Prashast 2.0 initiative, as the state seeks to help educators better understand the educational needs of Gen Alpha students.

The videos, with a combined duration of around 40 minutes, will familiarise teachers with the characteristics and learning requirements of Gen Alpha children, explain the screening process and outline the support that may be required after students are identified.

Teachers must complete videos before screening

Teachers will have to watch all 10 videos through the Prashast App or online portal and complete the prescribed onboarding process before taking part in the screening exercise.

The state government has made the sensitisation programme compulsory to ensure that teachers have a common understanding of the screening process and can assess students in a more informed and sensitive manner.

The training material will guide teachers on understanding children's educational requirements and identifying areas where additional support may be needed.

Government and private schools covered

The initiative will cover teachers from government, private-aided and private-unaided schools, bringing different categories of schools under the same preparation process.

Once teachers complete the videos and onboarding, the screening of students under Prashast 2.0 will begin.

Officials asked to monitor compliance

The state has directed Divisional Assistant Directors of Education and District Basic Education Officers to ensure that teachers under their jurisdiction complete the mandatory sensitisation programme.

The directions follow instructions issued by Director General of School Education Monika Rani.

Education officials have also been asked to monitor the onboarding and completion process before screening begins.

The initiative is aimed at ensuring that children's educational needs are identified at an early stage and that teachers are better equipped to provide appropriate support.

Delhi has reported a sharp rise in H1N1 influenza cases this year, with 1,777 infections recorded up to August 20, compared with 229 during the corresponding period last year.

H1N1 has emerged as the dominant Influenza A subtype in the capital this year. Of the 2,392 Influenza A cases reported up to August 20, 1,777 were H1N1, while the total number of Influenza A and B infections stood at 2,602.

The rise has raised concerns about whether a new or more dangerous strain of the virus is circulating. However, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) has said there is no evidence of a new H1N1 strain and no reason for panic.

Doctors report rise in severe cases

Doctors across Delhi say they are seeing more influenza patients, with some developing pneumonia, respiratory distress and other complications.

Dr Animesh, Professor of Medicine at AIIMS Delhi, said influenza viruses undergo genetic changes over time, which can leave more people susceptible to circulating variants.

He said he was seeing around 15 to 20 influenza patients every day in his outpatient department. Some patients have developed pneumonia and respiratory distress, while others have reported diarrhoea and complications including kidney injury.

Doctors are also reporting secondary infections in some patients after the initial influenza illness.

No evidence of a new or more lethal strain

Dr Ashish Choudhary, Professor and In-charge of Virology at AIIMS Delhi, said the H1N1 virus currently circulating is not more lethal than previous seasonal variants.

The virus commonly known as pandemic H1N1 emerged during the 2009 swine flu pandemic and has since become a seasonal influenza virus. It continues to undergo minor genetic changes, a process known as antigenic drift.

Dr Choudhary said most infections remain mild, although patients with underlying illnesses are more vulnerable to severe disease.

At AIIMS, around 40 to 50 respiratory samples are being tested daily, with positivity rates varying between 5% and 15%, he said.

Pneumonia, oxygen requirement reported

Dr Rajesh Chawla, Senior Consultant in Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine at Indraprastha Apollo Hospitals, said the number of influenza cases has increased compared with last year.

He said some patients are requiring oxygen support and progressing to pneumonia. Gastrointestinal symptoms, including diarrhoea and, in some cases, blood in stools, have also been reported.

Doctors believe weather conditions and increased transmission may be contributing to the current surge.

Persistent cough and gastrointestinal symptoms

Dr Neha Rastogi, Senior Consultant in Infectious Diseases at Fortis Hospital, said doctors are seeing clusters of infections, with increased travel and greater testing also contributing to the rise in detected cases.

She said many patients are experiencing high fever during the first few days, followed by a persistent cough that takes longer to resolve.

Gastrointestinal symptoms such as diarrhoea and stomach cramps are also appearing alongside respiratory symptoms in some patients.

Who is at greater risk?

Doctors say severe influenza is more likely among:

• Older adults
• Young children
• People with lung or other chronic illnesses
• Patients with weakened immunity
• People with other underlying medical conditions

Dr GC Khilnani, Chairman of the PSRI Institute of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, said most severe cases being treated at his hospital involved patients with co-morbidities.

Do all patients need antivirals?

Doctors have cautioned that antiviral medicines are not required for every influenza patient.

Patients with mild illness generally recover without antiviral treatment. However, people at high risk of complications and those with severe disease may require antiviral therapy.

Oseltamivir is commonly used for influenza treatment, with doctors deciding whether it is appropriate based on the patient's condition. Antivirals work best when started early, particularly within the first 48 hours of symptom onset.

What should people do?

The current rise in H1N1 infections is significant, but doctors and ICMR have stressed that there is no evidence of a new pandemic strain.

People can reduce the risk of infection by maintaining hand hygiene, wearing masks in crowded settings and avoiding close contact with people who are unwell. Vaccination can also help protect against seasonal influenza.

People with underlying health conditions should seek medical attention promptly if they develop significant or worsening symptoms, particularly breathing difficulty, persistent high fever or signs of pneumonia.

As artificial intelligence tools such as ChatGPT become increasingly common in education, concerns over students using them to complete assignments have grown. However, Johns Hopkins University professor Steve Hanke believes identifying AI-generated work is often easier than students expect.

Hanke, a professor of applied economics who has taught at Johns Hopkins University for nearly six decades, told Business Insider that he can distinguish between a student's own work and AI-generated writing by looking at how closely an assignment matches the student's usual abilities.

Sudden improvement can raise questions

According to Hanke, one of the clearest indicators is a sudden change in a student's writing quality.

A student who normally struggles with writing but submits an unusually polished, sophisticated or technically advanced assignment may immediately attract attention. Hanke said his long experience teaching students gives him a useful benchmark for assessing their normal writing and understanding.

He described himself as an “old fox” when it comes to identifying work that does not match a student's established abilities.

Knowing students helps teachers spot AI use

Hanke's approach does not depend solely on identifying characteristics of AI-generated text. Instead, he believes teachers' familiarity with their students can be an important factor.

After teaching students over a period of time, professors develop an understanding of how they write, reason and explain concepts. A submission that appears significantly beyond that student's demonstrated knowledge or writing ability can therefore raise questions.

Hanke does not consider AI itself the problem

Despite his concerns about academic misuse, Hanke said he does not view AI as inherently harmful to education.

Instead, he believes the widespread use of AI requires teachers to become more vigilant and pay greater attention to their students' individual abilities.

As AI tools become increasingly embedded in classrooms, the challenge for educators may therefore be less about detecting a particular technology and more about understanding how students normally think, write and learn.

A major cyber fraud network allegedly involved in transactions worth Rs 116.86 crore has been busted in Varanasi, with police arresting four people, including the alleged mastermind, Nitish Kumar Pandey of Sasaram in Bihar.

The operation was carried out jointly by the Cyber Crime Cell and Varanasi Police following an investigation into a network that allegedly used bank accounts opened in other people's names to facilitate cyber fraud, investment scams and betting-related transactions.

Bank Accounts Taken on Commission

According to investigators, the gang allegedly approached individuals with offers of commissions in exchange for allowing bank accounts to be opened or operated in their names.

These accounts were subsequently allegedly used to receive and transfer money linked to cyber fraud, investment schemes and betting applications.

Police said the network created a chain of bank accounts to move the proceeds, making it difficult to trace the source and destination of the money.

How the Gang Intercepted OTPs

Investigators also uncovered the alleged use of an Android application package (APK) called ‘XePay’.

According to police, the accused used the APK to activate SMS forwarding on mobile phones. This allegedly enabled them to intercept one-time passwords (OTPs) sent by banks.

By gaining access to OTPs, the accused could allegedly obtain the authentication required to operate the linked bank accounts and carry out financial transactions.

Police said the money generated through the alleged fraud was then routed through multiple accounts.

143 Cybercrime Complaints Linked

The investigation found links between the network and 143 complaints registered on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCRP).

Police identified 41 bank accounts allegedly associated with the gang. The combined fraud linked to the accounts is estimated at approximately Rs 116.86 crore.

The scale of the alleged transactions has prompted investigators to examine the wider network and identify other individuals whose accounts may have been used.

Police Seize Phones, Cards and QR Scanners

During the operation, authorities seized several items allegedly connected with the cyber fraud operation.

The recovered material included:

• 7 mobile phones
• 1 laptop
• 19 chequebooks
• 40 debit cards
• 48 QR scanners
• 2 vehicles

Four people have been arrested in connection with the case, with Nitish Kumar Pandey identified as the alleged mastermind.

The police investigation is continuing to determine the full extent of the network, trace the flow of funds and identify other people who may have been involved.

The case also highlights how cybercriminal networks increasingly rely on mule bank accounts, digital payment systems and mobile-based OTP interception to move and access illegally obtained funds.

Five people were arrested in Parbhani, Maharashtra, after an examination supervisor allegedly photographed a question paper during a nursing examination and sent it to her sister through WhatsApp, police said.

The alleged malpractice took place on Friday during the first-year General Nursing and Midwifery (GNM) examination at the Indira Gandhi A.N.M. Nursing School.

The arrested accused have been identified as examination supervisor Rakhi Chavan, her sister Rani Chavan, Pratiksha Kiran Khillare, Ishwar Baraboina and Dilip Borkar.

According to police, Rakhi Chavan was deployed as a supervisor at the examination centre. The examination began at around 10.30 am and, shortly afterwards, she allegedly used her mobile phone to photograph the question paper.

She allegedly sent the photograph to her sister through WhatsApp, police said.

Central Inspection Detects Paper Leak

The alleged malpractice came to light during an inspection by central officials at the examination centre.

Officials reportedly suspected that a question paper had been taken out of the examination hall while the test was still underway. Centre inspector Vishwajit Mathapati subsequently searched for the female invigilator and checked her mobile phone.

During the inspection, officials allegedly found a photograph of the question paper on her phone.

The matter was immediately reported to the police.

Case Registered Against Five

Based on a complaint filed by the centre inspector, police registered a case against the five accused and arrested them.

Investigators are now probing the alleged role of each accused and examining whether the question paper image was forwarded to other people or used to help candidates during the examination.

Police are also investigating whether there were any additional people involved in the alleged malpractice.

Despite the incident, officials said the examination continued as scheduled without interruption.

The case has raised fresh concerns about examination security and the misuse of mobile phones and messaging applications to circulate question papers during tests.

Further investigation is underway to establish the circumstances surrounding the alleged leak and determine whether any students received or benefited from the question paper image.

Several government-run nursing colleges in Madhya Pradesh have come under scrutiny following allegations of faculty shortages, vacant administrative posts and submission of forged or fabricated experience certificates for recognition for the 2026-27 academic session.

The allegations were raised by National Students’ Union of India (NSUI) state vice-president Ravi Parmar at a press conference in Bhopal on Sunday. The student organisation has demanded a high-level inquiry and warned of further agitation if authorities fail to take action.

Faculty Shortage Allegations at Nursing Colleges

According to Parmar, six government nursing colleges are functioning without principals, while another 10 colleges do not have vice-principals.

NSUI has also alleged that several government nursing colleges do not have the minimum teaching staff required under the Madhya Pradesh government's 2018 recognition regulations.

The rules prescribe minimum faculty requirements based on student intake. For an intake of 30 students, the prescribed staffing structure includes a principal, vice-principal, two associate professors and other teaching staff.

The student organisation has called for a detailed verification of the actual faculty strength at the institutions and the documents submitted as part of the recognition process.

Allegations of Forged Experience Certificates

NSUI has further alleged that some colleges submitted forged or fabricated faculty experience certificates while seeking recognition for the 2026-27 academic session.

According to information presented by the organisation, 22 government nursing colleges applied for recognition, of which three were not granted recognition.

The remaining institutions have now come under scrutiny following the allegations. NSUI has called for authorities to examine the credentials and experience certificates submitted by faculty members and determine whether they comply with the applicable recognition requirements.

NSUI Approaches Madhya Pradesh High Court

The student organisation has also approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court over the alleged irregularities.

An advocate representing NSUI said a petition has been filed seeking an inquiry into the allegations and appropriate action against individuals found responsible.

NSUI has demanded that authorities investigate both the faculty vacancies and documentation submitted by nursing colleges as part of the recognition process.

However, the allegations currently remain claims made by NSUI and have not been independently established. The concerned authorities would need to verify the staffing records, recognition documents and experience certificates before determining whether any violations occurred.

The controversy comes amid growing scrutiny of nursing education standards, faculty requirements and recognition norms, with NSUI warning that it could launch further agitation if the alleged irregularities are not addressed.

It is a long woven dream to be a doctor and explore the world. MBBS Study abroad offers both together. But what is the MBBS abroad entrance exam for Indian students? There is no single entrance test accepted by every foreign medical university. For Indian citizens and eligible OCI candidates seeking an undergraduate medical qualification abroad, NEET-UG is a key requirement under the applicable NMC framework, while an additional admission test may be required depending on the country, university and programme. Students should therefore check both the latest NMC requirements and the official admission rules of their chosen university before applying.

Which Entrance Exams Are Required for MBBS Abroad?

The most important point for students searching for MBBS abroad for Indian students is that entrance requirements differ by destination. NEET-UG is relevant to Indian students under the NMC framework, while tests such as UCAT, UCAT ANZ and IMAT apply only to specific universities or medical programmes.

The UCAT is taken into account by UK medical schools that take part, plus some overseas universities. The UCAT Consortium site names certain international institutions for the 2027 entry cycle, including Nanyang Technological University, National University of Singapore, and Thammasat University.

In Australia and New Zealand, UCAT ANZ is used as an entry requirement at universities that are part of the consortium. It also applies to relevant courses. The official page lists medical options at Monash University, UNSW, the University of Auckland, and the University of Otago.

That said, UCAT ANZ is not needed for every medical route. Some pathways have different rules. So each applicant should read the requirement for the exact course they want.

Is NEET Required for MBBS Abroad?

If you are an Indian student and you plan to study medicine abroad, NEET should be part of your early planning. Under the NMC rules, Indian citizens and eligible OCI holders who want a main medical qualification abroad must follow the NEET rule that applies to them. Check the latest requirements for your category and your admission year. Do not depend on older guidance.

