The return of the goon squad

The theatrical, disruptive Youth Congress protest at the AI summit reflects a steady decline in political decorum

At a moment when India sought to present itself as a serious, future-facing civilisational state – hosting an international AI Impact Conference in New Delhi attended by Heads of State, senior government leaders, and global technology CEOs – the spectacle that unfolded inside the venue was jarring.

A small group claiming to be members of the Indian Youth Congress forced its way into the proceedings. In a choreographed act of disruption, they stripped down to their upper undergarments, raised slogans against the in-principle India-US trade understanding, and accused the Prime Minister of being compromised. In an especially ironic gesture, some among them reportedly compared their conduct to the bare-chested austerity of Mahatma Gandhi, a comparison so historically and morally misplaced that it deserves scrutiny of its own.

The target of the protest was unmistakable: Prime Minister Narendra Modi. His image, emblazoned on T-shirts worn by the protesters and dramatically removed during the disruption, became the centrepiece of a political theatre designed not for persuasion but for provocation. The slogans were accusatory, the method confrontational, and the intent – to embarrass the government before a global audience – transparent.

Yet what makes this episode deeply troubling is not merely this embarrassment. Democracies are no strangers to protest. Dissent is legitimate, necessary, and often salutary. But the form dissent takes matters. When political engagement degenerates into performative outrage, when entry into a high-security international forum is exploited for spectacle rather than substantive critique, and when moral symbolism is appropriated without moral discipline, we must ask whether something more corrosive is at work.

The invocation of Mahatma Gandhi is particularly revealing. Gandhi’s bareness was not theatrical; it was ethical. It was an expression of tapasya – of self-restraint, of moral seriousness, of solidarity with India’s poorest. It was undergirded by iron discipline and an unwavering commitment to non-violence and truth. To equate that moral practice with an orchestrated act of disruption is to conflate sacrifice with spectacle. It reduces a philosophy of ethical resistance to a meme.

Reports suggest that the conduct drew condemnation across political lines and from civil society voices who viewed the disruption as an assault on the dignity of the forum itself, and hence of the country. International conferences are not party rallies; they are spaces where national interest must supersede political calculus. To weaponise such a platform for domestic political theatre is to signal that no institutional space is sacrosanct.

The larger question, however, concerns political culture. The once formidable Indian National Congress – the party that led India’s freedom movement and shaped the Republic’s early decades – now finds itself associated, at least in this episode, with a style of politics that is reactive rather than reflective. Whether or not the party’s senior leadership explicitly authorised the protest, the optics are unmistakable. When individuals claim to represent the party and its leader, their conduct inevitably colours public perception.

Virality of dissent

Political decline rarely announces itself with a single event. It reveals itself in patterns – in the erosion of internal debate, in the narrowing of leadership circles, in the substitution of ideological clarity with sloganeering. The Congress of Nehru and Patel, of Azad and Shastri, was animated by intense ideological contestation within its ranks. It produced policy frameworks, articulated competing visions of development, and engaged adversaries with intellectual seriousness. That tradition appears distant when protest devolves into choreographed disruption. It would be facile to reduce the matter to partisan rivalry. The malaise runs deeper.

Across the political spectrum, we are witnessing the normalisation of what might be called ‘street combat politics’, a mode of engagement that privileges an aggressive, amoral, and unreasoned disruption. The irony is stark. The AI conference was meant to signal India’s technological maturity; its readiness to engage the world on the frontiers of artificial intelligence, innovation, and digital governance. Instead, the images that circulated were of disrobing protesters and slogan-shouting theatrics. In a globalised media environment, symbolism travels faster than nuance. A handful of individuals can distort the narrative of an entire event.

There is, of course, a legitimate debate to be had about the contours of an India-US trade understanding. Trade agreements affect domestic industry, labour markets, regulatory sovereignty, and geopolitical alignment.
Critics are entitled to demand transparency, to question terms, and to mobilise public opinion. But effective critique requires facts, analysis,
and sustained engagement – not
symbolic gestures designed for viral circulation.

If the ‘goon squad’ has indeed returned – as this episode suggests – it is because of the decline of morality in public life. Political incentives reward lumpen elements because outrage garners more attention than argument, and because leadership across parties hesitates to discipline excess, even encourages it, to serve narrow political ends. The remedy is neither censorship nor overreaction. It is a recommitment to standards. Political leaders must insist that those who claim to act in their name uphold a minimum threshold of decorum. Leadership must be measured not only by its capacity to mobilise but by its willingness to restrain.

‘What a fall it has been,’ one is tempted to say of a party once synonymous with India’s democratic awakening. But the more sobering reflection is broader: what a fall it would be if such conduct became normalised across our political life. India’s civic culture is fragile. It is shaped daily by what we reward, what we condemn, and what we tolerate. If we fail to draw a line between principled protest and performative provocation, we may discover that the true casualty is the standards that make democratic disagreement meaningful.

For a republic that aspires to global leadership, that would be a paradox too serious to ignore.

(The writer is Director, School of Social Sciences, Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.