Social media has increasingly become a platform for self-styled freelance activists who seek to maintain their visibility in public spaces through attention-grabbing activities. An obvious strategy is to focus on contemporary issues that are particularly relevant to younger generations, as they form the core audience and driving force behind social media engagement. The Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) is an emerging social media startup that has resonated strongly with online audiences, especially young people. The prefixed label ‘Cockroach’ is an attempt to give a political colour by humorously mocking a major political party. An unintended contextual passing reference to the Chief Justice of India is espoused as a tool for narrative building with an intent to draw attention to flaws in the Government, political systems, institutions and social norms.
The attempt seems to be fuelling the frustration and anger of youth in relation to their current issues. Social media page likes or follows based on a narrative may simply be an appreciation of the blogger’s imagination, entertainment value and curiosity. A follower is not necessarily a supporter, volunteer, donor or voter. At the outset, it appears to be slacktivism, armchair activism or clicktivism supporting a narrative of a content creator that requires minimal personal effort, time or commitment. Therefore, while the status of CJP as a political party does not seem to be relevant, the visible intent appears to be to create disruption in the political discourse. Nonetheless, it cannot develop coherent policies beyond viral messaging and shouting slogans. It cannot convert online attention into sustained grassroots organisation and may not be able to sustain long-term support once media attention declines.
However, the degree and nature of disruption may start unfolding in the coming days. There is a possibility of information disruption, including the spread of rumours, misinformation or highly polarised narratives. The absence of an organised and structured framework for a physical assembly of supporters and ideological bankruptcy may lead to free-for-all outbursts. A closer look at the 6 June 2026 Jantar Mantar assembly of so-called CJP supporters reveals the anti-establishment nature of the protest, drifting from the main demand of seeking the resignation of a Union Minister to raising ‘Azaadi’ slogans. The eruption of public discontent may serve as a tool for pressuring institutions and policymakers to respond to public sentiment. But unfortunately, the freedom provided under democracy is often misused to raise derogatory slogans and use abusive language against the highest constitutional positions, moving away from the core issue.
The sustainability, effectiveness and cohesiveness of the disruption would decide its impact on the future electoral process. The issues in the narrative basket, such as corruption, cronyism, lack of accountability, unemployment, inflation and inequality, are not new and have always existed irrespective of the governments in power. Historically, anti-establishment narratives have been used by political parties across the ideological spectrum, and their effectiveness depends on various factors such as economic conditions, trust in institutions, the popularity of institutions and the credibility of the opposition. While solidarity and criticism may draw public attention and media hype, the eventual expectation would be concrete policy solutions and an alternative roadmap.
The larger, most significant and sensitive aspect is possible international interference aimed at disrupting internal security and, ultimately, the electoral process in India. However, no credible evidence has emerged to substantiate this angle. But funding by international actors or extending support to social media activists in another country with the goal of influencing public opinion, mobilising protests and creating political pressure has occurred in many countries. Governments, corporations, advocacy networks and even private individuals may attempt to influence debates across borders. In the past, India has seen the Khalistan movement largely supported from foreign soil. Jammu and Kashmir has also been experiencing cross-border interference for decades.
The country is already dealing with the complex issue of illegal immigrants in relation to internal security and political concerns. There are many claims online that international NGOs, advocacy groups, governments or donors support campaigns related to Rohingya rights in India. The UN refugee agency, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), states that it works in India with NGOs and community-based organisations to support Rohingya refugees from Myanmar. Legally, India does not have a dedicated refugee law and is not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention. Therefore, Indian law generally treats unauthorised entrants as foreigners subject to immigration rules rather than granting automatic refugee status. In May 2025, while hearing petitions concerning Rohingya migrants, the highest Court declined to stop deportation proceedings and observed that non-citizens do not have an automatic right to reside in India. The presence of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants in West Bengal has also drawn the attention of both Government authorities and courts.
Therefore, the larger concern is the national interest. Lessons need to be learnt from the unprecedented governance, political and electoral disruption experienced by different countries in the recent past. Disruptions have also been seen in different parts of the world driven by the so-called disclosure of files related to Jeffrey Epstein. Therefore, the Government of India must remain vigilant on all fronts and carefully assess every situation through the lens of potential hidden risks and probabilities, including the possibility that manipulated information could be leveraged by various actors to influence public opinion, undermine institutional trust, or create domestic and international disruption.