Also, passing NEET does not automatically mean that every foreign school will use NEET for its own entry process. Some universities may run their own academic checks or entrance exams. They may still have extra admission rules beyond what Indian regulations require for you.

What Is the MBBS Abroad Eligibility for Indian Students?

The MBBS abroad eligibility depends on the university and country, but Indian students must pay particular attention to the NMC requirements if they intend to return to India and seek medical registration. The NMC's Foreign Medical Graduate Licentiate (FMGL) framework sets requirements for foreign medical education, including the duration of the course, medium of instruction, curriculum, clinical training and internship arrangements.

The NMC's current guidance specifies, among other requirements, a minimum 54 months of education in a single institution, a 12-month internship at the same foreign university, English as the medium of instruction and clinical training that is not split across different countries. Students should verify the latest applicable regulations before choosing a university.

Students planning to practise medicine in India after completing their foreign medical degree should also check the applicable NMC requirements for foreign medical graduates, including the requirements for registration and any licensing examination that may apply. The NMC has advised students to verify course duration, curriculum, clinical training and internship arrangements before taking admission, as non-compliance can affect eligibility for registration in India.

What Is the MBBS Abroad Admission Process?

The MBBS abroad admission process begins with choosing a country and university and checking its current eligibility and entrance requirements. Depending on the destination, students may need an admission test, academic qualifications, language proficiency or an interview. For example, Italy's official Universitaly portal states that admission requirements can vary by programme and may include previous qualifications, grades, an admission test or interview and language requirements. Its official information also identifies Medicine and Surgery as a single-cycle programme and provides information on admission to English-taught medical programmes through IMAT.

After confirming eligibility, students generally need to complete the university application, submit the required documents and follow the institution's admission and enrolment process. International students must also separately meet the applicable visa and immigration requirements of their destination country.

What Should Students Check Before Choosing MBBS Abroad?

Before paying an application or admission fee, Indian students should check:

• NEET-UG requirements applicable to their category and admission year.
• Whether the university requires an additional entrance examination.
• The university's academic and language requirements.
• Whether the medical programme complies with the applicable NMC regulations.
• Course duration, clinical training and internship arrangements.
• Whether the programme is conducted in accordance with the requirements applicable to foreign medical graduates who intend to practise in India.

The NMC has specifically warned Indian students about foreign medical institutions that do not comply with its prescribed requirements and advised them to conduct due diligence before admission.

What Must MBBS Study Abroad Aspirants Know

If you are seeking to take one entrance exam only to be eligible for most MBBS universities, there is no such single MBBS abroad entrance exam for all international medical universities. For Indian students, NEET-UG is a crucial regulatory requirement, while additional examinations such as UCAT, UCAT ANZ or IMAT may apply depending on the destination and university. The safest approach is to check the latest NMC rules alongside the official admission requirements of the specific medical university before making a decision.

LLB is a dream career for many students who have the will and desire to change the world. However, only a handful of them succeed in living up to their dream. This is because a 3-year LLB course might be the same on the surface in most colleges and universities but how it is taught, how much exposure it gives, and if the mentor is good, makes a lot more difference.

The 3-year LLB is meant for students who have already completed a bachelor's degree. Unlike BA LLB or BBA LLB programmes, which are generally entered after Class 12, the three-year course allows graduates from different academic backgrounds to move into law. Candidates from Arts, Commerce, Science, Management, Engineering and other recognised disciplines can explore this route, subject to the eligibility criteria of the institution they target.

What are the top 3-year LLB entrance exams in India?

There is no single entrance examination accepted by every three-year LLB college in India. The admission route depends on the university or state. Major options that aspirants should check include NLSAT-LLB, MAH-LL.B. 3-Year CET and, where applicable, CUET-PG for participating universities offering three-year LLB programmes. Students can also explore university-specific examinations and the AICLET Entrance Exam as an additional admission route.

Students are advised to refer to the latest official notification of admission before applying as the eligibility, participating institutes, examination pattern and dates may vary from one admission cycle to another.

What is NLSAT-LLB?

The NLSAT-LLB, National Law School Admission Test, is organized by the National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bengaluru for admission to its 3-year LLB (Hons.) programme. The programme is open to graduates and students from a variety of disciplines, as long as they meet the university's requirements.

The examination assesses the skills of comprehension, current affairs, critical reasoning, legal aptitude and analytical ability. NLSAT-LLB is not just a multiple-choice exam, but has a subjective component too. This implies that the candidates should acquire objective-question solving skills as well as the skill of presenting their reasoning clearly in writing.

What is MAH-LL.B. 3-Year CET?

The Maharashtra entrance test for admission to the participating three-year LLB colleges of Maharashtra is MAH-LL.B. 3-Year CET. The exam is held by Maharashtra State Common Entrance Test Cell and then followed by Centralised Admission Process (CAP).

Therefore, it is important for the students who wish to pursue law in Maharashtra to know that passing the CET is not the final step in the admission process. Candidates are also required to adhere to the applicable CAP requirements such as registration, filling of preferences, verification of documents and seat allotment.

What is the AICLET Entrance Exam?

The AICLET Entrance Exam, also known as All India Common Law Entrance Test, is another option for students who are interested in pursuing a 3-year LLB program. It may be especially applicable to students who wish to pursue law school admission in a state other than the one in which they reside or at a law school other than the one they attended.

AICLET is a 100% online national-level entrance test accepted by over 100 top private law colleges/universities in India. It is designed to help students find the right university as per their requirements and get seamless admission. 

But candidates should not choose an entrance exam randomly. Candidates are advised to read the latest official notification regarding eligibility, exam pattern, participating institutes, programmes and admission procedure before applying. This enables students to see exactly what the exam can lead to and if this aligns with their career goals. This is why AICLET offers free consultation helping students understand their options, future scope, and what is best for them. 

Other 3-Year LLB Entrance Exams

Beyond the entrance routes discussed above, students can also explore state-level and university-specific examinations that offer access to three-year LLB programmes. AP LAWCET is relevant for eligible three-year LLB admissions in Andhra Pradesh, while TS LAWCET serves the corresponding route in Telangana. Other options include PU LLB at Panjab University, ULET for the University of Rajasthan and SLS AIAT for Symbiosis Law School, Pune. These exams can widen the choices available to graduates, particularly those who want to study law in a specific state or at a particular university. The key difference is that these tests are generally tied to a defined set of institutions, making them useful for candidates who already have a preferred location or law school in mind.

What are the eligibility criteria for 3-year LLB after graduation?

The minimum requirement for admission to a three-year LLB is a bachelor's degree from a recognised institution, but the minimum marks and other requirements differ from one entrance examination to another and from one university to another.

If the requirements are fulfilled by the chosen institution, then the students who have passed out from any recognised bachelor's programme can explore the 3-year LLB admissions. Students should also inquire if they can apply and when they must have their degree to graduate in the final year.

Candidates are advised to check:

• Minimum graduation marks
• Recognised degree requirements
• Final-year student eligibility
• Category or reservation requirements
• Age requirements (if applicable),
• Entrance examination requirements

Is there a 3-year LLB for final year students?

Yes, some law schools offer the opportunity for students in the last year of their LLB program to take the three-year exam. However, candidates generally have to complete their bachelor's degree within the deadline specified by the institution.

Hence, it is important for the students of the final year to verify two dates: the date of the application for the entrance exam and the date of the submission of the graduation certificate during the admission process. Failure to meet the requirements for entrance exams does not automatically mean that the student will not be admitted to the program if the qualifying degree is not earned in a timely fashion.

What is the difference between a 3-year LLB and 5-year LLB?

The biggest difference is when a student enters the programme.

Therefore, a student who has already completed graduation generally does not need to pursue another undergraduate-level integrated law programme simply to enter the legal field. The 3-year LLB is the route specifically designed for graduates from fields other than law.

What is the syllabus for 3-year LLB entrance exams?

There is no common syllabus followed by every three-year LLB entrance examination. The subjects and question formats depend on the particular test. Depending on the examination, candidates may need to prepare areas such as:

• Reading comprehension
• Current affairs
• General awareness
• Logical reasoning
• Critical reasoning
• Legal aptitude
• Analytical reasoning
• English or verbal ability

The most effective way is to begin with the official syllabus and examination pattern of the particular test you intend to sit. This is especially important for students applying to more than one examination because the same preparation strategy may not work equally well for every test.

How should you prepare for a 3-year LLB entrance exam?

Start by deciding which law schools you want to target. After knowing the colleges, find out the entrance exams they accept and prepare accordingly. Practicing reading regularly can help with comprehension and current affairs, and practicing reasoning can help with speed and accuracy.

After the basic concepts, candidates should also do mock tests. Students should not just look at their scores, but also consider the questions they missed and determine if it was because they didn't know the answer, they had a poor understanding of the problem, they made careless errors, or they ran out of time.

If there is a subjective part to the examination, then writing practice should be a part of the preparation. Candidates should be able to organise their answer clearly, give reasons and not exceed the word or time limit.

Are there negative marks in the 3 year LLB entrance exams?

Negative marking is used in some exams. All 3-year LLB entrance tests do not have a universal marking scheme.  For instance, AICLET has no negative marking, and is only a 1hr duration exam. Hence, students are advised to refer to the latest official notification of the exam before attempting the questions. A strategy that is effective for an exam that does not have negative marking might not be effective for an exam that does have negative marking.

What comes after the 3-year LLB entrance exam?

The admission process is not complete after the entrance examination results are declared. Candidates might have to go through counselling, preference filling, document verification, seat allocation and fee payment, depending on the institution.

For instance, after the MAH-LL.B. 3-Year CET, candidates who want to get admission through the Maharashtra system should go through the Centralised Admission Process (CAP). Students are thus advised to keep monitoring the official admission portals after the exam and not assume that the result is a confirmation of admission.

What is the best 3-year LLB entrance exam?

The best approach is to select the college first and the exam second. List the law schools you are interested in and verify the law schools' accepted entrance exams, eligibility requirements and admission process.

Aspirants can compare:

• College and course
• Entrance examination
• Eligibility criteria
• Exam syllabus and pattern
• Application fee
• Important dates
• Counselling process
• Course fees
• Internship opportunities
• Career prospects

In addition to the exams like NLSAT-LLB and MAH-LL.B. 3-Year CET, students can also consider AICLET as an alternative entry point. The important thing is to check the most recent institutions and programmes that accept applications before you apply.

A 3-year LLB after graduation can be a practical route for students who decide to enter the legal field after completing another bachelor's degree. The key is to not look for a single standardized test to gain admission to law school; the process is different at each school and in each state.

Candidates can look into the popular choices like NLSAT-LLB and MAH-LL.B. 3-Year CET, and also consider AICLET as an alternate option if their plans align with the participating institutions and programmes. Always check the latest official eligibility criteria, exam pattern, dates and admission requirements before applying.

What if you could attempt an MBA entrance exam without worrying that every wrong answer would cost you marks? For many management aspirants, negative marking can turn even a well-prepared attempt into a calculation of risk. This is why MBA entrance exams without negative marking are attracting attention among students looking for alternative routes to management admissions. Exams such as GMCAT (Global Management Common Aptitude Test), NMAT, IBSAT and ATMA follow no-negative-marking patterns.

Choosing an exam only because it does not penalize wrong answers is not always a smart move. First, students should confirm that the marks count for the colleges they are targeting. They also need to look at the eligibility rules. After that, they should read the exam pattern closely. Students must also keep track of the application deadlines and the complete admission process. Only after these checks should they choose which exam to take.

Which MBA Entrance Exams Have No Negative Marking?

Some MBA and management entrance tests do not cut marks for incorrect replies, or they have had no-penalty rules before. For the 2026 admission cycle, these options may help students who want to take exam without fearing losing extra marks for wrong answers:

Students should therefore compare the admission opportunities associated with each examination rather than choosing an exam only because it has no negative marking.

Is NMAT an MBA entrance exam without negative marking?

Yes. NMAT by GMAC does not have any negative marking for wrong answers. According to the official website of the NMAT, there is no negative marking for incorrect answers. The 2026 testing window is November 2, 2026 - December 20, 2026 and the registration period is August 20, 2026 - October 10, 2026.

NMAT is also flexible and can prove to be beneficial for candidates who wish to give it a second chance. According to the official website, candidates may attempt up to three times in the testing cycle, preview their score and select the order of the sections they wish to attempt.

The exam tests Language Skills, Quantitative Skills and Logical Reasoning. A variety of management institutes accept NMAT scores, such as NMIMS, K J Somaiya Institute of Management, TAPMI and other participating institutes.

NMAT is one of the better choices for those who want to prepare for an MBA entrance test without negative marking and also have access to a wide range of B-schools to pursue their education.

Is there negative marking in IBSAT 2026?

IBSAT does not have negative marking. Official IBS material describes the test as a two-hour computer-based management aptitude test with 140 multiple-choice questions. The four sections are Verbal Ability, Reading Comprehension, Quantitative Aptitude, and Data Adequacy and Data Interpretation.

For the IBSAT 2026 admission cycle, the test is being used for admission to the nine IBS campuses for the MBA/PGPM 2027–29 programmes. The current IBS registration portal confirms the 2026 admission cycle and the nine-campus MBA/PGPM route.

IBSAT is particularly relevant for students who are interested in the ICFAI Business School network. Candidates should nevertheless check the latest eligibility and admission requirements before applying because the exam is primarily connected to admissions through IBS.

The no-negative-marking format means that an incorrect response does not result in a deduction, making IBSAT an option worth considering for students who prefer a less penalty-based marking system.

Is the GMAT Exam an MBA entrance exam without negative marking?

Yes, the GMAT Exam does not use conventional negative marking for incorrect answers. However, students should understand an important difference: the GMAT is a computer-adaptive examination, and its scoring is not based simply on adding marks for correct answers and deducting marks for wrong ones.

The current GMAT Exam consists of three sections: Quantitative Reasoning, Verbal Reasoning and Data Insights, with 64 questions to be completed in 2 hours and 15 minutes, including an optional 10-minute break.

There is also an important caution for candidates. While incorrect answers do not attract conventional negative marking, unanswered questions can affect the score. GMAC states that candidates can be penalised for not completing a section within the allotted time, with the score reflecting the number of questions left unanswered.

Therefore, students should not interpret “no negative marking” on the GMAT as meaning that leaving questions unanswered is a good strategy.

What is GMCAT and does it have negative marking?

