What is Cockroach Janta Party? The Full Story of the Viral Youth Anger Movement
Recently, a strange but powerful movement had gone viral on Indian social media ” Cockroach Janta Party” or CJP for short. At first glance, the name may sound laughable, but behind it lies the deep anger, frustration, and protest of millions of young people in today’s India. Within just 7 to 10 days, the movement became so popular that the government was forced to take swift action. It all began with a remark made by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. During the hearing of a case, he referred to a group of young people as “cockroaches.” The comment deeply offended many young people, who felt that their unemployment, frustration, and struggles had been insulted in this way. At that very moment, Abhijit Dipke, a 30-year-old living in Boston, seized the opportunity and launched a website and social media accounts under the name Cockroach Janta Party. He declared himself the founder of the movement and said it was “the voice of idle and unemployed youth.” Their posts were very different sharp satire, funny memes, and direct criticism of the government and institutions. On issues such as the NEET paper leak, irregularities in recruitment exams, the failure of the education system, and the problem of unemployment, they spoke in a way that drew young people in by the thousands. Within just a few days, their Instagram following crossed 20 million. Their manifesto contained several clear demands. These included ending post retirement benefits for judges, introducing 50 percent reservation for women, supporting independent media, imposing a 20-year ban on political leaders switching parties, and demanding the education minister’s resignation over exam irregularities such as those in NEET. These demands struck a strong chord among the youth. But the government did not welcome this rapid rise. Suddenly, their official website was blocked and their X (Twitter) account was also shut down. The government said it was a threat to national security and that the action was taken on the basis of an Intelligence Bureau report. Abhijit Dipke has said that he and his family have received death threats. He has now filed a case in the Delhi High Court seeking the unblocking of the account. Political reactions have also come from both sides. The BJP attacked the movement as a “foreign conspiracy” and something “backed by the opposition,” saying it was an attempt to destabilize the country. On the other hand, Congress leader Shashi Tharoor said that in a democracy there should be space for satirical criticism and for young people to express their anger. He called for channeling that anger in the right direction. In fact, Cockroach Janta Party is not a registered political party. It will not contest any election. It is simply a satirical expression of the long-suppressed frustration and anger of young people. But its rapid spread and the government’s equally swift crackdown have together made one thing clear: the condition of the youth and the reality of digital politics in today’s India remain highly sensitive.
From Parliament to Facebook War: BNP–NCP Conflict Turns Ugly
The clear tension in the relationship between the government and the opposition is increasingly turning into an uncomfortable war of words. Government party leaders and activists have begun raising questions about the NCP’s recent conduct and political stance. Expressing anger, the State Minister for Water Resources said, “There is no trace of etiquette, decency, or political courtesy in the NCP’s behavior.” Even BNP leader Moazzem Hossain Alal made a sarcastic remark, saying, “Looking at the behavior of the NCP leaders and activists, it seems they are consuming something that is pushing their conduct beyond the limits of normality.” This back-and-forth storm of remarks has now moved from the parliamentary table to the people’s social media timelines. Recently, at a press conference, the State Minister for Local Government made serious allegations, claiming that Asif Mahmud Shojib Bhuyain allegedly tried to get files passed without the secretary’s signature. Immediately, Asif Mahmud fired back directly on Facebook. He said that if the allegation were true, it would have to be proven publicly. In that same post, he also called the BNP a “nadan government.” Although Asif’s remarks may seem like political drama, this conflict is gradually becoming clearer. Within the NCP, there is a kind of suppressed resentment toward the BNP, while on the other hand, the BNP has also become uneasy over the NCP. A clear tension is now visible inside the relationship between the BNP and the NCP. Mutual discomfort and verbal clashes are increasing steadily in the political arena. In fact, the NCP’s dispute with the BNP over various issues is no longer limited to discussion tables or meetings and rallies; it has now turned into a fully public political tension. Right after this statement, Asif Mahmud again wasted no time and directly issued a counter-challenge on Facebook. He said that if the allegation is true, it must be proven in public. Not stopping there, he also referred to the BNP as a “nadan government,” arguing that within just three months of coming to power, they still have not fully understood the administrative reality. Following the incident in Jhenaidah, where eggs were thrown at Nasiruddin Patwary, influential NCP leader Asif Mahmud could no longer remain silent. Exploding with anger, he directly warned, “If the ruling party wants violence, we have already shown in the 24 mass uprisings that no one can do it better than us. Those who attacked our comrades must be arrested by tonight. If they are not arrested, if you choose violence, then we will also be forced to choose violence.” The victim of the attack, Nasiruddin Patwary, expressed strong anger and alleged that people of the Law Minister and Jhenidah district BNP president Abdul Majid carried out this disgraceful attack on us. If such a severe deterioration in law and order can occur right in the area of the Law Minister himself, then he has no moral right to remain