Author: Tannishtha Chatterjee

Recently, a new party has become the topic of many conversations. The Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), is a youth-centered party that was born as a satirical movement, quickly gaining momentum and virality. Though it’s more of a protest collective than a registered official party, it seems that the youth is using this space to voice their concerns about the undemocratic practices that are plaguing India right now. 

The CJP emerged in May 2026 after a remark by Chief Justice Surya Kant sparked a lot of controversy. He allegedly had compared the unemployed youth who turn to journalism and activism with cockroaches saying, “There are youngsters like cockroaches, who don’t get any employment or have any place in the profession. Some of them become media, some of them become social media, RTI activists and other activists and they start attacking everyone.” Later on, he clarified that his statement was targeted towards those who get bogus, fake degrees and was blown out of proportion. But the comments had already begun to make its rounds over X and other social media sites. As a response to this, Abhijeet Dipke, a 24 year old Indian student in Boston posted a tweet announcing the nascency of a political platform “for all the cockroaches”, with an enrolment Google Form. The popularity of this platform was unseen with 46,000 people signing up in a few hours and 100,100 people, a website and a party anthem emerging within 28 hours. In less than three days, the party had gained nearly 3 million followers across all social media platforms. The reason for this huge surge in their popularity was the criteria required to be part of the party: being unemployed, lazy, chronically online, and able to rant professionally. The youth of India identified with these traits and related to them, and may even have planted the sapling of hope for change amid the current scenario of unemployment, limited opportunities, and constant bureaucratic failures.

The party labelled itself as “apolitical” and “spontaneous” but political experts have found deep political connections fabricating the CJP network and thus started the suspicion of apparent opposition backing of the party. Abhijeet previously was a part of AAP’s communication team and spokesperson Saurav Das’s opinions have resurfaced online where he backed Umar Khalid and opposed Article 370 and the Ayodhya – Ram Mandir verdict. CJP also garnered celebrity endorsements with Anurag Kashyao and Sonam Wangchuk supporting the party. Some speculate that the movement might be orchestrated by opposition while some might argue that CJP has a varied base. 

CJP’s manifesto, named the “The Swarm Manifesto” lists five non-negotiable demands from the government regarding judicial reforms, youth representation, media and democratic accountability and electoral rectifications. The party seeks to address issues that get lost or ignored by mainstream media and politics. Dipke has stated that he would not engage with “Godi media” and even passed comments like “Why is the government so scared of cockroaches?” after CJP’s website and certain social media accounts were blocked on national security grounds. 

Recently, CJP has evolved from AI generated content and online memes to physical protests across the nation. The protestors in Delhi, Hyderabad, Bengaluru and Pune all demanded the resignation of Education Minister, Dharmendra Pradhan and warned against an indefinite sit-in if their stipulations were not attended. Due to the gravitas of their demands and protests, critics have started to consider CJP more than just a Gen-Z trend or viral bandwagon with actual concerns being vociferated by the party. 

The hopes raised by the party are the silent dreams and aspirations that get clouded by identity and power politics and seldom find any outlet. Countless count upon the party to get a flicker of the light at the end of the tunnel and hopefully the party can render these expectations successfully.

Image Credits: Wikimedia Commons

After the passing of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 on 24 March by Lok Sabha and consequently on 25 March by Rajya Sabha, many have expressed their annoyance and frustration. The bill that follows the edicts of exclusion more than inclusion under the guise of welfare and protection has been sent for the President’s assent to become law.

The bill amends the 2019 Transgender Persons Act, which allowed for a considerable amount of freedom on the matters of identity and dignity. The 2019 law was based on the landmark National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) judgement passed by the Supreme Court in 2014. It recognised the right to identify one’s gender as a fundamental right. Individuals could identify as transgenders, legally, without the interference of any medical or bureaucratic board. 

According to the amendments in the new bill, the right to self-identify gender has been removed and self-identification carries no legal sanctity. The law involves a verification system that requires medical and official inspection. The District Magistrate can issue a Certificate of Identity only after reviewing a recommendation from a designated medical board, headed by a Chief Medical Officer or Deputy Chief Medical Officer. Many argue that this gives undue control to the state over personal identity. The amendment restricts the definition of ‘transgender’ and who qualifies as one under the law. The focus has been shifted to protect specific socio-cultural groups like the Hijras, the Kinnars, the Aravanis and the Jogtas and cater to certain biological conditions. It excludes broader categories and identities and self-perceived gender. There also exists ambiguity about the legality of the previously issued transgender certificates which were based on self-identification which might cause chaos and disruption administratively. 

The law is considered controversial as it reverses the progress made since 2014 in terms of identity and autonomy and aims to “gatekeep” the right to self-identify. Critics, including activists like Laxmi Narayan Tripathi and Grace Banu say the law violates the right to dignity, privacy and bodily autonomy and differs from Supreme Court rulings and constitutional principles. Two members of the National Council of Transgender Persons (NCTP), Kalki Subramanium and Rituparna Neog, even resigned from their posts consequently after the passing of the bill. The government and its supporters argue that the amendment provides a precise legal definition, preventing misuse of benefits for transgenders persons and improving implementation of welfare schemes. 

The law is already affecting people, those who had recently secured legal recognition of their gender now face uncertainty. Families and healthcare workers are also concerned about the access to gender-affirming care and documentation. The near future probably holds legal challenges in courts, protests and activism related to the law and debate over balancing regulation with human rights. 

As the bill remains unpassed as a law yet, the breach of right to self-identification and autonomy seems concerning to say the least. The amendment marks a turning point in India’s transgender rights framework. Though opinions seem divided, the compassion for the people subjected to the law must not diminish. Everyone regardless of their identities and orientation are entitled to live a life of dignity based on their terms and idea of self.