The Global Management Common Aptitude Test (GMCAT) also follows a no-negative-marking pattern. According to GMCAT's official 2026 information, the examination was conducted online for 60 minutes, with 100 questions carrying 100 marks. Candidates received one mark for each correct answer and there was no negative marking.

The GMCAT examination pattern covers Management Aptitude, Business Administration, Quantitative and Logical Reasoning, Verbal Ability and Communication Skills, and General Management Awareness.

GMCAT's official information also states that the examination is designed for candidates seeking undergraduate and postgraduate management programmes. Its partner-university list includes institutions such as Starex University, Amity University campuses, CMR University, Jagdish Sheth School of Management and several other institutions.

For MBA aspirants, GMCAT's official eligibility information requires a bachelor's degree or equivalent qualification, subject to the eligibility conditions specified by the examination. Candidates should check the official eligibility page before applying.

One important point for students searching for an exam right now is that the GMCAT 2026 examination cycle has already concluded. The official website lists February 27, 2026 as the last date for online registration and February 28, 2026 as the examination date.

Which MBA entrance exam without negative marking is best for you?

There is no single answer because the best examination depends on the colleges and programmes a student wants to target.

NMAT can be a strong choice for students who want a current 2026 testing window, multiple attempts and a broad set of participating B-schools.

IBSAT is worth considering for students specifically interested in the IBS MBA/PGPM route and who prefer a 140-question test without negative marking.

GMAT may suit candidates targeting business schools that accept the GMAT score, particularly those who prefer a flexible, computer-adaptive examination. However, students must understand that unanswered questions can affect the score.

GMCAT can be considered by eligible candidates for programmes and institutions accepting its score, but its 2026 examination has already been conducted.

Does no negative marking make an MBA entrance exam easier?

Not necessarily. A no-negative-marking policy only means that candidates are not penalised in the conventional way for incorrect answers. It does not automatically make the examination easy. The difficulty can depend on the syllabus, question level, time available, number of questions, competition and the admission requirements of the colleges accepting the score.

For example, GMCAT's 2026 pattern had 100 questions to be attempted in 60 minutes, while IBSAT had 140 questions to be completed in 120 minutes. The GMAT is different again because it uses computer-adaptive scoring and considers factors such as the difficulty of questions and the number of questions answered. Therefore, aspirants should treat no negative marking as a test-taking advantage, not as proof that an examination is easier.

How should you attempt an MBA entrance exam without negative marking?

A no-negative-marking exam can change the way a candidate approaches uncertain questions. When an incorrect response does not result in a conventional mark deduction, students may have more reason to attempt questions rather than leave them unanswered. However, that does not mean candidates should spend excessive time on difficult questions. Time management remains important, particularly in exams with a large number of questions.

A practical approach is to first attempt questions where the answer is clear, then return to questions that require more calculation or reasoning. Candidates can use the remaining time for unanswered questions, provided this is consistent with the specific exam's rules.

The strategy is different for the GMAT because unanswered questions can affect the score. Candidates should therefore follow the specific examination's official instructions instead of applying the same approach to every no-negative-marking test.

What should you check before choosing an MBA entrance exam?

The absence of negative marking should be only one factor in your decision. Before filling out an application form, check whether your preferred colleges accept the exam score and whether you meet their eligibility requirements.

Students should also compare the exam date, application deadline, examination fee, number of attempts, syllabus, duration, mode of examination and selection process.

It is equally important to understand whether the examination is a common route to several institutions or is primarily connected to a particular university or group of institutions. This distinction can significantly affect your admission options.

For example, IBSAT is linked to the IBS MBA/PGPM admission route, while NMAT is accepted by participating B-schools. GMCAT has its own partner-university network, and GMAT scores are used by business schools in India and internationally.

Key takeaway for MBA aspirants

If you dislike losing marks for wrong answers, you should look at GMCAT, NMAT, IBSAT, and GMAT. This no-negative marking pattern can make it less risky to try a question when you are unsure. However, it is important to not confuse no negative marking with no marks deducted. If the answer is wrong, the marks will be zero for that question. 

It is also advised to compare more details, see which colleges accept the score of your chosen MBA Entrance Exam, check eligibility rules, confirm the test dates, review how many tries you get, check the fee, go through the syllabus, and understand everything that follows. 

For MBA applications, start by making a list of exams that match the colleges you plan to target. Then, on test day, use the no-negative-marking approach to help you decide what to attempt.

Designing is one of the fields that has captivated today’s generation to pursue varied creative career paths and build a life connected to art. A student who wants fashion design often needs a plan that looks nothing like a student aiming for UX, product design, communication design, interiors, or graphic design. Also, colleges do not grade everyone in the same way.

Some schools run their own entrance tests. Others rely on national exams that are already set. There are also private colleges with their own admission steps, or they may take scores from certain tests. Because of this, a student looking for a design entrance exam in India can see many options and still be unsure which one fits their goal.

In this article, this particular dilemma is addressed. Understand how to differentiate between design entrance exams as per the career aspirants and preparation. Continue reading. 

Why are there so many design entrance exams in India?

The simplest reason is that design is not a single field. Fashion design, communication design, product design, interior design, graphic design and UX design can lead to very different academic and career paths. 

Consequently, there is no common entrance test for all design colleges in India. Some institutions conduct their own examination, others conduct a national level examination or accept scores via a specific admission process.

The most common names that students will come across are NID DAT, UCEED and NIFT Entrance Examination (NIFTEE). NID admits students to its programmes through its Design Aptitude Test, the latest of which is the B.Des process involving DAT Prelims and DAT Mains. UCEED, conducted by IIT Bombay, is used for B.Des admissions at participating institutes. In the 2026 cycle, these included IIT Bombay, IIT Delhi, IIT Guwahati, IIT Hyderabad, IIT Indore, IIT Roorkee and IIITDM Jabalpur.

University-specific routes are also available. Some private universities have their own tests, and others may accept scores from various tests. The system is also diverse, as UCEED itself is: In addition to the institutes participating in the UCEED, the results are also shared with a larger group of institutes for their own admission processes.

So, the number of exams does not mean that students are expected to take all of them. It simply means that students have different admission routes depending on the institution and programme they choose.

What are the top design entrance exams in India?

There is no official ranking that makes one design entrance exam the best for all students. The value of an exam varies greatly depending on the institution and course you are applying for.

NID DAT

Students desiring to apply to the National Institute of Design (NID) should adhere to the admission process laid down by NID. For its B.Des programme, the current process has two stages: DAT Prelims and DAT Mains. NID says the tests are designed to assess candidates' knowledge, skills and behavioural qualities.

UCEED

Undergraduate Common Entrance Examination for Design (UCEED) is organized by IIT Bombay. For the 2026 cycle, UCEED was used for B.Des admissions at seven participating institutes, including IIT Bombay, IIT Delhi, IIT Guwahati, IIT Hyderabad, IIT Indore, IIT Roorkee and IIITDM Jabalpur. 

Hence, UCEED is especially crucial for students who have the IITs or other institutes with UCEED scores in their shortlist. The result sharing institutes also provide students with extra institutes to explore, but each institute may have its own eligibility and admission requirements.

NIFT Entrance Examination

Another big name for students who are interested in fashion and other design related fields is the NIFT Entrance Examination (NIFTEE). NIFT's admission system is applicable to undergraduate and postgraduate programmes, and currently NIFT offers B.Des specialisations such as Fashion Design, Leather Design, Accessory Design, Textile Design, Knitwear Design and Fashion Communication. 

Other search result

Students can also find NATA in their search for design entrance exams. But NATA is an architecture entrance exam and should not be considered as a substitute for all the undergraduate design entrance exams. There are academic and professional routes to architecture and design.

The key point to remember is that you should not select an entrance exam simply because it is popular. Select it because it will get you to the institution and programme you desire.

What is the best design entrance exam to take?

That depends on what the end goal is, which subject is your preference and which university you seek. First design aspirants have to decide the course, then the college and only then the entrance exam. This is an order that can save students from a lot of unnecessary preparation. If a student is interested in fashion design, their college shortlist will be very different from a student interested in product design or UX. Likewise, a person preparing for NID should not prepare for an exam that is not used by NID for that year.

First, ask yourself what type of design you are interested in exploring. It's not a matter of having to make a decision at 17 or 18, but it does help to have a general direction. After that, narrow down the list of colleges that provide courses that are relevant to you and compare the curriculum, practical exposure, faculty, studios, industry interaction, fees and location. Only then, review the entrance exam needed by each college.

Is there a difference between all design entrance exams?

No. A common mistake among students is to assume that design entrance exams are mainly drawing tests. Design education involves much more than the ability to sketch. Students can be evaluated on visualisation, observation, creativity, reasoning, problem solving, communication and general awareness depending on the examination and institution.

The admission process may also be continued after the written examination. For instance, NID's current B.Des admission process includes DAT Prelims and DAT Mains for shortlisted candidates.  NIFT's current B.Des process has a Situation Test for candidates who have been shortlisted following the relevant examination stage.

That's why it's not sufficient to just practice drawing questions. A student may be good at sketching but still need to work on observation, visual thinking, reasoning and communicating an idea. So the right preparation is the one that is suitable for the actual syllabus and selection process of the examination you are going to take.

What if you wish to apply to private design universities?

This is where the admission picture differs from that of institutes like NID and IITs. AIDAT (All India Design Aptitude Test) is for the participating private universities and design institutions. However, it is worth noting that it is not a test for admission to government institutes like IITs or NID.

AIDAT is an online national-level design entrance examination through which students can apply to participating design institutions. It currently has around top 100 partner universities and 300+ courses, with options covering areas such as fashion, interior, communication, graphic, game, product, textile and UX design.

For students who are considering top private design universities rather than targeting one government institution, this can provide a more streamlined admission route. Instead of beginning with a separate test for every private university on the shortlist, students can explore the participating institutions and courses available through AIDAT.

The important point, however, is that students should always check the specific university, course, eligibility and admission conditions before applying. A common entrance route does not mean every participating institution has identical requirements.

Do you need to take more than one design entrance exam?

Not necessarily. If every college on your list requires the same exam, studying for one could be sufficient. If you have options for institutions that have different requirements, it might be worth taking more than one exam. However, ensure you have researched well about all the other entrance exams, it is not always the best idea to take every exam that is offered. The application process is time consuming and expensive, and the preparation method for each exam may vary.

Rather, check the exam dates, application fees, syllabus, selection process, and the colleges you can actually get into based on each score. This will let you know if there is another exam that provides you with a useful extra choice or if it's just another test on your schedule.

AIDAT may be especially important for students who are interested in private universities, as several of their preferred universities may be participating in AIDAT. It currently operates on a platform of multiple design institutions and courses, not one university.

What are the requirements for Class 12 students to apply?

Before registering for any design entrance exam, check five things: eligibility, course, college acceptance, examination pattern and the complete admission process. Do not stop at “Am I eligible?” If you qualify, ask what happens. Does the school have a portfolio? Do you have an interview? Are there other tests? Is the score for the course you are looking for?

Pay attention to the programme itself as well. Two colleges can have a B.Des degree but provide very different academic experiences. The specialisation, curriculum, studio facilities, practical work, internships, industry exposure and faculty can have a much greater impact on your education than the name of the entrance test.

The same applies to AIDAT applicants. Do not take the examination score as the final decision without exploring the participating private university and the exact programme.

So, which design entrance exam should you choose?

No one design exam is suitable for all design students. If you are aiming for NID, go through NID DAT. To pursue an undergraduate design course at an IIT or any other institute that accepts UCEED, prepare for UCEED. For those who are interested in fashion and related fields, NIFTEE is a crucial exam to take. These routes are linked to the admission systems.

If you are looking into private design universities, AIDAT is another option to consider. It is currently hosted on its platform, which includes all the participating private design institutions and a variety of courses, and the admission process involves the test, counselling, portfolio and interview stages.

So, rather than asking “Which design entrance exam is the best?”, ask a more useful question: “Which entrance exam will help me get to the course and college that I really want?”

After that, the long list of design entrance exams doesn't seem like a problem anymore. It turns into a list of various routes, and you just have to select the ones that go where you want to go. Still unsure where to start? Connect with us for free career consultation at 08035018542.

If you are planning to pursue computer science after Class 12, choosing the right entrance exam can be an important part of your admission plan. There are some universities with their own tests, and others with more general national-level tests. This leaves many students wondering, is there an easy online entrance exam for computer science that can help me apply to private universities?

One option students can consider is the Global Computer Science Entrance Test (GCSET). It is a national level entrance exam for computer science and technology courses and courses are listed for both undergraduate and postgraduate courses, such as BCA, B.Tech, B.Sc IT, M.Tech, M.Sc and MCA. 

However, the term easy is not a good description of any entrance exam. One way to assess whether an entrance exam is suitable is to look at who is eligible to take the exam, the structure of the exam, the time allowed, how the exam is marked, and, most importantly, which universities and programmes accept the score.

What is GCSET?

Global Computer Science Entrance Test (GCSET) is a national-level online entrance test created for students who seek admission in computer science and technology courses in top private universities in India.

GCSET is designed in an ideal way to test the skills and potential of a student who wishes to pursue computer science and technology. It lists programmes at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels, including BCA, B.Tech, B.Sc IT, M.Tech, M.Sc and MCA. This gives students interested in computer science and related fields an entrance route covering different stages of higher education. GCSET official website. The undergraduate eligibility route is especially relevant for a Class 12 student. Students do not need to complete graduation before applying for the UG examination.

Is GCSET an online entrance exam?

Yes, GCSET 2026 is an online exam which can be taken by the candidates on their mobile, laptop or desktop, as per the guidelines provided by GCSET. There are 100 multiple choice questions to be answered in 60 minutes. One mark is awarded for each correct answer and there is no penalty for an incorrect answer.

This makes the structure relatively simple. The real challenge is time; candidates are given an average of less than a minute per question, so it is not enough to know the subject matter to prepare. The speed and the choice of questions are also important.

The examination guidelines also include that candidates are required to log in at least 15 minutes prior to the examination and that the online test will be monitored by cameras, sound and browser activity. GCSET exam guidelines

After class 12, who can apply for GCSET?

As per the current eligibility criteria of UG, the candidate should have completed 10+2 or equivalent with Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and/or Computer Science as core subjects and should have obtained 50% aggregate marks.

Students who are appearing for their class 12 exams can also apply. The present criteria enable the candidate to take the GCSET exam up to three times. The requirements are for the current admission cycle and students applying in a future year should refer to the eligibility criteria for that year.

