The Supreme Court’s decision to quash the FIRs and subsequent call-off of the scheduled September 5 India Gate march prompted activists Abhijeet Dipke and Saurav Das to turn their attention from mobilisation to a broader critique of the government, questioning what they described as selective efficiency in handling protests and governance.Speaking during an Instagram Live on Tuesday, the two said the decision to call off the proposed march followed the fulfilment of their demands. The conversation, however, quickly moved beyond the immediate development, with both taking potshots at the government’s handling of protests, appointments and the response to issues across states.Dipke questioned the government’s priorities, arguing that authorities appeared capable of acting swiftly when dealing with protests but failed to demonstrate similar efficiency in areas where, according to him, it was required.“Compensation is like bare minimum. Immediately, people should get it. But look at the efficiency,” Dipke said, before referring to the use of pellet guns and the mobilisation of security personnel during protests.He also referred to troops being brought in from different locations during protests, saying they had been “airlifted” when required. “Where you should show efficiency, you don’t show it. You show it in the wrong things,” he said.The conversation then turned to the composition of the government and the appointment of ministers, with the two activists questioning the quality of the pool of people being chosen for key positions.Das said the government appeared to have a limited “pool” of people to choose from, while Dipke suggested that the preference was for individuals who could be more easily controlled.“If you don’t have people, why don’t you bring subject-matter experts?” Das said, arguing that people with substantial experience in education should be brought into the Education Ministry and experienced economists should be considered for finance-related responsibilities.The two also took a swipe at the newly appointed Education Minister. Referring to the minister’s alleged political record, they said he would go to places where there was a controversy over the “welcome” accorded to an accused rapist, rather than being deployed to address pressing issues concerning education.They further argued that people who had devoted their careers to the education sector had been sidelined from the system.The two then joked about the cancellation of the September 5 programme, with Dipke saying some people had already booked train and flight tickets and were angry with him because the protest had been called off. He quipped that the government should compensate those who had incurred expenses after being “forced” to take to the streets.“Everybody, people, don’t worry about it. The government will give you enough reasons,” Das responded, suggesting that the cancellation of one protest would not mean an end to public issues.The discussion also touched on criticism from sections of social media that Dipke and Das should have travelled to other states where protests were taking place.Addressing those questioning why they had not gone to Jharkhand, Bihar or Manipur, Dipke said the objective of their movement had never been to personally lead protests everywhere. Instead, he said, the aim had been to create “ground-level awakening” and encourage people to emerge as leaders of their own movements.“That is what is happening, across the country,” he said.The two also criticised the government over the choice of ministers and questioned why subject-matter experts were not brought into key ministries.“If you don’t have people, why don’t you bring subject-matter experts?” Das said, arguing that people with substantial experience in education should be involved in the Education Ministry and experienced economists in finance-related policymaking.The conversation then became more sharply political, with Dipke alleging that governments prefer individuals who are easier to control and are less likely to take independent decisions. He argued that centralisation of power made it difficult for ministers to operate independently.The two also discussed what they described as the limited autonomy available to Union Ministers, including their ability to call press conferences independently. They claimed that even such decisions required clearance involving multiple ministries.They contrasted this with a viral episode involving a young boy speaking to the media during protests in Bihar. Calling the boy’s (Aditya) interaction with the media “epic”, Dipke said the child appeared highly articulate.The activists further alleged that individuals displaying independent thinking were likely to be sidelined by the political establishment, while those perceived as less capable were given greater prominence.The Instagram Live ended on a lighter note, with the two joking about finally being free of the immediate mobilisation after the Supreme Court decision and the cancellation of the September 5 march.Their remarks came after the activists announced that the India Gate protest planned for September 5 would no longer be held, following the Supreme Court’s order concerning the FIRs and their assertion that the movement’s demands had been met.