APPSC Fiasco 2018 versus 2015 Movement

Dear Editor,
A comparative perspective of the APPSC Fiasco 2018 vis a vis 2015 Movement yields a not so impressive conclusion. The two movements can better be compared point wise.
1. Cause behind 2015 movement was alleged leakage of GS-II Paper. Cause behind 2018 movement is the uncertainty of date of exam.
Leakage of a question paper favours a select few with access to that leaked paper. Whereas uncertainty of date of exam or mental pressure affect all the candidates equally. No one benefits more than others.
2. 2015 movement was organised, disciplined and controlled & led well by a group of well mannered, convincingly speaking group of candidates. Whereas 2018 movement is ill organised, chaotic and rogue. Stopping other candidates from appearing in the examination is no doubt, a criminal offense. It is immoral, violating and unbecoming of a civil service aspirant. How can common people support you act of crime?
3. 2015 movement had public support (particularly during the Hunger Strike). Public support was basically for the logically and rationally correct demands placed before the Commission and above all, the genuine basis of the Movement. 2018 movement is based on the argument of unpreparedness due to mental tension. It is to be understood that no one benefited more than others in this tumultuous period of 2 months. Moreover, APCS officer is usually deployed in mentally draining situations.
4. 2015 movement leading candidates met the leaders and MLAs irrespective of their party affiliation, to show their desperation in fight against a Constitutional Authority and to win their support by convincing them. They did not let any Political Party or any Students Union or Society hijack the issue despite soliciting their support. 2018 movement are meeting the Leaders of Political Parties to pressurise a Constitutional Authority and also to put pressure on a matter which is subjudice. It seems the 2018 movement is hoping that the Political big guns will fight their battle for them (which will probably not go down well with the people; apparently, politics dictating a Constitutionally Autonomous body).
5. 2015 movements were supported by various eminent personalities who even participated in the Hunger Strike on the stage, but in their personal capacities, irrespective of their political affiliations or connection with any institution. 2018 movement is directionless and nothing more than a mob of aspiring candidates who are demanding more time for preparation for the exam (a very childish demand, I say).
6. 2015 movement demanded fairness of examination. 2018 movement demands cancellation of exam due to their unpreparedness.
To summarise the two, I say there are apparently as well as in reality, no similarity between the two movements. If anyone in present movement (2018) makes even the slightest reference to the 2015 movement, it would amount to abuse of the legacy 2015 movement and an insult to every person who supported that movement.
To sum it up: “To protest is your right; but your right to protest ought not to violate other’s right to appear and write in examination. If you have been deprived, seek proper, genuine and directed remedy from the appropriate authority by convincing him, not by threatening other aspirants or the Commission”
Lastly, a personal appeal to all the political leaders. Please refrain from commenting in public before knowing both sides of the story.
Particularly to Takam Sanjoy , your words carry huge weight. You have always been known to stand by the rightful since you were a student leader. Do not get swayed by emotion. All the candidates were placed in the similar and same circumstances, yet some accepted the challenge and utilised their time for preparation. Others took it for granted that the Commission would yield to pressure tactics and chose to play politics. As said earlier, they are immoral and rogue persons who stopped other candidates by threatening and intimidation. Supporting them is akin to supporting violence, immorality, mobocracy and intimidation, which altogether can be termed criminality (is it not a crime to threaten another person, violate their rights, intimidate them, pull a person forcefully out of the queue at the gate). Commission yielding to them would also be akin to Commission yielding before coercion and criminality. Nonetheless, I hope there should be some way to remedy the genuinely deprived candidates who were not allowed to appear in the exam by the rogue aspirants.
A concerned person