What courses are offered in GCSET?

GCSET is not limited to one undergraduate degree. It has official information that includes a variety of computer science and technology programmes. At undergraduate level, the listed programmes include B.Tech, BCA and B.Sc IT. At postgraduate level, the options include M.Tech, M.Sc and MCA.

This is important when comparing entrance exams. A student looking for a B.Tech admission path is different from someone who wants to do an MCA after graduation. Always check the relevant course, eligibility and participating institution before applying.

Why do students look for an easy online computer science entrance exam?

Because what is easy for one student may be challenging for another, depending on their academic background and preparation. However, when students are looking for an easy computer science entrance exam, they typically want a few things: an online exam, a clear question pattern, a reasonable time limit, and no penalty for incorrect answers.

Some of these features are incorporated into the current format of GCSET. The test is online, has 100 MCQs, is 60 minutes long and has no negative marking. It can be helpful to not have negative marking, but it should not be used as an excuse to prepare less. The exam is still a test of knowledge and aptitude and the time constraint makes preparation important.

How to apply for GCSET?

Passing the entrance exam does not guarantee admission. The ongoing GCSET process is generally: Registration, Examination, Result, Counselling and Admission. 

Candidates will be able to check their result and scorecard on the candidate portal after the examination. The counselling process is then followed by the selection of a preferred campus, provisional admission and seat booking.

This is a significant difference for students studying private university entrance exams. An entrance score is a part of the admission process; it should not automatically be read as a guarantee of admission to every institution or programme. Students are advised to verify the eligibility of the course, the participating university, seat availability and admission requirements before finalizing their decision.

Is GCSET easier than other computer science entrance exams?

There is no universal answer. The difficulty of an entrance examination depends on the candidate, the syllabus and the level of preparation. Some students may find the current GCSET format manageable because it is conducted online and has no negative marking, but those features alone do not determine the difficulty of the question paper.

For example, the current GCSET B.Tech syllabus includes Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Computer Fundamentals, English Language, Logical Ability and Reasoning, and General Awareness. Therefore, instead of asking only, “Which computer science entrance exam is easiest?”, students should ask: “Which entrance exam is accepted for the course and institution I want to join?”

That approach is more useful because an entrance exam is only valuable if it leads to the academic option a student actually wants.

What should students check before choosing a computer science entrance exam?

• Eligibility: Confirm that your Class 12 subjects , and your marks , actually match the requirement.  
• Exam pattern: Check how many questions are there, how much time you get , and whether there is negative marking  
• Programme: See if the exam actually gives you an admission route for the B.Tech, BCA or B.Sc IT programme you want  
• Institution: Find out which participating university or institution accepts the score, and also what extra admission condition is required  

For students considering GCSET, these points feel extra important, because the test is only one piece in the larger admission process, not the whole story.

In the end, GCSET is for all the B.Tech aspirants in India who wish to pursue computer science. It is a 100% online entrance test that opens doors to top universities in India. An “easy” entrance exam is not always the best entrance exam. The better option is usually the one where your eligibility, exam format and admission path fit both the course and the institution you plan to study at.

If you are in 12th standard and already planning to pursue a career in Forensic Science, the entrance exam you opt for can be the first step in your journey. One of the options is the All India Forensic Science Entrance Test (AIFSET) for admission to undergraduate courses in forensic science at the participating universities.

But should you take AIFSET in 2027? It will depend on your eligibility, the universities you are interested in and the type of academic trajectory you are seeking. Based on the current AIFSET 2026 eligibility and examination details, here are 10 practical reasons why class 12 students should consider AIFSET for their 2027 admission planning. The actual dates, fees, participating institutions and eligibility for 2027 should be verified from the official notification of 2027.

To pursue Forensic science after Class 12.

The main advantage of AIFSET is that you don't need to wait until you graduate to get into the field. The eligibility criteria for the B.Sc. Forensic Science routes under the current AIFSET are that candidates who have completed or are appearing for 10+2 with Physics, Chemistry, Biology and/or Mathematics as the main subjects with a minimum aggregate of 50% are eligible to apply. This makes AIFSET relevant to class 12 science students who have already made up their minds to pursue forensic science.

Seamless admission to Forensic Science programmes

AIFSET is designed as a national level test for students who wish to apply to forensic science programmes in different universities. It is not a general postgraduate test of unrelated subjects. That is the path that makes it easier for a student who wants to take admission in forensic science after 12th to understand: know the universities that accept admissions for forensic science, know the requirements of each university and prepare for the entrance exam accordingly.

Both PCB and PCM students can be eligible

One of the most frequently asked questions by Class 12 students is whether Forensic Science is just for Biology students. The eligibility information for the current AIFSET states that the undergraduate route is for Physics, Chemistry, Biology and/or Mathematics as the primary subjects. Hence, students who are studying PCB or PCM combinations may be able to satisfy the subject requirement, subject to the satisfaction of the applicable aggregate and other requirements. This is significant because forensic science is not solely based on one school subject, but rather on a number of scientific disciplines.

Exam can be taken anytime.

Students do not necessarily have to wait for their final Class 12 result before applying. As per the current eligibility criteria of AIFSET, candidates who are appearing in their 10+2 examination are eligible to apply as per the mentioned eligibility criteria. This can help a student to start preparing for entrance exams in the final year instead of waiting for the board exams.

Simple and online exam format 

AIFSET examination pattern is relatively easy to understand: The examination is conducted online, consisting of 100 multiple-choice questions of 100 marks, and lasts for 60 minutes. 

There is no negative marking.

That doesn't mean that students should just guess all the questions. It does not imply that the examination strategy is different from a test in which a wrong answer is penalized. Students may concentrate on the questions they know first, and then spend the remaining time wisely on the ones they are not as sure about.

Multiple attempts for AIFSET allowed.

A candidate is allowed to appear in the examination a maximum of three times. This is something that students should know before planning their preparation. It also implies that aspirants should read the official rules carefully and not assume about attempts, age limit or eligibility. The number of attempts allowed for AIFSET 2027 is three. 

200+ Partner universities accepting AIFSET scores

AIFSET is not a test for any one institution, there are over 200 top universities across the country accepting the scores. This may be helpful for students who have not decided on a university yet but are certain that they wish to pursue forensic science.

There is however an important difference: not all universities have the same admission requirements. Students are advised to verify the eligibility, programme information, counselling procedure, fees and seat availability of the individual university before finalizing their choice.

It can help students begin a specialised academic pathway

Forensic science is not just about crime scenes or the kind of investigations that are depicted in TV shows. Forensic science is broadly defined by AIFSET's own description as being in medical data science, field sciences and laboratory sciences. It refers to forensic pathology, psychiatry, psychology and forensic medicine, crime-scene investigation, chemistry, biology, toxicology, ballistics, fingerprints and questioned documents.

It's important to know that breadth before selecting the course. A student with an interest in forensic science might eventually be more interested in laboratory analysis, biological evidence, toxicology, crime-scene work or another specialised area.

It lets you plan your admission around the university, not just the examination

Perhaps the most practical reason to consider AIFSET is that it can become part of a broader B.Sc. Forensic Science admission strategy. Instead of asking only, “Which entrance exam should I take?”, Class 12 students should first ask: Which universities offer the programme I want? What are their eligibility requirements? Do they participate in AIFSET? What does the programme teach? What practical exposure does it provide? And what is the admission process after the entrance test? 

The AIFSET route can be useful when it matches those requirements. But an entrance score should never be treated as the only factor in choosing a university.

For Class 12 students, the biggest advantage of considering AIFSET is not simply the exam itself. It is the opportunity to plan a focused route into undergraduate forensic science while keeping participating universities in consideration. 

But the smartest approach is to reverse the usual process: shortlist the universities and B.Sc. Forensic Science programmes first, check their 2027 admission requirements, and then decide whether AIFSET should be part of your entrance-exam plan. That way, you are not preparing merely to clear an exam. You are preparing for the course and university you actually want.

Before power could command the world, knowledge had already begun to shape it; education became the vessel through which that knowledge travelled from one generation to another. Education is often presented as the road to a better career, a higher income and a secure future. Its most remarkable strength, however, lies far beyond employment. Education changes how people understand the world. It gives them the ability to read laws, understand history, question information, recognise manipulation and demand accountability. Hence, the idea of education as power has remained relevant across generations.

A person with knowledge is not necessarily powerful. However, an individual who knows how to think, question and apply knowledge can be much more difficult to control. This is where education goes beyond a degree or certificate. It turns into a way of freedom, and allows people to make choices instead of taking things on faith. This is why unaccountable power fears an educated population because education gives people the tools to question authority.

How can education be a source of power?

Knowledge alters the options that are available to a person. When a child learns to read, he or she can gain access to ideas that are beyond the immediate context. A student with an understanding of technology can find opportunities that other generations may not have found. A citizen who knows his/her rights will know when they are being violated. This is what education does to a society — makes it powerful.

Education also provides people with the capacity to analyze information rather than taking everything they read at face value. A learned individual can ask: What is the evidence? Who is making this argument? What is not stated? What are the advantages of this decision? These questions might seem straightforward, but they are the building blocks of thinking and responsible citizenship.

Why is it that the powerful do not like an educated society?

It would be unkind to claim that all rulers and governments are afraid of educated people. Institutions must be strong and accountable, and they should be open to an informed population, as they can be made more transparent and effective through scrutiny. What is it that the power which is insecure and unaccountable fears? Education itself? No, it is people who know and are confident enough to question it.

An educated population is harder to control with misinformation, fear or empty promises. People who understand history are better equipped to recognise patterns that have appeared before. Those who know the law have the right to challenge decisions that are made without justification. Individuals who are able to assess evidence are less likely to believe a claim just because it is made by an authority figure. Education does not teach people to rebel against authority, it teaches them how to comprehend and assess authority.

The best lesson is to ask why

The best classroom is not the one that teaches students the most. It is the one in which students learn to ask better questions. Why is this true? What is the evidence for it? Is there another reason? What if this decision is incorrect?

These questions lie at the heart of science, journalism, law and democracy. The advancement of science requires challenging accepted theories. Journalism requires tough questions. Examination of evidence is the basis of law. Citizens need to evaluate conflicting claims in order to ensure democracy. A student who learns to question respectfully is not being disobedient, they are learning one of the most important skills that education can give them: critical thinking.

Education is a key component of a healthy democracy

Democracy requires more than just voters. It requires informed citizens who can comprehend information, identify misinformation and make informed decisions. This is especially significant in the context of today's world where information can spread around the globe in seconds.

Fake news can be spread through social media, and AI can create convincing text, images and videos. In this context, it is not enough to have access to information. Students should be taught to check sources, identify bias, to distinguish between fact and opinion, and to assess evidence. Education is thus emerging as one of the best lines of defence against misinformation.

Education does not necessarily equal a degree

In modern society, education is often judged by marks, degrees, rankings and placements. While these accomplishments are important, especially in a competitive job market, they don't necessarily tell the whole story. A student can get very good grades without being confident enough to challenge an idea. A graduate can enter a prestigious profession and still remain vulnerable to misinformation. A person may be technically very knowledgeable but not be aware of the ethical implications.

The success of education should therefore not be judged by what a student remembers. It should also be judged on their ability to comprehend, ask questions, analyse and create. Knowledge is truly empowering when it transforms the way that a person views the world and equips them with the power to make informed decisions.

Can education become a tool of control?

The connection between education and power is complex, as education can free people, but it can also shape their beliefs. What students learn is important, but what they don't learn can be important. A classroom may challenge youth to think differently or may give them one interpretation of an issue.

This is why it is important to foster curiosity and intellectual freedom in education. When students are taught only what to believe, education runs the risk of becoming conditioning. When they learn to evaluate ideas, to compare evidence and to draw their own conclusions, education becomes a liberating force. Education is not about teaching students to think for you, it's about teaching students how to think for themselves.

Why universities must protect the freedom to disagree

A good university is not a place where everyone agrees with each other. It should be a place where ideas are challenged by evidence, reasoning and respectful debate. Students should be able to ask questions of their teachers, researchers should be able to challenge accepted ideas, and alternative perspectives should be explored and not simply rejected.

It is not a failure of education when there is disagreement. At times, it's proof that learning is taking place. The seeds of intellectual development can be sown when a person is confronted with an idea that contradicts his or her own beliefs. The aim of higher education should not be to get all students to the same conclusion, but to enable students to make conclusions based on reasoning and evidence.

Education empowers people to change their future

The most intimate form of educational power is the capacity to envision an alternative future. A child from a disadvantaged background can find opportunities that might not have been apparent to them that he or she could discover through education. It can provide communities with knowledge and skills that generate economic and social opportunities. It can also assist people to realize that their current situation does not have to be their future.

Education doesn't just affect one student. Knowledge is transferred from students to families, from families to communities and from one generation to the next. A teacher can impact hundreds of young minds, and one educated person can impact the decisions and aspirations of a whole family. This is the way education slowly starts to become a tool for social change.

The future is for those who can THINK

The world is changing at a rapid pace thanks to artificial intelligence, automation and digital media. Information is now more easily available, but determining what is true is increasingly difficult. Students therefore need more than the ability to memorise information.They must be curious, analytical, adaptable and capable of evaluating the information they encounter.

Students who know all the answers will not necessarily be the ones best equipped for the future. They will be the ones who can ask the right questions, look at evidence, change when necessary and think for themselves. With technology increasingly able to answer questions, perhaps the most important skill will be knowing which questions to ask.

Education is power that creates independent minds

Education can open a mind, a degree can open a career. Knowledge can enable a person to identify injustice, grasp opportunity and challenge misinformation. A falsehood can be challenged by critical thinking and intellectual freedom can help a society not accept authority without question.

So, education is the power, not because education makes people rebellious or against those who govern, but because it makes them independent thinkers. That's why unaccountable power has always been uneasy with an educated society.

Apparently, the best education system is not one that produces citizens who agree with everything they hear. It is one that produces citizens who can ask difficult questions, demand evidence, tolerate disagreement and imagine something better. 

Thus, a society that teaches its people to think produces citizens capable of shaping their own future, and this is indeed intimidating to those in power who wish to rule and not serve. So, the question is whether we wish to hone education as power or be honed by those in power.

History remembers civilizations not by how rich people were, but by what they thought, learnt, invented, and discovered. 