in ministerial office. Many are now questioning the language used by NCP leaders and their sense of political etiquette. Take the words of NCP leader Nasiruddin Patwary, for example. He repeatedly makes such controversial remarks about the BNP that they are difficult for any party to digest. He directly said that Tarique Rahman’s backbone was broken earlier by the DGFI, and now he is reportedly deeply worried about exactly what will be broken in Tarique Rahman this time by the students and the public. Such remarks naturally heighten political tension and create anger among rival activists and supporters. In fact, the student wing of the BNP in Kushtia could not tolerate this insult from their leader and threw eggs at Nasiruddin Patwary. In reality, the long-frozen tension between the BNP and the NCP has been further inflamed by Asif Mahmud’s recent remarks and threatening stance. However, looking at the incident only as a direct clash between the two parties does not make the full picture clear; it appears that more complex political signals are at work beneath the surface. In addition, the NCP’s unrestrained statements and the BNP’s aggressive behavior are promoting a kind of violent practice of vulgar conduct in the political arena.
Public Servants: Serving the State or the Party ?
One of the fundamental conditions for maintaining political stability in a state is ensuring the professional neutrality, accountability, and constitutional responsibility of public officials. Administrative officers play a crucial role in preserving institutional balance between political parties within the state structure. However, when the administrative system becomes subordinated to partisan influence, the institutional foundation of the state gradually weakens. As a consequence, democracy itself not only becomes vulnerable but, at times, its very existence comes into question. The state is inherently a political institution, and political parties are an integral part of it. Although the Constitution of Bangladesh recognizes democracy as the core principle of governance, democracy in the political culture of the Indian subcontinent has rarely developed into a fully institutionalized system. Bangladesh is no exception. Since independence, the country has repeatedly experienced different forms of authoritarian rule under the façade of democracy. Immediately after independence, flawed elections and the establishment of BAKSAL dismantled the multi-party political structure. Later, military coups, prolonged military rule, and shifting political equations shaped the country’s trajectory. Although the mass uprising of 1990 created hope for the restoration of democracy, the political realities that followed the 1991 election repeatedly challenged that expectation. The Magura by-election, the one-sided election of 1996, and subsequent political confrontations continuously weakened democratic institutions. However, after 2008, the crisis deepened further as constitutional institutions increasingly came under executive control. This raised serious public concerns regarding administrative neutrality and the effectiveness of democratic institutions. In this context, the role of public servants becomes critically important. Although they operate under the executive branch of government, their conduct and responsibilities are regulated by clear laws and codes of conduct. According to the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1979, no public official is allowed to engage directly or indirectly in political activities. Yet, the reality often reflects the opposite. In many cases, partisan loyalty, political identity, and overt support for the ruling party have become major factors behind promotions and institutional influence within the administration. Recently, a high-ranking police official publicly expressed loyalty to the government and openly embraced the ideology of the ruling party during a speech. Despite the presence of top government officials at the event, no visible concern or administrative action followed. Yet Rule 25 of the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1979 clearly states that no public servant may become a member of any political party or participate in political activities. Such incidents therefore represent not only violations of official conduct rules, but also serious threats to administrative neutrality itself. Bangladesh’s recent political history demonstrates how politicized and submissive bureaucracies can push a state toward dangerous instability. Over the years, administrative culture based on political allegiance has weakened democratic institutions and eroded public trust. Following recent political movements and democratic aspirations, there was hope that the administrative structure would return to a path of neutrality and accountability. In reality, however, signs of continued politicization remain evident. Even unofficial recommendation letters from MPs and ministers regarding promotions have become increasingly normalized. Rules 20 and 30 of the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules prohibit public servants from using political or external influence regarding service-related matters. Furthermore, the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2018 provide punishments ranging from reprimand and demotion to compulsory retirement or dismissal for misconduct. Yet due to the lack of effective enforcement, these regulations often remain confined to paper rather than practice. Democracy is not merely an election-centered system; it is fundamentally an institution-centered political culture. That culture becomes strong only when the administration rises above political loyalty and remains accountable solely to the Constitution, the law, and the people. The democratic future of Bangladesh largely depends on restoring that institutional balance. Otherwise, merit, professionalism, and constitutional responsibility within the administration will continue to surrender to political favoritism and partisan interests, ultimately weakening the state itself and undermining its democratic foundations.
