Protesting is one of our most important democratic rights. It ensures the most fair and efficient running of a country because it allows new ideas to be raised, criticisms to be vented. If you suppress all protest, societal discontent builds like a pressure cooker. Sooner or later, it’s going to blow, and in that chaos, all sorts of bad actors can try and gain power. That’s the real importance of protest. It means something for both a society and for an individual. It gives us agency when so often we can feel powerless. It is such a worthwhile thing to come together and petition for reform. In too many countries, it’s a privilege, but it should be our human right.

He was the president who proclaimed the two-year period of Emergency that marked such a difficult period in India's political history. This, and his subsequent death in office, marked him in public memory forever as the “Emergency President”.

After Indira Gandhi revoked the emergency and declared general elections, he contested for General Elections, won from the Nandyal Parliamentary Constituency and became Speaker in the Lok Sabha as the democracy had been restored after two years of emergency, which came about through democratic process of the ballot.

Jokes making fun of Mr. Modi, or Facebook posts of lay citizens, and films criticizing his government are met with police complaints, legal cases, and threats by the ruling party and its larger ideological family. BJP-led state governments have also introduced draconian bills to curb free speech. India’s democracy is at a critical juncture. After the Emergency declared by the Congress government in 1975 which legally curbed press freedoms, we have not witnessed such levels of abnegation of free speech. (The otherwise-activist Indian judiciary too has maintained a deafening silence on the judge’s death.) It would not be wrong to consider this present conjuncture as marking a deterioration in that regard.

We all have a responsibility in forging a more dignified Venezuela, but not in violent forms. The right to protest is a civil right granted by the Constitution that the State must recognize. No one can deny or hide that there is rampant violence and insecurity. the State must assume its role of governing for all citizens and not just for one faction.

The external emergency proclaimed in 1971 has been revoked by me. Action has been taken to: to remove the remaining curbs on the fundamental freedoms and civil rights of the people; restore rule of law and the right of free expression to the press; review the Internal Security Act without denying the right to approach the courts; legislation to ensure that no political party is banned except on adequate grounds and after an independent judicial enquiry; repeal of The Prevention of Publication of Objectionable Matters Act; and Amendment to the Representatives of People’s Act. Suitable amendments to the Constitution shall be also be introduced to restore balance between the people and the Parliament.

The rights that we upheld can be termed Theoretical Rights. They weren’t directly related to the common citizens’ daily life...what we demanded was democracy; what we’ve got party-cracy. [...] But the questions that some folks had asked me back then continue to remain intact. Mahatma Gandhi himself led this haste. The day after the riots at Vidurashwatha, he sent a telegram to Diwan Mirza [Ismail] thus: “Give the Responsible Government immediately. People have registered their qualification for it.” What’s the import of this? That mob enthusiasm is a proof of qualification, right? [...] Why has what appeared as an attractive political system become so abhorrent in practical experience? To state the truth, we cheated ourselves...back then, we didn’t have an estimate of how wretched human nature will become when confronted with the treasure called power. Our activist zeal concealed basic, natural human weaknesses from us.

"Protests are a part of our democratic heritage and our democratic privilege ... [<nowiki/>US and British efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq] are finally getting those countries to the place that actually people might have the same privilege of protest". The Guardian, 2003-11-15

Mrs Gandhi invoked the "threat of fascism", meaning the RSS, as a justification for the suspension of democracy. On the strength of the evidence of 1975, the allegation of "fascism" and of anti-democratic intentions levelled against the Hindu movement is not that inccocent: it is a rhetorical preparation to anti-democratic measures of the "secularist" parties... We should also keep in mind that the amendment to the Constitution which declared India a "secular, socialist" republic was passed without proper parliamentary debate in 1976 at the height of the Emergency dictatorship. The facts of history do not support the linkage of "Hindu communalist" with "anti-democratic", nor that of "secular" with "democratic".

If a protest does not pose a serious threat to public safety, it should not be prevented, even if the municipality had not been informed about it. The Constitution protects people’s right to assemble.

Revolt is the right of the people

As President, he put signature to the order on promulgation of Emergence on 25 June 1975 – the most notable decision of the presidential term. This move was widely criticized by the opposition leaders who considered it a servile act, driven more by considerations of being seen as loyal to the Nehru-Gandhi family, rather than of genuine concern for the safety of the government.

The Emergency which Islam had imposed after its advent in India and which had caused resentment among Hindus for a long time, now stood fully sanctioned by the Hindu elite. All religions were equal. But Islam was more equal.

Protest beyond the law is not a departure from democracy; it is absolutely essential to it.