The Library of Alexandria still feels heavy as one of history’s biggest tragedies, not because the building got burned, but because humanity lost whole bodies of knowledge that we couldn’t just recover later. Wars wrecked manuscripts, dictators put a chokehold on books, and time itself erased countless stories, bit by bit, until they were gone. Each generation looks back at those disappearances with this regret, wondering how history might have moved in a different direction if those volumes had survived.

But here we are, in one of the most technologically advanced eras humans have ever lived through, and it seems we’re making a similar mistake again, not with fire, but with scanners this time. And who is to be blamed? Human greed. 

Videos of rare books being cut are circulating online. Fresh reports say AI companies have been buying massive quantities of physical books, even rare copies and out-of-print editions, then cutting off their spines and scanning every page just to train artificial intelligence models. Afterward, the original books get destroyed, because it’s supposedly cheaper and quicker than preserving them intact. Court papers and legal hearings indicate that this kind of destructive scanning is now baked into the AI industry’s competitive push for high-quality, human-written data.

Legally, a lot of this might be allowed. Morally, though, it leaves behind questions no courtroom can really settle , at least not in any satisfying way. Because a book isn’t only information written on papers. A book is memory , culture, and history you can actually hold in your hands.

Destroying Books Was a Choice, Not a Necessity

The most uncomfortable aspect of this story is that the destruction of books was never an unavoidable consequence of digitisation. And that's where this approach becomes ethically and morally wrong.  Libraries, museums and universities have spent decades preserving fragile manuscripts while simultaneously making them available digitally. Many institutions, including Harvard University, have shown that we can scan and digitalise books without actually destroying the original!

However special equipment, trained archivists, careful handling and much more time is needed for preservation of books, and this is the economical factor that is being avoided. The same operation of cutting the spine off a book and putting it through an industrial scanner is a dramatic improvement in both speed and cost. The financial reward for the industry that's racing to develop the next generation of AI models is clear.

This is where the discussion goes beyond the technical and into the philosophical realm. But whether books can be preserved is no longer the question. They can. The problem is that these big AI Companies who can easily pay for preserving these books are okay with destroying them.

No AI company has publicly claimed that history is expendable, nor is there evidence that they intend to erase literary heritage. But, every industry shows its priorities in the decisions it takes. With the continuing triumph of speed over preservation, when it's done for efficiency and cost-saving, a question arises: Are the commercial considerations starting to undermine cultural responsibility?

Throughout the history of technology, new innovations have always promised to make life simpler. It should never lead to us being lax in what we inherit. 

A Book Is More Than Just The Words Inside It Is

There are people who believe in destructive scanning who say that nothing is being destroyed since everything is kept in a digital format. If the information persists, why should the material object? The answer is no big surprise for those who have a deep passion for books.

A book is not a piece of information. If it were just information, printed books would have been eliminated on the day the Internet came along. After all, almost all classic novels, scientific papers and historical texts are on the internet and available within a few seconds. But bookstores are still thriving, libraries are never empty and millions of readers opt to read books instead of e-books.

This decision does not have much to do with convenience. Books are experiences. They smell of old paper, feel like worn paper and have the feel of a product designed to last generations. The second hand book will most likely be marked in some way with underlined passages, missing bookmarks or handwritten notes that were written by an owner who the reader will never see. Those little flaws become the unspoken dialogue in time.

The words narrate one story while the book tells another. This is something that people who don't read novels very often do know unconsciously. Often students will print out key notes rather than read the notes on screen. Even if you've a laptop and a tablet, writers still carry notebooks around. Individuals write letters rather than scan them into folders. Childhood diaries, family recipe books and old journals are kept as they have emotional value in themselves.

Humans aren't just focused on consuming information, we establish connections with it. What might be preserved here is the text, but all the things that made books part of our common literary culture are lost.

Profit Is Starting To Decide What We Preserve

Books are necessary for AI companies because they require humanity. But guess the irony is greater.  Technology has been offering a vision of a future where machines would produce unlimited knowledge for years. Rather, the AI craze has exposed something new. Human creativity is used in machines. They need authentic writing produced by authors, researchers, journalists and thinkers long before artificial intelligence became part of everyday life. 

That reliance has made books one of the most valuable commodities in the AI economy. The use of AI to learn from human knowledge isn't inherently bad. All generations have brought learning from others. What concerns them now is that centuries of human creativity are becoming seen as just a source for commercial products.

A rare book that used to be cultural heritage gets turned into training data, a cultural heritage book becomes a training data set, a book that was exclusively written, becomes a mere data, and the books that survived invasions, world wars and natural calamities are all now a mere set of data.  The transformation is subtle, but its implications are profound. History stops being something to preserve and gradually becomes something to process.

This may be the natural consequence of a competitive industry. All firms wish for bigger data sets, improved models, and quicker product releases. Growth is expected by investors and timing is all about money and efficiency in the markets. In such an environment, it's logical for a company to select the less expensive choice. However, economically sound is not necessarily ethically sound, isn’t it?

Civilisations have been able to thrive because previous generations saved far more than they immediately needed. . They preserved monuments for their own sake, defended languages known by only a few, and preserved libraries containing books which many never read. They knew that culture does not necessarily have to be quantified monetarily.

Today It Is Rare Books. Where Does the Line Move?

At present, reports largely involve rare and out-of-print books rather than unique historical manuscripts. It would be inaccurate to suggest otherwise. But technological history teaches us that practices rarely remain confined to their original boundaries.

The original social media were never designed to affect elections. Smartphones weren't meant to be a constant presence in every human moment. Streaming services had no idea that they would come along and dramatically change entire film industries. Technology grows where it is encouraged to grow. The same applies with this also.

With the growing diversity and realness of the sources that AI models depend on for human writing, society will have more challenging questions to answer. What happens when there is very little regional literature and it becomes very profitable? Where do endangered-language books go? If there are only a few physical copies remaining, what then?

These are not forecasts or estimates, but questions that deserve to be asked before circumstances force us to answer them. Once destroyed, there is no second chance for reconsidering a rare book. A copy in digital form can retain all words but can it maintain authenticity?

In Trying to Make AI More Human, Are We Making Humans More Like Machines?

It might be the strangest irony of this technological revolution that it has nothing to do with artificial intelligence. It is all about us!

Over the past few decades, researchers have been making efforts to equip machines with human-like thinking capabilities. They have taught them to recognise emotions and communicate naturally, imitate creativity, and understand language. Each advancement has led to machines being closer and closer to human actions. But, as machines grow increasingly human, human beings appear to be going in the other direction.

We are becoming more and more about celebrating speed over patience, summaries over understanding and efficiency over experience. AI composes our messages, condenses our books, creates our reports and spawns our concepts. We skim, rather than read. Rather than reflect, we encourage. Rather than make, we automate.

The threat is not one of total replacement of the human race by AI. The greatest risk is that man slowly starts to imbibe the values of machines.  When every choice is made on the basis of speed, cost and optimisation, we may end up being a civilization of output over understanding. One day we might know that we have the most intelligent machines ever created and forget to remember why books, art and history were important other than for the information they contained.

The Future Should Not Make Us Forget The Past

AI is definitely one of the greatest technological accomplishments of humankind. It could change medicine, education, scientific discovery and many other things. It should keep on going. 

True progress never came when cultural responsibility was given up. It is not a debate on scanning books or training AI Models. It's about the values that will define the future that we are creating. When it comes to preserving our literary heritage, if we're only looking at reducing expenses, we might end up with a world that's been digitised, but with far fewer books remaining.

Inventions are not the only things by which a civilisation is judged in history but also the treasures it chooses to preserve. Maybe someday AI will have the ability to recall all the books people have ever written. But what’s a bigger issue is whether humans will still be able to recall why those books even existed. The problem is trivial right now but in the long run it’ll change the world, and that, perhaps, won’t be for good. 

The resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan marks more than the political fallout of a controversial examination. It represents a defining moment in the relationship between India's youth and the state. Whether viewed as an act of accountability, a strategic political concession, or a response to sustained public pressure, the episode underscores a larger truth: India's education system has reached a point where public trust can no longer be taken for granted.

The NEET-UG 2026 controversy was never merely about a paper leak. It evolved into a national conversation about fairness, institutional credibility, unemployment, and the aspirations of millions of young Indians. For students who had invested years of preparation, family savings, and emotional resilience into one examination, the cancellation of the test represented more than administrative failure—it felt like a breach of the social contract. The examination system had failed those who had done everything society had asked of them.

What transformed this grievance into a nationwide movement was the ability of Generation Z to redefine political participation. Often dismissed as distracted, screen-obsessed, or disengaged, young Indians demonstrated that social media can be the starting point—not the endpoint—of civic action. Memes evolved into mobilisation, online campaigns became street demonstrations, and digital communities translated into disciplined negotiations with the government. The movement challenged long-held assumptions that internet activism lacks endurance or organisational depth.

The emergence of the Cockroach Janta Party as a symbolic platform reflected this shift. By reclaiming a term perceived as derogatory and transforming it into an emblem of resilience, young protesters created a language that resonated with millions facing educational uncertainty and limited employment opportunities. Yet the movement was never confined to one organisation or personality. Independent students, social media creators, established student organisations, educators, and public intellectuals all contributed to a broad coalition that transcended ideological boundaries.

Among the movement's most influential voices was Sonam Wangchuk, whose hunger strike gave the agitation moral legitimacy beyond conventional politics. His insistence on non-violence, dialogue, and constitutional methods shifted public attention from partisan debate to ethical responsibility. Even when his deteriorating health became a matter of national concern, the focus remained on institutional reform rather than individual heroism. His eventual decision to end the fast after receiving written assurances reflected a belief that democratic negotiation remains preferable to permanent confrontation.

Equally significant was the turning point created by the July 20 march towards Parliament. While isolated incidents of violence require impartial investigation, the widespread images of police action altered public perception. The debate expanded beyond examination irregularities to include broader questions about the state's response to peaceful dissent. History repeatedly demonstrates that excessive force often strengthens rather than weakens public movements. According to the source document, attendance at protest sites increased after the crackdown, suggesting that coercion amplified public sympathy instead of discouraging participation.

The political opposition undoubtedly amplified the issue by raising it inside Parliament and demanding ministerial accountability. However, the movement's strength lay in the fact that it could not easily be dismissed as a partisan campaign. Students from diverse ideological, social, and regional backgrounds participated because examination integrity affects every aspirant regardless of political preference. The document further argues that attempts to communalise the protests failed because paper leaks and educational uncertainty cut across religious and party identities. Merit, anxiety, and career aspirations proved stronger unifying forces than identity politics.

The movement also exposed the evolving nature of information warfare. Competing narratives, manipulated visuals, and unverified allegations circulated on all sides. Yet misinformation struggled to overwhelm lived experience. Students did not require political narratives to convince them that an examination had been cancelled or that months of preparation had been disrupted. Their personal experience remained the movement's most persuasive evidence. This highlights an important lesson in the digital age: while misinformation can shape narratives, it cannot easily erase realities experienced by millions.

The government's eventual acceptance of the minister's resignation appears, in the document's analysis, to have been driven by converging pressures—continued protests, parliamentary disruption, expanding public support, and concern that a single examination controversy could evolve into a broader youth movement centred on unemployment, institutional credibility, and governance. The resignation thus served both as an acknowledgment of accountability and as an attempt to contain an escalating crisis.

Yet resignations alone do not repair broken institutions. Restoring confidence in India's examination system demands transparent investigations, stronger safeguards against paper leaks, faster prosecution of offenders, protection for whistle-blowers, and meaningful reforms to testing agencies. Most importantly, students must regain confidence that merit—not manipulation—determines opportunity.

The lasting significance of this episode therefore lies beyond one minister or one examination. It demonstrated that India's youth possess both the organisational capacity and democratic maturity to shape public discourse through constitutional means. They showed that digital mobilisation can coexist with peaceful protest, negotiation, and institutional engagement. Whether governments of the future choose confrontation or dialogue, one message is unmistakable: young citizens expect accountability, transparency, and respect.

India's demographic dividend will remain its greatest strength only if its institutions command the confidence of those who depend on them. The NEET crisis should therefore be remembered not simply as a political controversy, but as a reminder that the future of education rests as much on public trust as on policy itself.

Prof. Ujjwal Anu Chowdhury

The author is Vice President, Washington University of Science and Technology and Editorial Mentor, edInbox.com

CJP Protests made genZ mature. Take a moment to think, no child grows up dreaming of standing behind a police barricade or leading a students’ protest; they dream of standing on a college campus, seeing their parents smile after years of sacrifices, opening an exam result that changes their family's life forever. That is how millions of young Indians are raised.

“Study, work harder, believe that merit will reward you.” For years, that promise kept an entire generation going. Then something changed… When allegations of repeated examination paper leaks and irregularities began shaking the country's biggest competitive exams, students did not just feel cheated.

Many felt that the one thing they had always trusted, i.e. the idea that dedication is enough, was slowly slipping away. That is why what happened at Delhi's Jantar Mantar isn’t a random protest. It became something far bigger; it became a generation asking one question that nobody in power could ignore anymore. It proved the system was gravely defective and that the most unserious generation had to come down to streets for one of the most serious protests while the government only focused on saving its throne!

Neither Education Nor Government Stood For its Youth

What started as a protest over exam irregularities and NEET paper leak turned into one of the country’s biggest youth-led movements in recent years. Thousands of students, job aspirants, parents and supporters gathered at Jantar Mantar with this simple message: if examinations decide a young person’s future then those examinations must be fair, transparent and accountable.

The movement was led by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), a youth organisation that pushed for the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan and also demanded broader reforms in India’s examination system. Over the next few days, the protest went way beyond one political demand. It became, somehow, a conversation about trust, and the biggest yet basic demand – accountability! 

The youth demanded answers from the same government who is pushing to make India vishwaguru. However, with all the paperleaks, youths’ potential going to waste, a corrupted system and monarchy disguised as democracy, the protest that erupted in 2026 was NEEDED. Because it’s better to fight today than let our children fight later. 

Also Read: The Rise of the ‘Cockroach Generation’: Young Indians Are Tired of Pretending Everything Is Fine 

Vishwaguru? Let the Gurus be Educated First!

The matter might look trivial on papers reading as ‘yet another paper leak that caused distress and a few suicides’, but the ground reality is  far beyond mere words inked down; it’s about the basic need from our education system. 

