Politics is often a game of optics, yet for India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the optics surrounding the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) have become increasingly blurred. Despite a nationwide outcry involving millions of students and their families over exam irregularities, Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan remains firmly in his seat. The calls for his resignation are not merely coming from a reinvigorated opposition or student unions. they are echoing through the very middle-class constituencies that have anchored the BJP's dominance since 2014. To understand why Prime Minister Narendra Modi resists dropping a minister under such intense fire, one must look past the immediate scandal and into the specific architecture of the current administration.
The scale of the crisis is difficult to overstate. NEET is not just another examination. it is the gatekeeper to medical careers for over two million students annually. When factoring in their immediate and extended families, the number of citizens personally invested in the integrity of this process reaches into the tens of millions. These are the young voters and middle-class households that the BJP has meticulously cultivated. For these voters, the integrity of a national exam is a non-negotiable expectation of a government that promised efficient and clean governance. Yet, the minister at the helm of this system remains untouched.
History offers a sharp contrast. During the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) years, the BJP was the primary architect of the doctrine of ministerial accountability. When the 2G spectrum scandal broke, the BJP demanded the head of the telecom minister, arguing that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was ultimately responsible for the actions of his cabinet. Similarly, in the Adarsh Society case, the BJP’s campaign forced the resignation of the then-Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Ashok Chavan. Ironically, Chavan has since found a home within the BJP and a seat in the Rajya Sabha. The standards the BJP once set for others now appear to be a burden they are unwilling to carry themselves.
The primary reason for this resistance lies in the presidential style of functioning that has come to define the Modi era. In this model, every achievement is credited to the Prime Minister’s vision. However, the corollary of this centralization is that any admission of failure at the ministerial level is perceived not as the fault of an individual minister, but as a crack in the Prime Minister's own armor. If Pradhan is dismissed for incompetence, the failure is seen as a direct reflection on the man who appointed him and oversees the government. To protect the image of the leader, the minister must be shielded, at least for a time.
Furthermore, there is the risk of setting a precedent. Governance is a messy business, and mistakes are inevitable. If the government bows to pressure every time a controversy arises, it fears a domino effect where the opposition, and even internal critics, find a repeatable blueprint for forcing resignations. By digging in its heels, the administration seeks to signal that it does not take its cues from external pressure. This is the strongman image: the idea that the Prime Minister is immune to the demands of the street or the parliamentary benches.
There is also the matter of the BJP’s self-styled identity as a party with a difference. For decades, it contrasted itself with the Congress by claiming superior competence and a lack of corruption. Admitting that a cornerstone of the national education system has failed under its watch is a bitter pill. Dropping the minister would be a formal acknowledgment of that failure, effectively dismantling the narrative of flawless execution that the party has spent years building.
Interestingly, the rise of digital dissent has added a new layer to this calculation. The government has spent significant energy downplaying online protests and satirical movements, often dismissing them as insignificant or lacking a real organizational structure. To give in to these demands now would be to admit that these decentralized, digital-first movements have real political teeth. It would validate an opposition that the BJP has long tried to portray as irrelevant.
However, political survival eventually dictates a shift from ideology to cost-benefit analysis. While the Prime Minister may currently be praising Pradhan’s contributions to education, this posturing has an expiration date. If the political cost of keeping him, measured in lost support from the youth and the middle class outweighs the cost of a tactical retreat, a change will be made. In the world of high-stakes politics, yesterday’s indispensable minister can quickly become today’s scapegoat. For now, the administration is betting that it can weather the storm without making a sacrifice at the altar of accountability. Whether that bet pays off depends on how long the memory of millions of frustrated students lasts.