Before 1971, Fazlul Huq Already Knew Pakistan Would Fail
The elites of Kolkata once argued that there was no need to establish a university in Dhaka. According to them, a small agricultural college near Farmgate or Dhanmondi would be enough. Outraged by this narrow-minded and self-serving attitude, A. K. Fazlul Huq went to the British authorities and firmly argued that Dhaka deserved a full-fledged university. The British eventually softened their stance, though the First World War delayed the project. When University of Dhaka was finally established in 1921, Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq was serving as the Education Minister of Bengal. In 1916, he became the president of the All-India Muslim League. The following year, in 1917, he became the General Secretary of the Indian National Congress. He remains the only person in history to have simultaneously held the positions of President of the Muslim League and General Secretary of the Congress. During 1918–19, Jawaharlal Nehru served as his personal secretary. Before the 1937 elections, Fazlul Huq declared that if elected, he would abolish the zamindari system forever. To stop him, landlords across Bengal and Kolkata spent enormous amounts of money against him. But it was of no use—the peasants voted for their own leader. At the historic Lahore Resolution session in 1940, Muhammad Ali Jinnah was delivering his speech when a sudden murmur spread through the audience. People’s attention shifted away from Jinnah because Fazlul Huq had just entered the hall. Seeing this, Jinnah reportedly remarked: “When the tiger arrives, the lamb must give way.” It was Fazlul Huq who moved the historic Lahore Resolution. In his proposal, he envisioned separate Muslim-majority states: one in the northwestern region and another comprising Bengal and Assam in the east. However, only a few days later, Jinnah altered the wording of the resolution. The original phrase “Muslim majority states” was changed into “Muslim majority state,” transforming the vision of two sovereign Muslim states into a single Pakistan. Fazlul Huq bitterly remarked: “Jinnah circumcised my Lahore Resolution.” He believed that a country divided into eastern and western wings with India in between could never survive in the long run. History proved his fears correct in 1971 during the Bangladesh Liberation War. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman later wrote in his memoirs that ordinary people loved Fazlul Huq so deeply that criticizing him often provoked public anger. Bangabandhu’s own father once advised him: “Whatever you do, never speak against Sher-e-Bangla. He did not become Sher-e-Bangla without reason.” Professionally, Fazlul Huq was one of the most respected lawyers of the Calcutta High Court. Before studying law, he completed triple honours in Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics, and later earned a master’s degree in Mathematics. Once, during a legislative budget session, an MP personally attacked him and even began singing a mocking song aimed at humiliating him. Fazlul Huq calmly responded: “Mr. Speaker, I can jolly well face the music, but I cannot face a monkey.” When controversy erupted, he cleverly clarified: “I never mentioned any honourable member of this House. But if any honourable member thinks that the cap fits him, I withdraw my remark.” Throughout his life, he held almost every major political office possible. He served as the first Prime Minister of Bengal, the Chief Minister of East Bengal, the Home Minister of Pakistan, the Governor of East Pakistan, and the Chancellor of the University of Dhaka. Yet above all, Fazlul Huq became beloved because he stood for the peasants and working-class people of Bengal. He once said: “The day the newspapers of Kolkata begin praising me, know that the peasants of Bengal are in danger.” In 1948, when Jinnah visited Dhaka and declared Urdu to be the sole state language of Pakistan, students fiercely protested. Jinnah suspected that Fazlul Huq was secretly encouraging the students. Eventually, the two leaders met privately. According to Fazlul Huq’s assistant, the conversation unfolded sharply. Jinnah said: “You never truly wanted Pakistan.” Fazlul Huq replied: “I was the one who moved the proposal. Later, it was mutilated.” When Jinnah warned him by saying, “You are talking to the Governor-General of Pakistan,” Fazlul Huq calmly answered: “I know the powers of a constitutional Governor-General.” And when Jinnah attempted to intimidate him further, Fazlul Huq responded boldly: “This is Bangladesh, and you are talking to the Royal Bengal Tiger.” A. K. Fazlul Huq was not merely a politician. He was the voice of Bengal’s peasants and workers, a visionary leader who foresaw the future long before others did, and one of the greatest figures in the political history of Bengal.