From 2021, the government aggressively started to promote and persuade people to help India become Vishwaguru again. The students took it positively, genZ really set their minds into studying, which was clearly visible as instagram started flooding with memes that could only be understood by educated people. Yes, brainrot trended and cringe content still peaked but memes, phrases, and references that surfaced somewhere reflected how a generation was also focusing on studying.  

However, in the 2026 NEET paper, one of India’s biggest exams, leaked, and when the students demanded answers, when they demanded the system to be fixed permanently so that such an incident never happens, the government ignored, AVOIDED its own youth. Students only yearned for fair exams, better systems, and unbiased education opportunities because corruption only leads to most undeserving people climbing the ladder and decaying the whole civilisation in the long-run. 

Also Read: Cockroach Janta Party Founder Abhijeet Dipke To Protest in Delhi, Demands Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan's Resignation 

NEET Paper Leak 2026

The initial cause for the protest was said to be irregularities in the competitive exams, but the discussion at Jantar Mantar soon shifted from a single examination or recruitment process. Students talked about years of preparation.

Parents shared their experiences of money spent on coaching. Repeated claims of paper leaks and examination failures had led to uncertainty about merit, many protesters said. It wasn't just about one result for them. It was a question of whether hard work still brought opportunity. This fear was not just felt in Delhi, but throughout young India. 

Also read: Why NEET Is No Longer an Entrance Exam Students Can Trust Blindly 

A Protest that Refused to Just Fade Away

The movement picked up speed as students from different states travelled to Delhi. Some had spent years preparing for competitive examinations. Others had watched the same kind of paper-leak allegations keep showing up on headlines. Many arrived with the sense that they had already tried everything else , so this was the last option.

The protest then leaned into something more moral when climate activist Sonam Wangchuk joined the movement and started an indefinite hunger strike, in solidarity with the students.  His presence changed what had looked like yet another student demonstration into a wider national discussion about the future of education.

After 21 days of fasting, Wangchuk was removed from the protest site by Delhi Police and moved to Safdarjung Hospital. Police said the decision came after medical advice and instructions connected to matters before the Delhi High Court, once his health deteriorated. Protest organisers, however, described the removal as forcible , and the videos from the incident spread quickly across social media, sparking a lot of debate.

With Wangchuk hospitalized, CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke announced that he would continue the hunger strike, declaring that the movement would not stop and the Parliament March on 20th July;2026 was still on.

Also read: Indian Students Are Exhausted: How NEET 2026 Exposed a Growing Trust Crisis in Education 

The turning point was the march of "Sansad Chalo"

Despite Delhi Police declaring the march unauthorised and tightening security across central Delhi, thousands gathered with the intention of marching (peacefully) towards Parliament.

What ensued was the most controversial period in the movement. Police deployed barricades, lathi-charge and tear gas when protesters tried to march towards Parliament. As per ground videos, the tear bombs used were expired (the most concerning part). Expired tear gas can become more unstable and potentially more harmful, causing intensified irritation, chemical burns, and unpredictable reactions.

Meanwhile, protest organisers and many participants alleged that police used excessive force against peaceful protesters and falsely accused the protestors of being violent. The internet was flooded with videos showing protestors trying to save themselves from police who started hitting in an attempt to provoke protestors to be violent, until the government decided to cut the internet. 

In all of this, genz and gen alpha clearly saw one basic question arise: what’s something that the government is trying to save or hide?  Because it was a peaceful protest for mere accountability. Moreover, if Dharmendra Pradhan took action or wholeheartedly claimed responsibility, things could have been very different. 

The Images Of The Day Tell Two Stories Now

Some displayed injured police officers, broken barricades and roads strewn with stones. Others were seen carrying injured young protesters to safety, students sitting on roads with handwritten placards, and volunteers carrying the injured to safety while tear gas filled the streets around Parliament. The events were soon the topic of public discussion.

During the protest week, things took a turn as people from different communities started to join. However, because of massive headcounts it became difficult to differentiate between true students and goons disguised as protestors. There were fights, violence that started happening from the protestors’ end. This triggered speculations about conspiracies and ill intentions of an unknown group or party. Despite this, students kept flocking at Jantar Mantar and other districts for peaceful protest while the police allegedly continued provoking them and detaining them. 

Public Voices Join In The Movement

The protests continued and public figures started to react. Actor Alia Bhatt applauded the bravery of the protesters. “Examination paper leaks are a serious matter,” Salman Khan said, adding his condolences to the students who were injured during the protests. He also said, "Sonam, it's done bro," that went viral. 

Veteran actor Naseeruddin Shah, who peacefully went to Jantar Mantar to support the students’ protest, shared a video later questioning why other members of the film industry had not spoken up. 

Singer Arijit Singh condemned the violence witnessed during the protests and later clarified that he was not in favour of the violent protesters or the CJP. He said that students' concerns should have been addressed before it got to this level.

Social activist Anna Hazare appealed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi to listen to the students' concerns and said that accountability makes the government stronger, not weaker. The movement was now a part of the public discourse.

Dhurandhar actress Ayesha Khan who participated in CJP Protest in Mumbai was detained. She shared a video claiming how police detained her and her friend, forced them into the police van and stopped them for joining the protest. 

There were many other influencers who came forward to do what mainstream media refused to do. Big influencers did ground-reporting showing exactly what is happening while other micro influencers who had good followings contributed by choosing to be truthful despite knowing they could be detained or fined for speaking the truth against the government. 

Few of them shared reels and claimed the government emailed them asking to make reels criticizing the movement while appreciating the government efforts, and to get compensation of 40-60 thousand rupees per reel. They also clarified that doing so could make them get arrested or liable to legal actions but are still doing it. They also urged the viewers to remember this as the videos could be taken down very soon. These claims aren’t independently verified, however, the screenshots they attached felt non-ai. Apparently, the credibility remains vague. 

Politics, Accountability And Irony

The political debate on Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan was one of the most talked about issues of the protest. The movement's supporters often cited reports from 1997, when Pradhan was allegedly involved in protests against a paper leak as a student leader.

Critics argued that students demanding accountability today deserved the same hearing that earlier generations had sought. But those who supported the government argued that the current movement had political elements and should not be directly compared with the previous student agitations. The debate was indicative of the extent to which the issue had become a part of the political discourse in India.

The Government's First Response

On 22nd July, Union Health Minister JP Nadda said the ongoing CJP protest and the issues raised by the students should be discussed in Parliament so that a solution can be found.

Speaking amid the continuing agitation over the NEET paper leak, Nadda said it is the responsibility of both the government and the Opposition to discuss the matter in Parliament and work towards resolving it in the interest of students. His remarks came as the protest at Delhi's Jantar Mantar continued to draw nationwide attention and political reactions.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the government would set up fast-track courts to probe examination paper leak cases as pressure mounted. The Prime Minister said that the future of the youth of the country would not be jeopardised by those who would try to do so and added that the protection of students was a national priority.

The announcement was seen by many as a sign that the integrity of exams had become a national issue. But the announcement also left a bigger question unanswered. Does the swiftness of punishment alone restore public confidence?

Also read: PM Modi Announces Fast-Track Courts for Paper Leak Cases, Says Those 'Playing With Students' Future Will Not Be Spared' 

Inside The Movement

As with any large-scale public protest, the demonstrations had their own internal issues. Online criticism was raised after videos were released of a CJP spokesperson visiting fast food restaurants during the protests. The organisation later dismissed him from his official role, stating that his actions were not in line with the values of the movement.

The decision was welcomed by some supporters as evidence that the organisation was willing to hold its own members accountable.

In the interim, the CJP broadened its demands to include the dropping of cases against protesters and action against police officers accused by the organisation of using excessive force. Despite detentions, police presence and repeated clashes, the protests persisted.

Also Read: Sonam Wangchuk Shifted to Hospital, CJP Founder Abhijeet Dipke Begins Hunger Strike; Alleges Police Detention 

Sonam Wangchuk Ends Hunger Strike after 26 Days

On July 23, 2026, Sonam Wangchuk concluded his 26-day hunger strike after he met Union Ministers JP Nadda and Jitendra Singh at Medanta Hospital in Gurugram. He broke his fast in the presence of the ministers and senior leaders of Apex Body of Leh Ladakh. Wangchuk's choice was made after a long negotiation and fear of potential violence in the country. He thanked the Members of Parliament for their support, and called for caution against violence, which has been 65 in number. The government pledged to take no action against the protesters who were demonstrating peacefully and said it was discussing paper leaks and educational reforms.

PM Modi On NEET Paper Leak Released a Midnight Video

Later on 23rd July, PM Modi released a video at midnight addressing the heated topic of NEET Paper leak calling the issue "very painful" and acknowledging the concerns of students and parents. He assured that strict actions would be taken. 

The Prime Minister said several accused in paper leak cases had been identified and arrested over the past two and a half months, and promised strict action against those responsible. He also said that re-examinations were held for almost 22 lakh students and results were declared on July 19 to ensure that their admissions were not delayed.

Modi also said the Union Cabinet would hold a discussion on a proposed anti-paper leak law that will be introduced in Parliament next week. The draft bill would also introduce tougher penalties for those involved in the examination malpractices and fast-track courts to speed up paper leak cases.

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi criticized the address by the Prime Minister for not responding to the demand for the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. Gandhi restated the demands which included the removal of Pradhan, action against those who allegedly assaulted protesting students and an apology from the government.

The Prime Minister's message came before the nationwide protests against the alleged examination irregularities and just after the activist Sonam Wangchuk called off his 26-day hunger strike. The Centre said more legal and administrative changes may be implemented in the future to build trust in the competitive examination system in India.

On the 24th night again PM Modi shared a video to keep Genz engaged. In the reel he thanked them for their feedback on his earlier video and said that it was “good to interact”. In the caption of the reel said, “Thanks to the youngsters who watched my video yesterday and sent insightful suggestions.” GenZ apparently commented funny things but between the lines it reflected how frustrated they felt about the “illogical-reel” that had nothing to do with the trivial demand of students. 

Also Read: PM Modi Releases Midnight Video on NEET Paper Leak as Sonam Wangchuk Ends Hunger Strike on day 26 

Protest That Went Beyond Delhi

What happened in Parliament Street or Jantar Mantar was perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the movement. It was the same in households all over India. Parents who had never protested found themselves talking about examination reforms.

Teachers debated accountability. Students who were preparing for future exams were asking themselves if the system they believed in could ensure fairness. The protest wasn't about ideology for many of the young people. It was a question of certainty. The confidence that years of study should not be jeopardized by alleged corruption or administrative failures.

Dharmendra Pradhan Resigned 

On 25th July, 2026, Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan reportedly sent his resignation to Prime Minister Narendra Modi amid the ongoing Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protests (students protest) in Jantar Mantar demanding his removal over NEET paper leak irregularities.

The development comes hours before the scheduled talks between the Centre and CJP representatives. The two-page letter, addressed to the country's youth and shared on social media, marks one of the biggest political fallouts yet from this year's NEET paper leak controversy.. 

Pradhan in the letter said, “I do not want any student’s future entangled in legal complications. I want our children to focus on studies and career building”.

He also mentioned that the last 10 days had been disturbing to him and that his choice was not based on his image but his conscience. He noted the rising discontent over the issue, including protests at Jantar Mantar, and said that people in power had deceived students during the crisis and that the situation was being politicized.

Also read: CJP Forces Historic Resignation: Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan Resigns  

A Generation Pleading To Be HEARD

Each generation has one question that it will leave behind. This is what it might look like for this generation: Can a nation be a global knowledge power (vishwaguru) if its students don't believe in the exams that define their future?

The CJP protest will be evaluated in a multitude of ways, from the number of people who participated, the debates it provoked, the political debates it created, and the changes it brought and did not bring.

However, its biggest legacy might be something much simpler. It brought India to the realization that every roll number has a name, every result has a family and every allegation of paper leak has the potential of ruining years of hard work.

Some may have agreed with all the memes, slogans, all the demands, all the methods, but the protest put the issue on the agenda that could no longer be ignored. For thousands of young Indians who stood in Delhi for not just an examination but the concept of accountability itself, that conversation could turn out to be the movement's greatest legacy.

In the words of Abhijeet Dipke: Jhukti hai duniya, jhukane wala cahiye

Every examination paper that leaks steals more than a question booklet. It steals years of hard work, family sacrifices, and the belief that merit still matters.

India's latest examination controversy has once again exposed a deeper institutional crisis. The debate is no longer confined to a single paper leak or the resignation of an Education Minister. It has evolved into a larger question: Can young Indians still trust the system that promises opportunity through merit?

The July 20 march to Parliament was born from this question. Tens of thousands of students travelled to Delhi not merely to protest an examination, but to demand accountability from institutions that determine their futures. Their message was simple: when an examination fails, it is not only a test that collapses—it is public faith in governance itself.

A GENERATION THAT DID EVERYTHING RIGHT - AND WAS STILL CHEATED

A generation that was told to study harder has discovered that hard work is no protection against a stolen question paper. It was told to trust merit, only to watch merit become negotiable. It was told that competitive examinations were the republic's great equaliser, only to learn that a leak can turn years of preparation, family debt and private sacrifice into waste overnight.

That is the moral centre of the students' movement now spreading across India. It is not a mystery manufactured in Beijing, Washington or a clandestine ideological cell. It is a public response to a documented institutional crisis. The immediate trigger was the cancellation and re-examination of NEET-UG 2026 after the paper-leak scandal. The National Testing Agency itself recorded 22.79 lakh candidates for the original examination and later notified a nationwide re-test on June 21.[1][2] The wider backdrop is even more damning: repeated leaks in recruitment, entrance and board examinations across states governed by different parties, enormous delays, weak prosecutions and vanishing accountability.

Yet, instead of beginning with the evidence, an influential section of partisan media and social-media propaganda has tried to change the question. Who leaked the paper? becomes Who funds the protesters? Why were safeguards breached? becomes Why was a Faiz song sung? Why are convictions so rare? becomes Which embassy issued a travel alert? The scandal is moved from the examination room to the protest site. Students become suspects; institutions escape the dock.

THE NUMBERS THAT PROPAGANDA CANNOT EXPLAIN AWAY

Before evaluating rumours about the movement, consider the proven scale of the problem. An Indian Express investigation in 2024 documented 41 recruitment-examination leaks in 15 states over five years. Those disruptions affected 1.4 crore applicants competing for just over 1.04 lakh posts.[3] That is not a campus quarrel. It is a mass injury to economic mobility.

