Every citizens’ movement eventually arrives at two defining questions. The first is, ‘Who are we fighting?’ The second is, ‘What does victory look like?’The answers to these questions determine whether a movement becomes a moment in history or merely a headline. Over the past few years, India has seen some major movements – farmers protesting the farm Bills for over six months; anti-CAA protests that put women at the forefront never before; and the funeral-pyre protest of tribals whose villages risk submergence due to the Ken-Betwa link project, the residents of Auroville fighting to keep the community habitation and governance structure intact without government interference and control, to name a few.Across India today, there is no shortage of outrage. The problem is not that India lacks resistance. The problem is that our resistance exists in silos. It is perhaps because of this that the government gets away without doing much in bringing any systemic reform.Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty.Every movement has its own language, its own leadership, its own slogans and its own immediate demands. Each fights an important battle. Yet too often, these battles remain disconnected from one another. While one group demands accountability in education, another speaks about unemployment, another about environmental degradation, another about federalism, another about civil liberties. Individually, these are powerful struggles. Collectively, they have not yet become a shared democratic project.That fragmentation comes at a cost. No democratic opposition can hope to succeed if it remains divided into ever-smaller islands of resistance.History offers an important lesson. When Jayaprakash Narayan called for Sampoorna Kranti – Total Revolution – in 1974, he did not merely ask for the resignation of a minister or the withdrawal of one policy. The immediate grievances were inflation, corruption and administrative failure. But J.P. understood that these were symptoms of deeper institutional problems. His response was therefore larger than the crisis of the day.He offered a vision. A vision that brought together students, trade unions, farmers, intellectuals, socialists, Gandhians and political parties with very different ideological backgrounds. They did not agree on everything. They did not need to. They agreed that democratic institutions required renewal. That is why the movement outlived any single demand. Today’s democratic movements must ask themselves the same question.Are we merely reacting to individual crises, or are we articulating a larger constitutional vision? All the momentum that the NEET paper leaks and the voices of young people have given rise to, begs us to ask a fundamental question – is all of this for the resignation of an education minister alone? The answer is a consensual, resounding ‘no’.What the students and young people are asking for is an education system that gives them a real opportunity to make something of their lives. They are asking for accountability on part of those who administer the examinations that determine their future. But they are also asking, why is it that those who can afford coaching centres are better placed than those who cannot? Why should the public education system not be at par with private schools?Most importantly, if the future of India belongs to the youth, how is our education system designed to build them to be their best version, with constant changes in course curriculum, major political interference in appointments to universities, shrinking freedom of speech and expression on campuses, and merely 4% of the country’s GDP being dedicated to education?The demand for accountability when examination systems repeatedly fail is entirely legitimate. Public office demands public responsibility. But suppose a minister resigns tomorrow. What happens then? This is why India urgently needs something larger than isolated demands. It needs a national conversation on systemic educational reform.Imagine if every opposition party, every student organisation, every teachers’ association, every vice chancellor of integrity, every educationist, every constitutional lawyer and every civil society organisation committed themselves to drafting and publicly endorsing a common Education Charter before the next general election.Not a manifesto for one political party. A charter for the Republic.Such a charter could include commitments to independent and professionally managed recruitment and examination authorities; transparent and merit-based appointments to universities and regulatory institutions; greater financial investment in public education; stronger protection for academic freedom; insulation of educational institutions from partisan capture regardless of which political party forms the government; improved teacher recruitment, training and remuneration; meaningful student participation in university governance; and a long-term commitment to educational excellence rooted in constitutional values.The point is not that every party must agree on every detail. The point is that the country deserves to know what systemic reforms are being promised – not merely who is demanding whose resignation. Politics often rewards immediacy. Nation-building requires patience.Some have compared contemporary youth mobilisation in India with what has happened in Nepal. There are lessons worth learning, but at the end of the day India is a constitutional democracy with functioning electoral institutions. Our task is not to replace the constitutional framework but to strengthen it, to restore institutional credibility, deepen democratic accountability and rebuild public trust.That cannot happen through one organisation acting alone. Nor can it happen if every democratic actor insists on preserving a separate platform while expecting the public to weave those fragments into a coherent alternative.Coalitions are not signs of weakness. In constitutional democracies, they are often signs of democratic maturity. This also demands generosity from political parties. The larger the organisation, the greater its responsibility to create space rather than merely occupy it. Equally, newer movements and civil society initiatives must recognise that enduring democratic change ultimately requires engagement with political institutions. Street mobilisation and electoral politics are not opposing strategies. They are complementary ones.Students, activists, lawyers, teachers and political parties each possess strengths the others do not. The question is whether they are prepared to work together. This is not a call for ideological uniformity. Disagreement is the lifeblood of democracy. But disagreement cannot become an excuse for fragmentation when the larger objective is institutional renewal.India has produced remarkable issue-based movements over the last decade. Many have shifted public debate. Some have influenced policy. A few have altered political discourse. Yet too many have remained confined to the issue that gave birth to them.The next chapter of democratic politics cannot simply be about producing more movements. It must be about connecting them. Perhaps that conversation should begin on August 9 – Kranti Divas.It can be a day to be a national invitation for all forces fighting for a secular, liberal, progressive India to come together. It can also be a day for opposition parties, student unions, educationists, lawyers, civil society organisations, trade unions, retired judges, journalists and concerned citizens to begin drafting a shared democratic reform agenda. Not merely for education. For the Republic.Every opposition party, every civil society movement, every student organisation and every constitutional institution committed to democratic values must recognise that no single actor can carry this burden alone.History rarely remembers those who shout the loudest. It remembers those who built the broadest coalitions. India does not need another banner. It does not need another fragment. It does not need another movement speaking only to itself. It needs a shared democratic purpose, rooted in the Constitution, capable of translating public anger into lasting institutional reform.As India approaches another August 9, perhaps the question before us is no longer whether enough people care about the Republic. Across campuses, courtrooms, farms, forests, newsrooms and public squares, the answer to that question is already visible. The more important question is whether enough of us are prepared to recognise one another – not as competing movements, but as fellow custodians of the same constitutional promise.If the 20th century gave India Sampoorna Kranti, perhaps the 21st must aspire to Sampoorna Sudhaar – a democratic renewal rooted not in the overthrow of institutions, but in restoring their integrity, renewing public trust and building, together, a Republic that is stronger than the divisions of the moment. I believe that is the unfinished constitutional journey that our generation now has the responsibility to complete.Avani Bansal is an advocate at the Supreme Court.This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here.