If you happen to meet Saba Naqvi or Arfa Khanum Sherwani someday and ask whether the 6 June 2026 protest of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) was a “hit” or a “miss.” I am fairly certain that both would agree with the “latter.” As even after getting the permission from the Delhi Police to protest at Jantar Mantar, out of the 22 million followers on Instagram of the party, not even 250 people showed up. And even these 250 who gathered were either busy taking photos and making reels or absolutely clueless about the protest.
For any movement to become successful, its base must be rooted in truth. It is so because people place their faith in a movement only when they see the truth underneath. However, with the CJP, this was not the case. As CJI Surya Kant had never said that the youth of India are cockroaches but had referred to the advocates having fake degrees, who, when they fail in getting employment, choose activism. Yet, Justice Kant’s observation was moulded by Abhijeet Dipke, Founding President of the CJP, and from the website to social media platforms – everything was created in the name of Cockroach Janta Party in a very short time. This was then promoted by creators having a reach in millions. Something that helped the party gain followers and views from the very first post itself.
But as many of us might agree that social media and the real world are completely opposite to each other and so the approach required for both is also different. In the June 6 protest’s case, from the first day itself, the approach of the CJP seemed to many people as immature. Be it when Dipke had asked the CJP’s followers to unfollow the current ruling party at the centre or when this was coupled with his request to record this act while doing so and sending the collaboration request to the CJP. So that Dipke can accept and share the videos with his party’s followers. Here, those who know how things act out on the ground might have become sure as to whether, if the party is even able to understand the issues properly, let alone solve them.
Then, the appointment of problematic figures as spokespersons became a great deal. Saurav Das, the Chief Spokesperson, who calls himself an investigative journalist, went viral for his support of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, Muslim activists who have advocated for Kashmir’s independence or had plans to cut India’s chicken neck (a narrow strip of land in India connects mainland India to its eight north-eastern states). Who himself believes Article 370 is a “grave assault on the Indian constitution.” Or Vijeta Dahiya, who says “Brahminism is Shaitaan” and that Adi Shankaracharya was a “hypocrite.” Or for that matter Ashutosh Ranka, who wasn’t just randomly associated with the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) but has served as the national spokesperson of AAP Rajasthan and even had written AAP in his Instagram bio until a few days ago.
This, coupled with the inability of these spokespersons to respond to the media, seems to have acted as the final window to give a glimpse of the people whom the followers of the CJP were going to support. Where at one place, Das appeared as not someone being considerate of the rule of law and saying this, when a journalist asked for taking permission – a rule established by the SC – from the Delhi Police, to protest at Jantar Mantar: “Do you think they will give us the permission to protest?” and at the other, Ranka seemed confused in deciding whether he has held the designation of national spokesperson of AAP or not and whether he has officially resigned from the party or not.
As a result of Dipke’s immaturity and spokespersons’ incapability, the supporters of the party, who feel very proud in calling themselves cockroaches, came out as clueless when confronted with questions from the independent media. On 6 June, someone was present for LGBTQIA+ rights, someone for selling T-shirts, someone for the well-known Azaadi slogans and someone, as Naqvi tweeted, for “reels and posts.” But not for a definite objective when having an objective decides whether a movement will succeed or fail. For example, when the Ram Mandir movement was in play, every Hindu reaching for Kar Seva was clear in his/her objective. He/she knew that at the place of the illegal structure, a Ram Mandir stood firm and it was their duty to end the injustice that was being caused to the deity in the garb of secularism. And so, there wasn’t any confusion in either objective or clarity. What helped was precisely these two things. Though this wasn’t the case here and obviously, as I said, couldn’t have been as well because of the party’s base lying in manipulation and not truth. And so, it failed.
