Arza Sait
University of Birmingham, Dubai
When India’s Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan resigned on July 25, 2026, after weeks of protest by the Cockroach Janta Party, a youth-led movement that followed the leak of a medical entrance exam paper, it marked a rare concession by the government. The party’s core demand was the resignation of the education minister over the NEET-UG paper leak, along with several other demands, such as compensation for the families of students who died by suicide amid the crisis. In Bangladesh, meanwhile, a similarly student-led protest took a different turn: instead of pressing for the education minister’s resignation, students opted to demand reforms to the examination system.
This article compares the two youth-led protest movements in India and Bangladesh, assessing their outcomes and asking whether India’s ministerial resignation signals accountability or failure, in contrast to Bangladesh’s decision to pursue reform without one.
A Resignation in Delhi, A Reform in Dhaka
The protests in India began when roughly two million students were forced to resit the NEET exam after the paper was leaked. This led many students to lose hope and patience, and the disruption resulted in several students taking their own lives. The Cockroach Janta Party was formed around the same time, after the Chief Justice of India remarked that unemployed youth were like cockroaches. Online campaigns grew as young people expressed their anger, and the movement soon turned into street protests at Jantar Mantar and other cities across India.
The party demanded the resignation of the education minister, holding him accountable for the paper leak, a lack of responsibility, and what protesters called a massive integrity failure. It also demanded compensation of one crore rupees for the families of NEET aspirants who died by suicide amid the stress, uncertainty, and pressure of the re-exam process. The protests continued for weeks, adding sustained political pressure on the government.
In Bangladesh, meanwhile, the government held HSC exams during severe flooding and heavy rain, even after many students requested a postponement as widespread waterlogging hit Dhaka and other districts right as the exams were underway. Many students struggled to reach exam centres, with some forced to wade through knee-deep floodwater. Students also reported errors in the physics papers, which further fuelled anger over how the exams were being administered. Around 11,000 candidates were unable to sit the exam because of the flooding, and protesters demanded a second chance for them, since many students’ futures and careers depended on these results.
Protesters initially called for the resignation of Education Minister Dr ANM Ehsanul Hoque Milon, alongside a postponement of the remaining exams and retests for flood-affected students. That resignation demand was later withdrawn, however, and replaced with a six-point list of reforms focused on optional retests for candidates, full marks for the flawed physics questions, and a calmer, more supportive exam environment.
Why the Responses Diverged
The Bangladeshi students’ choice to withdraw the resignation demand reflected a sharper read of the situation. A minister’s resignation is often the path of least resistance for a government, a symbolic gesture that placates public anger and creates the appearance of accountability, without guaranteeing that anything actually changes. A new minister can simply inherit the same broken system, the same flawed processes, and the same structural gaps that caused the crisis in the first place. Removing one person doesn’t fix the exam schedule, correct erroneous question papers, or protect students from being penalised for administrative failures outside their control.
Bangladesh’s students seemed to understand this distinction clearly: rather than settle for a symbolic win, they opted for reforms optional retests for flood-affected candidates, full marks for erroneous questions, and more student-friendly exam centres changes that would concretely benefit students long after the news cycle moved on. A resignation ends a controversy. Reform ends the conditions that caused it.
India and Bangladesh: A Study in Contrasts
Pradhan’s resignation, then, is not simply proof of failure or proof of accountability; it is evidence of an elected government responding to the threat of losing votes ahead of key state elections. Weeks of sustained pressure, media scrutiny, and a viral youth movement eventually made the political cost of keeping him in office too high to bear. Milon’s continued presence in office, by contrast, is not proof that Bangladesh’s government dodged accountability.
It reflects a minister serving an interim administration that was never elected and therefore has no vote to lose, which removes the same political leverage that ultimately forced Pradhan out. Just as importantly, it reflects a deliberate choice made by the students themselves, who moved away from demanding an individual’s exit and instead pushed for concrete reforms to the examination system. Together, the two outcomes suggest that a resignation says less about whether a government is accountable than about what kind of political pressure it can actually feel.
Reference:
In my view, accountability should not be measured simply by whether a minister resigns. A resignation may provide a symbolic sense of responsibility, but meaningful accountability comes from addressing the systemic failures that caused the problem. In that sense, Bangladesh students’ decision to prioritise concrete examination reforms over a minister’s resignation may be a more constructive and long-term approach.