Editor,
For nearly six decades, the All Arunachal Pradesh Students’ Union (AAPSU) has been one of the most influential civic institutions in the state. Founded in 1967, it has functioned not only as a representative body of students but also as a moral force, questioning authority, mobilising youth opinion, and acting as a watchdog in moments when formal political opposition was limited.
It is precisely because of this legacy that the events of 30 January, 2026 demand serious public reflection.
During the 27th AAPSU general conference and election registration process, what should have been a routine democratic exercise descended into chaos. Disputes surrounding the non-disclosure of amended election byelaws escalated rapidly from confrontation at the venue to stone-pelting and, ultimately, armed violence. Four people were injured, including a journalist who suffered serious injuries while reporting on the event.
The situation deteriorated to such an extent that the Itanagar capital district administration invoked Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), imposing restrictions on carrying of firearms and other deadly weapons.
When a students’ union election requires emergency security restrictions to restore order, the problem is no longer procedural. It is institutional.
At the heart of the 30 January violence lay a basic democratic breakdown: the absence of transparency. Revised election byelaws were reportedly not made public in advance of the registration process, leaving candidates and participants unclear about the rules governing the contest.
Transparency is not a courtesy; it is the foundation of electoral legitimacy. When rules are amended without disclosure or explanation, trust collapses. Suspicion replaces confidence, and confrontation becomes predictable.
Several participants reportedly sought simple clarifications – access to the amended byelaws, procedural certainty, and a more inclusive process. These were reasonable and democratic demands. The failure to address them created an environment where tension escalated unchecked.
What followed was not an unavoidable accident, but the foreseeable outcome of opaque decision-making.
Institutional credibility is tested not in moments of calm, but under pressure. On 30 January, leadership failed to contain rising tensions through dialogue, mediation, or temporary suspension of proceedings. Instead, confusion hardened into confrontation.
Student organisations carry a special responsibility. They are expected to model democratic conduct and demonstrate that disagreements can be resolved without intimidation or violence. When such bodies falter, the consequences extend beyond one election – they shape political culture itself.
The events in Itanagar marked a troubling departure from this responsibility.
Treating the violence as an isolated incident would miss the deeper context. Institutional crises rarely emerge overnight; they are often the result of accumulated grievances and weakened accountability.
In recent years, youth mobilisation in Arunachal has increasingly focused on issues of fairness, integrity, and equal opportunity – particularly in matters of recruitment and governance. These movements were driven not by unrest for its own sake, but by demands for transparent and accountable institutions.
When such concerns are dismissed or deflected, resentment does not disappear. It intensifies. The gap between institutions and the constituencies they claim to represent widens, creating fertile ground for instability.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the 30 January episode is its symbolism. The AAPSU has historically positioned itself as a body that scrutinises the state and demands accountability. Yet on this occasion, it was the state that had to intervene to restore order within the AAPSU itself.
The invocation of BNSS Section 163, a measure reserved for serious threats to public safety, represented a stark reversal of roles. A students’ union should never become a security concern.
This moment raises uncomfortable but necessary questions. Can an organisation that struggles to conduct its own elections peacefully credibly speak for democratic governance? Can it demand accountability from others while evading it internally?
Student leaders occupy positions of moral authority. Their actions influence not only organisational outcomes but also the norms young people internalise about power, dissent, and responsibility.
Silence in the face of serious questions is not neutrality – it is abdication. Escalation where restraint is required is not strength – it is failure.
Public trust, once damaged, cannot be restored through rhetoric alone. It requires visible and verifiable reform.
The 2026 AAPSU election has become more than a contest for leadership positions. It is a referendum on the organisation’s identity.
Will the AAPSU reaffirm its founding principles of fairness, transparency, and non-violence? Or will it drift towards opacity, factionalism, and coercive politics?
This choice does not rest with leaders alone. It belongs equally to candidates, members, and the wider youth constituency that grants the organisation its legitimacy.
The AAPSU’s historical standing was built on courage tempered by restraint and dissent guided by principle. The events of 30 January serve as a warning about the cost of abandoning those values.
Gunfire must never replace dialogue. Emergency restrictions must never become routine tools of internal governance.
Whether AAPSU can recover its moral authority will depend on its willingness to confront uncomfortable truths and undertake genuine reform. The future of one of Arunachal’s most influential youth institutions – and the democratic culture it shapes – hangs on that choice.
Anonymous