Why BJP Is Standing Firm Behind Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan
The demand for the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan has grown louder in recent weeks. Students, parents, opposition parties and a new Gen-Z protest movement calling itself the Cockroach Janata Party have taken to the streets and social media. Their anger centres on the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak that forced the National Testing Agency to cancel the May 3 examination and hold a re-test on June 21. Parallel controversies involving UGC-NET and CBSE evaluation irregularities have only added fuel. Yet the Bharatiya Janata Party has shown no signs of removing Pradhan. Understanding why requires looking beyond the headlines at the political calculations, organisational interests and institutional habits that shape the ruling party’s response.
Pradhan has occupied the education portfolio since July 2021. He has overseen the implementation of the National Education Policy 2020, pushed reforms inside the National Testing Agency, and expanded medical seats by more than 80 per cent to 1.36 lakh. The government presents these steps as evidence of long-term structural change. At the same time, repeated examination scandals have raised legitimate questions about accountability. Pradhan himself has spoken of a “breach in the command chain” and promised computer-based testing from 2027. That admission, however, has not translated into personal political cost. The reasons for this resilience are layered.
First, the BJP has spent more than a decade refining a clear doctrine on ministerial resignations. In 2015, when the opposition demanded the exit of Sushma Swaraj and Vasundhara Raje over the Lalit Modi controversy, then Home Minister Rajnath Singh articulated a position that has since hardened into party policy: the government would not accept resignations under political pressure. That stance was never merely about two ministers. It was a deliberate rejection of the older convention that a minister must quit when institutional failures occur under their watch. The BJP argues that such resignations create a dangerous precedent. Once established, the logic goes, every future controversy would trigger the same demand and gradually erode the authority of the executive. By refusing to sack Pradhan, the party is protecting that institutional position. Publicly accepting responsibility through a resignation would, in this view, hand the opposition a permanent weapon.
Second, Pradhan enjoys the confidence of the highest levels of the government. He is not an isolated or junior figure. His proximity to both Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah has been repeatedly signalled. In the middle of the current protests, Pradhan was seen meeting Shah. In BJP culture such meetings are rarely accidental. They communicate that the minister retains the support of the two most powerful decision-makers in the system. Removing a minister who enjoys that level of backing would require either a serious internal disagreement or an assessment that the political damage of retention outweighs the damage of removal. Neither appears to have occurred. For the party leadership, continuity in the education ministry is currently judged more valuable than the short-term relief a resignation might bring.
Third, Pradhan remains a significant political asset in Odisha. The BJP’s breakthrough in the state against the long-dominant Biju Janata Dal was not accidental. Pradhan’s organisational work, family networks and ability to mobilise cadre played a visible role. Party strategists are acutely aware that sacking him now would be read inside Odisha as a public repudiation of one of their most successful faces. In a state where the BJP is still consolidating, such a move could reopen factional tensions and weaken the party’s local architecture. The cost is therefore not limited to one ministry in Delhi. It carries implications for the party’s eastern India strategy.
Fourth, the government prefers to frame the examination scandals as systemic problems that pre-date the current minister and that are being addressed through reform rather than personal sacrifice. Officials point to the arrests made after the NEET leak, the decision to conduct a re-examination, the new law against paper leaks, and the planned shift to computer-based testing. They also highlight the expansion of medical education seats as proof that capacity is being built even while integrity issues are tackled. By emphasising continuity of policy and incremental administrative fixes, the BJP avoids turning the controversy into a referendum on one individual’s competence. In this narrative, Pradhan is the minister implementing difficult reforms, not the minister who must be sacrificed for past failures.
Fifth, a quiet cabinet reshuffle remains a more attractive option than a public resignation. Reports of possible portfolio changes ahead of Parliament’s Monsoon Session have circulated for weeks. Moving Pradhan to another ministry, or even retaining him while adjusting responsibilities, would allow the government to lower the temperature without conceding that the education ministry had failed. A resignation, by contrast, would be read as an admission of guilt. The BJP has little incentive to create that perception. Street protests and opposition campaigns may generate heat, but they have not yet forced a change in the party’s internal calculus.
These five factors do not operate in isolation. They reinforce one another. The refusal to resign under pressure protects the larger principle of executive authority. The confidence of the top leadership reduces the risk of internal challenge. The Odisha factor adds a concrete political cost to any decision to remove him. The reform narrative provides a positive story the government can continue to tell. And the availability of a reshuffle route offers a face-saving alternative if public pressure intensifies further. Together they explain why, despite weeks of sustained protest, Pradhan remains in office.
Critics argue that this approach weakens democratic accountability. They point out that examination integrity is not a minor administrative matter. Millions of young people invest years of effort and significant family resources in these tests. When papers leak, the damage is real and immediate. The opposition has used the issue to question whether the National Testing Agency and the ministry have the competence and independence required for such high-stakes functions. Student groups have gone further, accusing the government of treating their futures as politically expendable. These criticisms carry weight. Yet the BJP’s calculation appears to be that the political cost of removing a loyal and useful minister exceeds the cost of weathering the present storm.
The coming weeks will test that calculation. Parliament is in session. Protests continue. Further revelations or court observations could alter the balance of risks. For now, however, the party’s position remains consistent with its established pattern. Dharmendra Pradhan is not being protected because the controversies do not matter. He is being protected because the party has decided that the principles, alliances and state-level interests attached to him matter more. That decision reveals as much about how the BJP governs as it does about the education minister himself.
About The Author
