Assessment
The column leans on a broad reading of Indian political history, from Ambedkar and Kripalani to Dharampal, to claim that non-violent protest can remain democratically compatible even when permission is denied. Its force depends on the idea that protest is aimed at engagement, not rupture; the argument is weaker where it treats that as the defining purpose of protest in general.
Limits
The piece acknowledges the liberal constitutional view that protests are restrained by law and that rights are meant to be channelled through elections, courts, the press and civil society.
It also concedes that illegal protest has a thinner claim to legitimacy when the state has not lost legitimacy through rigged elections or denial of justice.