A larger 2026 investigation examined 45 major paper-leak cases from 2002 to 2025, each involving at least one lakh applicants. It found that 3.86 crore aspirants had enrolled for the affected examinations. Re-tests were scheduled after an average delay of 183 days; in some cases the disruption stretched to four years. Among 1,658 people arrested, 925 were charge-sheeted, but only 18 were convicted - in merely two cases. Thirty-two were acquitted in two cases and 43 remained in judicial custody when the investigation was published.[4]

The evidence also defeats partisan simplification. Of the 45 major leaks studied by The Indian Express, 23 involved examinations under BJP-ruled governments at the Centre or in states, 14 under Congress-ruled bodies, and the remainder under other parties.[4] Uttar Pradesh topped the list, followed by Rajasthan and Gujarat. The honest conclusion is not that one party invented paper leaks. It is that a nationwide governance failure has persisted across political regimes - and that the Union government carries special responsibility when a national examination administered through a central agency collapses.

NEET-UG magnifies every weakness because the stakes are brutal. More than 2.27 million candidates appeared across 551 cities before the 2026 examination was scrapped, according to a later account compiling official and police information.[6] The NTA had publicly advertised a vast security architecture: over two lakh personnel, more than 6,000 observers, GPS-tracked transport, CCTV feeds, biometric authentication and central monitoring. It also said more than 65 Telegram channels had been blocked for circulating fake papers or fraudulent claims.[7] Yet the exam still had to be cancelled and held again. The gap between promised security and actual failure is exactly why public anger is rational.

This is the factual foundation of the movement. Any theory that claims the agitation is fundamentally foreign-made must explain why millions of affected Indian candidates, repeated cancellations, years of delay and microscopic conviction rates are somehow irrelevant. It cannot.

WHEN AN EXAM FAILURE BECOMES A HUMAN EMERGENCY

The most painful dimension cannot be reduced to statistics. Hindustan Times reported that at least 11 NEET aspirants died by suicide in the 46 days between cancellation and the scheduled re-test, based on police records, family accounts and media reports.[6] The report was careful: in several cases, a direct causal link had not been officially established. That caution must be preserved. Suicide is complex; no responsible account should convert every death into a single-cause political slogan.

But caution is not an excuse for indifference. Families and police accounts repeatedly pointed to examination pressure, uncertainty and the collapse of carefully constructed plans. In one family account reported by Al Jazeera, years of coaching, land sales and household expenditure had been invested in a child's medical ambition. The father's anguished question captured the national grievance: “Can't they protect one paper that decides the future of millions?”[8]

The question is not whether a paper leak mechanically causes every tragedy. The question is whether an already punishing examination culture becomes intolerable when the state itself destroys predictability. Students face a scarce-seat lottery, coaching pressure, family expectations, age limits, financial strain and social comparison. A cancellation forces them to repeat travel, accommodation, preparation and emotional labour. It may collide with other examinations and admissions. It tells an exhausted young person that even perfect compliance cannot guarantee a fair chance.

This is why compensation cannot be discussed only as reimbursement of an examination fee. A credible response must include travel and logistical costs for the re-test, counselling and mental-health support, a transparent grievance mechanism, protection against academic disadvantage, and compassionate assistance to bereaved families without turning grief into political theatre. It must also include media guidelines that avoid sensational details, romanticisation or intrusive coverage of families.

The movement's moral legitimacy grows from this lived reality. Students did not first assemble around a geopolitical doctrine. They assembled around a broken promise: that the same paper, the same rules and the same chance would apply to everyone.

THE COUNTER-NARRATIVE FACTORY: CHANGE THE SUBJECT, CRIMINALISE THE QUESTIONER

Modern propaganda rarely tries to prove that no leak occurred. That would collapse under official notices and the re-test itself. Its more effective strategy is diversion. It accepts the grievance only long enough to declare that the grievance has been “hijacked.” The vocabulary then escalates rapidly: foreign-funded, Deep State, Islamist, communist, urban Naxal, anti-national, opposition-sponsored.

This technique performs three political functions. First, it fractures solidarity by making Hindu participants fear Muslim participants, nationalists fear leftists, and non-party citizens fear opposition parties. Second, it changes the burden of proof. Instead of the examination authority explaining how the paper escaped, each student must prove that no distant activist, political worker or embassy employee has ever interacted with anyone in the crowd. Third, it prepares moral permission for coercion. Once a protest is described as a foreign operation, a baton appears defensive rather than punitive.

The correct evidentiary rule is simple: an allegation of foreign funding requires financial evidence - bank transfers, donor records, contracts, FCRA violations, traced logistics or an official investigation with disclosed findings. An allegation of conspiracy requires coordination evidence - instructions, command structures, communications, material support or operational planning. A photograph, ideological overlap, a song, a diplomatic safety alert or an opposition leader's visit is not a substitute.

The following claims fail that test.

RUMOUR ONE: ‘CHINA FUNDED THE MOVEMENT’

The China narrative has been built through insinuation: some activists associated with left student organisations reportedly attended or interacted with an event linked to the Chinese embassy; therefore the entire CJP mobilisation was controlled or financed by Beijing. A highly polemical Organiser article called the protest a “Red-infested anti-India operation” and asked who paid for tents, logistics and media work.[9]

But the article's own language reveals the absence of proof. It says an inquiry “would need to establish” whether an embassy interaction had any connection to the protest, and that conclusions about gifts or support would depend on an official investigation.[9] In other words, the central connection had not been established. The piece then leaps from unanswered questions to certainty: Beijing must be directing chaos. That is not investigation. It is a presumption wrapped around a hypothetical.

Three distinctions matter.

1. Participation by SFI, AISF, AISA, AIDSO or any other lawful student organisation does not convert a broad protest into a foreign operation. Indian political movements often contain people from parties, unions, independent collectives and unaffiliated citizens. Their ideological identities may be debated; their presence does not prove external command.
2. Attendance at an embassy event is not evidence of funding. Embassies routinely hold cultural, academic, political and outreach events. A financing allegation needs a money trail. No publicly verified bank record, grant document, reimbursement ledger, transfer instruction or official finding has been produced in the reports that pushed the allegation.
3. The movement's expenses are not mysterious merely because they are visible. Public agitations are often sustained through small donations, volunteer kitchens, sympathetic associations, local transport pools, digital creators and in-kind support. Those arrangements should be transparently disclosed by organisers, especially at scale. Transparency is good democratic hygiene. But “we do not yet know every donor” does not logically become “China paid.”

The appropriate verdict is therefore: unsubstantiated. If a competent agency has evidence of unlawful foreign finance, it should publish legally admissible findings and prosecute the offence. Until then, naming China functions as a political fog machine designed to obscure Indian administrative failure.

RUMOUR TWO: ‘THE US DEEP STATE KNEW - SO IT MUST HAVE PLANNED IT’

The second narrative treats a US Embassy demonstration alert as proof of advance conspiracy. The embassy advised American citizens on July 17 to avoid expected crowds and disruptions around central Delhi on July 20 and 21. A television report framed this as suspicious “foreknowledge.”[10]

The chronology dismantles the mystery. The march was not secret. Sonam Wangchuk and CJP figures had publicly spoken about the July 20 Parliament march days earlier; Reuters reported the plan on July 14.[11] The Monsoon Session of Parliament was opening. Farmer organisations had separately announced a July 21 mobilisation. Police deployment, traffic restrictions and public calls were visible. An embassy that failed to warn its citizens about such announced events would be neglecting its routine consular function.

Even the report that raised the conspiracy question conceded that demonstration alerts are standard diplomatic practice and are commonly based on open-source intelligence, local news, police announcements and public schedules.[10] No evidence in the alert shows funding, tactical guidance, communication with CJP or direction of the protest. It advised avoidance, not participation.

This is a classic conspiracy fallacy: because an institution anticipated an event, it must have caused it. By that logic, every traffic advisory would prove the traffic police organised the rally. Prediction is not authorship. Public knowledge is not clandestine control.

The appropriate verdict is false inference. A genuine “Deep State” allegation would require evidence of covert material support or command. A public safety notice about a publicly announced march proves neither.

RUMOUR THREE: ‘AN ALLAH SONG PROVES AN ISLAMIST CONSPIRACY’

A clipped video of a woman singing words associated with Faiz Ahmed Faiz's “Hum Dekhenge” was used to portray the movement as communal or Islamist. The line most often isolated refers to Allah. Removed from literary and historical context, it is made to sound like a sectarian declaration.

The history points in the opposite direction. “Hum Dekhenge” was written in 1979 as a political challenge to General Zia-ul-Haq's dictatorship in Pakistan - a regime that used religious authority to justify repression. The poem uses Islamic metaphor against authoritarian power; it became a South Asian protest anthem precisely because it turned the ruler's sacred vocabulary back toward justice and popular sovereignty.

One may like or dislike the poem. Organisers may reasonably choose songs that are less vulnerable to communal clipping. But a cultural performance by one participant cannot establish the religious character of a nationwide movement whose stated demands concern examination integrity, accountability, compensation and ministerial responsibility. To call Muslim vocabulary automatically anti-national is itself a communal act: it tells Indian Muslims that their language, poetry and devotional references are presumptively foreign.

The appropriate verdict is twofold. The song claim is decontextualised guilt by association. The Jamaat letter is fabricated content. Neither proves communal control of the movement.

RUMOUR FOUR: ‘URBAN NAXALS AND EXTREME COMMUNISTS ARE USING STUDENTS’

“Urban Naxal” is now less a precise security description than an expandable political label. It can be applied to a lawyer demanding arrest memos, a professor questioning policy, a student union carrying a red flag, an environmentalist fasting, or a citizen asking for independent investigation. Its utility lies in vagueness: the accusation is emotionally grave but evidentially elastic.

There is a legitimate distinction between democratic left politics and proscribed armed Maoist activity. SFI, AISF, AIDSO and AISA are public student organisations operating in universities and elections. Their slogans and politics are open to criticism. But their presence at a rally does not establish an armed-insurgency conspiracy. Proof would require links to a banned organisation, violent operational planning, weapons, illegal finance or command instructions - not ideological adjectives.

The movement's principal methods have been sit-ins, hunger strikes, public speeches, marches, social-media satire and demands addressed to constitutional institutions. Sonam Wangchuk's intervention reinforced a Gandhian frame: bodily sacrifice, non-violence and moral pressure. He was moved to hospital against his wishes on the twenty-first day of his fast after doctors warned of serious health risk.[15] To redescribe that method as Maoist strategy is not merely inaccurate; it erases the obvious difference between civil disobedience and armed rebellion.

The charge also ignores the social composition of the anger. CJP's online rise drew students, job-seekers, families, professionals and politically unaffiliated youth. Reuters linked its expansion to youth unemployment and recurring exam failures; the official unemployment rate for people aged 15-29 was nearly 10 per cent in 2025 and 13.6 per cent in urban India. Those material anxieties do not need a secret ideology to become explosive.

The appropriate verdict is categorical inflation: the use of an extremist label without extremist evidence.

RUMOUR FIVE: ‘ALL ANTI-MODI FORCES ARE BAKING THEIR BREAD’

Opposition parties have supported the agitation. Rahul Gandhi and other leaders backed the demand for the Education Minister's resignation; Parliament was repeatedly disrupted after the July 20 events, and protests spread to multiple cities.[16] Political parties will naturally seek advantage from a government failure. That is not a revelation. It is electoral politics.

But opportunistic support does not invalidate an underlying grievance. A bridge does not become sound because the opposition photographed its collapse. Nor does a leaked exam become fair because a rival party joins the march. The correct test is whether the evidence preceded the political embrace. Here it plainly did: cancellation, re-test, affected candidates, suicides, investigation records and low conviction rates were public facts before the opposition's full-scale intervention.

The cross-party history of leaks is especially important. Congress governments have presided over serious examination failures; regional parties have too.[4] Student organisers should therefore resist becoming an appendage of any one party and demand a national reform compact binding all governments. Yet the ruling party cannot use the opposition's presence to escape its present responsibility for a national examination administered under the Union education system.

The appropriate verdict is diversion. Opposition participation may alter the movement's optics and strategy; it does not erase the documented case for accountability.

THE FAKE-CONTENT ASSEMBLY LINE

The propaganda war has not remained at the level of opinion. It has produced forged documents, AI images and recycled videos.

BOOM identified AI-generated images carrying fabricated testimony from a supposed police inspector who allegedly claimed Wangchuk himself had sought removal to hospital. No credible record supported the named officer's quotation, and image-detection analysis indicated synthetic generation.[17] BOOM also found that two videos circulated to construct a pro-police narrative were old and unrelated: one showed a “We Support Delhi Police” event from November 2025; another showed an officer and a Palestinian flag in footage dating to 2023.[18]

India Today found that a clip presented as a CJP protester attempting to burn a car was actually from Gaya, Bihar, after a road accident on July 16, before the Parliament march.[19] Alt News's investigation of the forged Jamaat letter exposed how a badly constructed document crossed the boundary from partisan accounts into television coverage.[14]

Accuracy, however, cannot be partisan. Newschecker found that a video used by some accounts to accuse Delhi Police of vandalising vehicles during the July 20 march was actually from a July 13 BJP protest in Datia, Madhya Pradesh.[20] Delhi Police also denied viral claims that a woman protester had died during the lathi-charge; at the time of writing, no verified death had been established.[21] These corrections matter. A movement demanding truth from the state must apply the same standard to its own information ecosystem.

The lesson is not “believe the police” or “believe the protesters.” It is: verify the specific claim. Check date, location, original uploader, shadows and hands in AI images, signage, uniforms, weather, vehicle plates, reverse-image results, medical records and named witnesses. Do not let emotional alignment replace evidence.

This discipline strengthens the movement rather than weakening it. False stories are gifts to those who wish to discredit real abuse. Every organiser should maintain a rapid-verification desk, publish corrections prominently, preserve original files and metadata, and discourage anonymous sensational claims. Credibility is a strategic asset.

