What should be the success of protest against Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and for resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar be measured by? The question of any demand of protestors being met instantly by power-holders may be viewed as practically non-existent. This is because of there being extremely limited chance of any power-holder choosing to instantly yield to stand of those opposing his/her moves. This would be equivalent to power-holder acknowledging his/her failure on the very ground he/she chooses to yield to protestors. The probability of this happening immediately after voices are raised against what appears to be given substantial importance by power-holders may be dismissed. Secondly, how can power-holders ever be expected to acknowledge/accept and/or be made to believe that voice of those in opposition has greater credibility? 
So, does this suggest that prospects of some importance being given to protestors and their demands by power-holders may be viewed as minimal? Not really, as power-holders’ stand is not depicted only by their choosing to be and/or not being affected by protestors’ stand. Even if they choose not to display any direct verbal respond, this does not suggest that protestors’ stand is not being taken seriously, at least to some extent. If the concerned authorities had chosen to remain totally oblivious of this, that is protestors’ plans, the question of enhancing security and other measures to prevent strikes, etc., would not have even been considered. Jantar Mantar would probably have still remained a strike spot in New Delhi. 
Clearly, from the very beginning, the power-holders appear to have it made it fairly apparent that there are extremely limited chances, practically none, of their yielding to protestors’ stand against SIR and for CEC’s resignation. However, this does not suggest that they have actually chosen to ignore it and/or have not accorded it in any importance. Till this was being written, their focus appeared to be ensuring defeat of protestors’ movement. From their angle, protestors’ “disturbing” impact has been giving the key opposition parties adequate political fuel to target them with. Undeniably, people’s movement had not displayed signs of protesting against certain moves of government in this manner for quite some time. 
The preceding point suggests that power-holders weren’t apparently prepared for this shock from a remarkable section of people and from quite a few key opposition parties. Neither did they probably expect the protestors to raise their voices fairly repeatedly and with unexpected show of strength. Paradoxically, at present, chances of power-holders giving at least minimal consideration and/or importance to protestors’ stand seem non-existent. This also suggests that they have chosen not to be moved by the same. Instead, it seems, they have opted for moves that may silence the protestors. Now, should this be viewed as a sign of wise and strong leadership, democratically as well as socially? At least some impression should be given that protestors’ stand is being given some importance. But greater weight is being accorded to the same being silenced. 
The decision of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to hold protests against a comment of a Congress leader may be partly linked to similar moves. BJP leaders probably hoped that their anti-Congress move may play a part in silencing some protestors. 
From one angle, strategies exercised at various levels by power-holders and those associated with them against protestors as well as those supporting them are perhaps minor indicators of degree the former seem to have been rattled by the latter. This simply suggests that the failure of power-holders to adequately pay attention to protestors does not suggest that the latter’s time and effort have been wasted. The power-holders have not chosen to ignore the protests. Had this been the case, they would not have been engaged in strategies directed at silencing them. It is possible, the attempt made to make a few of their leaders sign certain peace-bonds is a part of such strategy. 
Simply speaking, the fact that power-holders have been rattled by protestors cannot be sidelined and/or dismissed into significance. It would not be wrong to view this a key indicator of protestors’ success in their move. The very fact that protests have not been ignored cannot be sidelined. They would have probably been ignored if there had not been substantial ground for power-holders to actually consider them seriously, which is marked by their strategies initiated to silence and/or subdue them. In this context, at present, whether in India, France or elsewhere, protestors’ success can perhaps be best measured by continuity of their protests despite measures being taken against them. In other words, concerned authorities have failed to either silence or even ignore the voices of protest at various levels in several parts of the world. Communication strategies of protestors have not failed, while those of power-holders against the same cannot be viewed as having succeeded!