It should be clear to us now that the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) is not a movement led by Gen Z, but Gen Y. A fact that was confirmed a few days ago, when the party’s founder, Abhijeet Dipke, shared a screen recording showing the demographic details of his party’s Instagram account. The recording showed that over 50% of CJP followers belonged to the age group 25-34. The same has been confirmed again with the chosen people who will put forth the word of the CJP: its spokespersons.
Some people would say that it doesn’t matter if Gen Z doesn’t constitute the majority of the party’s followers. It’s a movement led by the “youth.” Okay. But what kind of youth? A kind of youth that supported the party without even going through CJI Surya Kant’s observation? An observation that was not directed at the “youth” but the advocates having fake degrees. Advocates who, when are unable to get employment choose activism. Or the kind of youth that doesn’t have any problem with being called, according to the CJP’s manifesto: “lazy, chronically online and is capable of ranting professionally.” And as a result, has joined the party by crossing 1.2 million mark? Indeed, it is neither a good sign for our democracy nor for our country.
What’s more concerning are the people who have become the spokespersons of the Gen Y led party. At the forefront, it’s Saurav Das, who describes himself as an investigative journalist and writes regularly for platforms like Article 14, Frontline, The Caravan, among others. Those who have followed him for a while know that he is an “admirer” of Umar Khalid. He has called Khalid the “bravest”. I don’t know if he has read the reason as to why Khalid is still behind the bars. It’s not because he saved lives, but he is accused of playing a role in the 2020 Delhi Riots larger conspiracy case. The riots that took 53 lives. And because the court found the accusations in this case prima facie true. So as to what kind of bravery of Khalid has Das been a witness to remains a question for me, at least. Note that, Das has been appointed as the “Chief Spokesperson” of the CJP.
Behind Das is Vijeta Dahiya, who describes himself as a writer, poet and filmmaker. I can’t tell you if he is any of the three as I haven’t followed his work. However, what I can certainly tell is that according to him, Adi Shankaracharya was a “hypocrite” and “Brahminism is like a shaitaan”. One may disagree with Brahminism or reject it altogether. But why reduce it to demonology? Likewise, one may disagree with the teachings of Adi Shankaracharya, but why demean the founder himself? Criticism of a philosophy is one thing; contempt for those associated with it is quite another. Adi Shankaracharya remains one of the most influential figures in Hindu intellectual history and is revered by millions of Hindus. You may judge for yourselves whether such remarks reflect criticism of a philosophy or a deeper hostility towards traditions revered by millions of Hindus. Yet, this is the kind of individual the CJP has chosen as one of its spokespersons.
Also part of the team is Ashutosh Ranka, who has been described as a national spokesperson of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), by the various media publications who have run Ranka’s articles under his name. However, Ranka, as of now, isn’t able to decide if he has left the AAP or not. A person with such a confused mindset will be putting forth this “youth” party’s point of view in front of 1.4 billion people. All I can say is: rest in peace, CJP.
Though the biggest problem that lies uncovered is that the CJP, through Das, is of the view that why to take permission for doing protest at Jantar Mantar, a site designated for protest? Avoiding the Supreme Court’s direction of taking permission 7 days in advance from the Delhi Police and saying: “Do you think they will give us the permission to protest?” is nothing but shirking from one’s responsibility. I mean, you cannot just say fuck off to the Delhi Police and arrive at Jantar Mantar to do the protest. Unless, of course, you plan to repeat the “Kitne Haidma Maaroge” drama of November 2025 at Jantar Mantar today. Any genuine movement ought to be considerate of the rule of law and not run like a Class 1 event.
At last, for a journalist who reports on law regularly, such an approach is indeed scary. But then, one who cannot distinguish between transfer jurisprudence and recusal law. Expecting as much, too, would be a lot. Context for this can be found here.