JULY 20: WHEN A MARCH TOWARD PARLIAMENT MET THE BATON

The Sansad March on July 20 was publicly called in the name of examination accountability and the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. Wangchuk had urged preparation for it before being removed to hospital. Tens of thousands of young people gathered in New Delhi as the Monsoon Session opened. Reuters reported police using tear gas and batons to push protesters back; the Associated Press likewise described force used against marchers moving toward Parliament.[16][22]

The state had not granted permission for the march to proceed to Parliament. Police erected barricades and treated attempts to cross them as a security breach. Delhi Police later alleged that protesters became “unruly, aggressive and violent,” attacked personnel, damaged public property and attempted to break barriers despite warnings. Police said 70 protesters were detained. Their reported injury count was 118 police personnel and roughly 60 protesters; they also alleged damage to government vehicles.[23]

Those claims cannot simply be discarded. Video cited in contemporaneous reporting showed some protesters attacking police. Anyone who assaulted an officer or deliberately destroyed property should face a fair, individualised investigation. A democratic movement has no licence to turn collective anger into indiscriminate violence.

But police accountability is not cancelled by protester misconduct. Other videos showed personnel in plain clothes wielding batons and striking protesters as barricades were breached.[24] Participants alleged male officers hit women, and viral images showed serious injuries. Protesters also alleged the use of pellet guns; Delhi Police denied that allegation. Because the claim is contested, it should not be presented as settled fact. It requires medical records, forensic examination of injuries, weapon logs, CCTV footage and an independent inquiry.

The central human-rights question is proportionality. Were clear dispersal warnings given and audible? Were safe exit routes available? Were non-violent participants separated from those committing offences? Were women handled by women personnel? Were journalists, medics and legal observers protected? Was force targeted at an immediate threat, or applied broadly after the line broke? Were plainclothes personnel identifiable and accountable? Were detainees informed of grounds and documented?

India's Constitution protects freedom of speech and the right to assemble peaceably and without arms under Article 19, subject to reasonable restrictions. Article 21 protects life and personal liberty, while Article 22 establishes safeguards concerning arrest and detention.[25] In Anuradha Bhasin, the Supreme Court emphasised that restrictions on fundamental rights must satisfy proportionality and that the state should use the least restrictive measure available; it also directed publication of orders restricting telecom services so affected people can challenge them.[26]

These standards do not guarantee a march to any route at any time. Parliament and central Delhi require security. But “no permission” is not a magic phrase that legalises every subsequent blow. The police duty is dual: prevent violence and protect citizens, including citizens with whom the government strongly disagrees.

THE CURTAIN AROUND SONAM WANGCHUK

Two days before the march, Wangchuk was moved from the protest site to hospital against his stated wishes. Reuters reported that he was on the twenty-first day of his hunger strike and that doctors were concerned about hypokalaemia, a potentially dangerous fall in blood potassium.[15] The Delhi High Court had asked authorities to monitor his health and intervene if necessary.

The state therefore faced a genuine duty-of-care dilemma. It could not ignore a life-threatening medical decline. But the visual and procedural choices mattered. Footage showed personnel surrounding the site while large white sheets were held up as a screen during his removal.[15] Supporters interpreted the operation as abduction and silencing. Authorities described it as medically necessary.

A rights-respecting response should have maximised transparency: independent doctors acceptable to the patient and family, written medical findings, access to counsel, a recorded explanation of legal authority, and continuing ability to communicate unless a specific lawful restriction applied. The stronger the state claims benevolent necessity, the stronger its obligation to show that coercion was narrowly tailored to saving life rather than suppressing speech.

Wangchuk's role also undermines the attempt to caricature the movement as nihilistic. His public life is associated with alternative education, ecological protection and non-violent advocacy. One may disagree with his demand for a minister's resignation or criticise the ethics of a prolonged hunger strike. But his participation placed the crisis within a recognisably Indian tradition: the citizen's body used as a moral appeal to power. A government confident in its democratic legitimacy should answer that appeal with dialogue, not opacity.

MUMBAI: FROM STREET CONTROL TO DIGITAL CONTROL

After the Delhi confrontation, the pressure shifted from visible barricades to the less visible domain of phones, locations, notices and fear. Students in Mumbai told The Times of India that they were directed to share live locations, received notices through messaging platforms at around 3 a.m., spent hours in police stations, surrendered phones that were returned with signs they interpreted as surveillance, were denied copies of “zero FIRs,” and received calls from multiple security agencies.[27] One student described being held for nearly seven hours; organisers alleged that prolonged detention was intended to exhaust participants and deter them from returning.

These are allegations, not yet judicial findings. Technical claims that a phone was compromised require forensic examination. Police may lawfully seek information or seize a device under defined legal powers in an investigation. But informal demands, unexplained access, location tracking without disclosed authority and pressure applied to peaceful participants raise grave concerns under the constitutional right to privacy recognised by the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy.[28]

The most alarming reported episode was not merely alleged by protesters and left there. A viral video appeared to show a Mumbai Police driver threatening students that drugs could be planted on them and narcotics cases filed if they protested again. Mumbai Police ordered an inquiry, identified the driver and removed him from his current posting pending completion of the probe.[29] That institutional response is significant: it shows the allegation was serious enough to demand immediate administrative action.

A threat to fabricate a narcotics case is not ordinary rough language. It invokes one of the state's most coercive legal regimes, where arrest, stigma and prolonged litigation can destroy a young person's education and employment. Even if uttered by one individual without institutional instruction, it creates a chilling message: participation can be converted into criminal identity.

Reports also indicated that more than 150 people were detained and cases registered during protest-related action in Mumbai.[30] In one widely reported incident, a young woman blocked a police vehicle and demanded arrest memos for those being taken away. Whatever one thinks of her tactic, the legal instinct was correct: detention cannot become an undocumented disappearance into procedure. Grounds, records, station location, access to counsel and information to family are not favours; they are safeguards against abuse.

Digital intimidation is particularly corrosive because it follows the student home. A lathi-charge ends physically; the suspicion that one's location is being tracked, contacts mapped and future career flagged can produce long-term self-censorship. It turns the smartphone - the movement's organising tool - into a source of anxiety.

Mumbai Police should therefore publish clear answers. Under what law were live locations requested? Which devices were accessed, imaged or retained, and with whose authorisation? Were seizure memos issued? What data was copied? Were notices validly served? How many people were detained, arrested or released? Which FIRs were registered, and why were copies allegedly unavailable? What safeguards prevent use of protest participation as a basis for unrelated surveillance?

A DEMOCRACY DOES NOT FEAR THE RECEIPT

The movement's immediate demands are often summarised as a ministerial resignation. But resignation alone would be symbolic unless accompanied by structural reform. India needs a public examination integrity architecture that makes failure traceable rather than endlessly deniable.

First, every major examination should have an auditable chain of custody from question creation to printing, encryption, transport, storage, opening and digital transmission. Responsibility must be assigned by name and function. Independent red-team testing should attempt to breach the system before candidates are exposed to it.

Second, vendors and subcontractors must be transparent. Security cannot disappear into a maze of private printers, logistics companies and software providers. Contracts should specify cybersecurity standards, background checks, data minimisation, breach reporting, financial liability and debarment.

Third, an automatic candidate-compensation protocol should activate upon cancellation. It should cover fees, travel and reasonable documented expenses; offer schedule protection; and provide counselling. Families should not have to protest separately for basic relief.

Fourth, investigations should be time-bound and publicly reported without compromising trials. The 2026 record - 45 major cases, 1,658 arrests and convictions in only two cases - demonstrates why arrest statistics cannot be sold as accountability.[4] The public needs to know whether organisers, insiders, officials and beneficiaries are actually prosecuted.

Fifth, responsibility must travel upward. Junior invigilators and middlemen cannot be the only visible accused while senior administrators treat a nationwide re-test as a weather event. Parliamentary oversight, an independent technical audit and published findings are essential.

Sixth, protest policing needs transparent protocols. Body-camera and CCTV footage should be preserved; force reports should specify units, weapons, timing and authorisation; medical data should be independently compiled; and allegations against both protesters and police should be investigated by a body not directly implicated in the confrontation.

Seventh, the movement itself must institutionalise non-violence and verification. Volunteer marshals, legal observers, first-aid teams, women-safety teams, clear route discipline and a public correction desk can prevent provocateurs, panic and fake media from hijacking the cause. Organisers should publish audited accounts of donations and expenses. Transparency is the strongest answer to foreign-funding rumours.

Eighth, dialogue must have a timetable and minutes. Meetings without written commitments become instruments of delay. A negotiation should specify which demands are accepted, rejected or under examination, by whom, and by what date.

THE REAL ANTI-NATIONAL ACT IS TO DESTROY FAITH IN MERIT

National strength is not measured by how effectively a government can silence embarrassment. It is measured by whether institutions correct themselves before citizens lose faith in them.

A paper leak is not a minor administrative mishap. It is theft from the honest. It transfers advantage from the disciplined to the connected, from the poor family that sells land to the network that buys access. It corrodes recruitment, public services, medicine, education and the legitimacy of the state. When millions conclude that effort is less powerful than influence, the republic loses human capital and moral authority.

The students on the street are therefore not weakening India by exposing the failure. They are demanding that India become worthy of their effort. Their patriotism lies in refusing to normalise fraud. Their constitutionalism lies in addressing Parliament, courts, ministries and the public. Their anger is not a foreign import; it is the domestic product of unanswered evidence.

The state has the right to ask protesters to remain peaceful. Protesters have the right to demand the same discipline from the state. The media has the right to investigate ideological participation, finance and violence. It has no right to forge, recycle or insinuate its way around facts. Opposition parties may support the movement. They should not capture it. Ruling parties may defend their record. They cannot communalise or criminalise every critic.

The most powerful response to misinformation is not another slogan. It is a public ledger of truth: how many examinations failed, how they failed, who profited, who was charged, who was convicted, what candidates lost, what compensation was paid, what force was used, who authorised it, what phones were searched, and under which law.

This movement will ultimately be judged not by its most viral meme or its angriest moment, but by whether it converts pain into reform. It must remain inclusive, secular, non-violent, transparent and fiercely factual. It must refuse both the state's conspiracy theatre and its own temptation to circulate unverified outrage. It must keep the focus where power wants it removed: on the stolen paper, the delayed future and the missing accountability.

India's students are not asking for privilege. They are asking for the examination they paid for, prepared for and were promised. They are asking that a mark reflect knowledge, not access to a leak. They are asking that peaceful dissent not become a police dossier. They are asking that the Constitution be visible not only in textbooks, but at barricades and inside police stations.

That demand is not anti-India. It is India insisting on itself. For accountability. For governance. For transparency. For democracy.

Prof. Ujjwal Anu Chowdhury The author is Vice President, Washington University of Science and Technology and Editorial Mentor, edInbox.com

When a Builder of Ice Becomes a Voice for Justice

Sonam Wangchuk has spent his life solving problems that seemed impossible. He built artificial glaciers in one of the world’s coldest and driest regions. He challenged conventional education models by creating learning spaces where children once labelled as failures could rediscover confidence. He demonstrated that innovation does not always require complexity—sometimes it requires understanding nature, people, and timing.

Today, Wangchuk’s public campaigns and advocacy have placed him at the centre of a larger national conversation: How does a democracy respond when citizens feel unheard?

His story is no longer only about ice stupas, sustainable architecture, or alternative education. It is about the relationship between citizens and institutions, between public concern and political response, and between the moral voice of an individual and the machinery of the state.

The Crisis of Trust Behind the Protest

Across India, concerns over examination systems, recruitment processes, and opportunities for young people have created anxiety among students and families. Whenever allegations of irregularities emerge in competitive examinations, the damage extends beyond individual results—it affects confidence in fairness itself.

For millions of young Indians, education is the pathway to dignity, employment, and social mobility. When that pathway appears uncertain, frustration grows. The demand from citizens is often not for dramatic change overnight, but for transparency, accountability, and systems that can regain public trust.

Wangchuk’s interventions have repeatedly focused on this question: How can institutions become more responsive to the people they serve?

The Innovator Who Turned Challenges into Solutions

Born in Ladakh, Sonam Wangchuk’s journey reflects the power of practical problem-solving. After studying engineering, he returned his attention to the challenges faced by Himalayan communities—limited resources, harsh climate conditions, and educational difficulties.

His most celebrated innovation, the Ice Stupa, transformed the way communities think about water conservation. By storing winter water as ice structures that melt gradually during warmer months, the project addressed a crucial agricultural challenge: the mismatch between water availability and farming needs.

The idea was simple but revolutionary. Instead of fighting nature, Wangchuk worked with natural cycles.

Education Beyond the Classroom

Wangchuk’s contribution to education has been equally influential. Through the Students’ Educational and Cultural Movement of Ladakh (SECMOL), he promoted an alternative approach where students learn through responsibility, practical skills, and real-world experience.

The campus became an example of sustainable living, using renewable energy, local resources, and student participation as tools of education. Its philosophy challenged the idea that examination scores alone define intelligence or potential.

The larger lesson was powerful: education should discover talent, not merely measure memory.

From Innovation to Public Advocacy

In recent years, Wangchuk has emerged as a prominent voice on environmental protection, local rights, and sustainable development in Ladakh. His campaigns have highlighted concerns about preserving fragile Himalayan ecosystems while ensuring that local communities have a meaningful role in decisions affecting their future.

His style of activism has remained closely connected to his engineering philosophy—peaceful, creative, and focused on solutions.

The Real Question Before India

The importance of Sonam Wangchuk’s journey lies not only in one individual but in what his example represents.

A nation’s strength is not measured only by its infrastructure, technology, or economic growth. It is also measured by how it responds to voices of concern, especially those raised by people who have spent their lives contributing to society.

A democracy does not become weaker when citizens question systems. It becomes stronger when institutions have the capacity to listen, engage, and improve.

Beyond the Hero Narrative

India often celebrates innovators after their ideas succeed. But the deeper challenge is creating a society where innovators, educators, scientists, and social reformers are heard while they are still working—not only remembered after they are gone.

Sonam Wangchuk’s life offers an important reminder: solutions do not always come from powerful offices. Sometimes they emerge from classrooms, mountains, villages, and communities.

The man who built ice in the desert has spent decades teaching India a simple lesson—human creativity can overcome scarcity when knowledge is combined with compassion.

The question now is whether India’s institutions can demonstrate the same spirit of problem-solving that Wangchuk has shown throughout his life.

Because the greatest innovation any democracy can create is not a machine or a structure. It is trust.

Prof Ujjwal K Chowdhury is the Pro Vice Chancellor of Techno India University, and a regular writer on education,media and world affairs.