Maulana Bhashani: The Voice of the Oppressed and a Forgotten Architect of Bangladesh’s Freedom
Maulana Abdul Hamid Khan Bhashani was one of the most influential political leaders in the history of the Indian subcontinent. Known as the “Leader of the Oppressed” (Majlum Jananeta), he dedicated his entire life to fighting injustice, inequality, and exploitation. Born in 1880 in Dhangara village of Sirajganj district, Bhashani received only limited formal education in schools and madrasas. His professional life began in 1909 as a teacher at Kagmari School in Tangail. Later, he received political inspiration from renowned anti-British nationalist leader Chittaranjan Das. Bhashani entered politics not for personal gain or family legacy, but to serve ordinary people. Throughout his life, he stood beside farmers, laborers, and marginalized communities. During the 1950s, he had already realized that East Bengal could never achieve true freedom and justice within the political structure of Pakistan. His political foresight was later proven correct by history. One of the most significant events of his political career was the historic Long March toward the Farakka Barrage on May 16, 1976. Bhashani believed that the Farakka Barrage would severely damage the rivers, agriculture, and environment of Bangladesh. In protest, he organized a mass movement and led thousands of people in resistance. His fearless leadership made him even more respected among the common people. Maulana Bhashani also played a crucial role in Bangladesh’s independence movement and Liberation War. Alongside Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, he was one of the strongest voices advocating for the freedom of East Pakistan. On March 9, 1971, at Paltan Maidan in Dhaka, he delivered a historic speech urging the people to prepare for armed resistance. From January until March 25, he traveled across the country, inspiring people to join the struggle for independence. After the Liberation War began, the Pakistani military attempted to arrest or assassinate him. They reportedly referred to him as “Kafir Bhashani” while searching for him. Unable to find him, Pakistani forces burned down his house. Eventually, Bhashani managed to escape to India through various secret routes and strategies. Upon arriving in India, his appeal for support for Bangladesh’s freedom struggle received wide attention in Indian newspapers. He actively sought international support for Bangladesh by sending letters and telegrams to the United Nations, leaders of Muslim countries, democratic governments, and world leaders. He strongly protested against the support given to Pakistan by China and the United States, openly criticizing their role during the war. Throughout the Liberation War, Maulana Bhashani traveled across different parts of India while continuing diplomatic efforts for Bangladesh. Using his international influence, he appealed to governments around the world, including the Soviet Union, China, and members of the United Nations, to support the Bengali people. During the time when Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was imprisoned in Pakistan, Bhashani also served as the chairman of the all-party advisory committee that assisted in guiding the Liberation War effort. Even after Bangladesh achieved independence on December 16, 1971, Maulana Bhashani did not immediately return home. He came back to Bangladesh on January 22, 1972 — twelve days after Sheikh Mujibur Rahman returned from Pakistani imprisonment. Upon his return, his first major demand was the withdrawal of Indian troops from Bangladeshi soil, demonstrating his strong commitment to national sovereignty and independence. Bhashani was widely respected for his courage and straightforward political stance. During the political deadlock of 1971, while negotiations over the transfer of power were ongoing, he famously advised Sheikh Mujibur Rahman by saying, “Nothing will come from discussions; just say goodbye to them.” This statement reflected his deep distrust of the Pakistani ruling establishment and his clear understanding of the political reality. He also maintained an important relationship with Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. While expressing gratitude for India’s support during the Liberation War and for sheltering millions of refugees, he simultaneously emphasized the importance of recognizing Bangladesh’s independence. One of his memorable statements was: “I want India’s support and cooperation, but I do not want to become dependent on them.” Maulana Bhashani lived until the age of 96. He died at PG Hospital in Dhaka and was buried in Tangail. He was one of the founders of Awami League, yet over time, his immense contribution to Bangladesh’s political history has often been overlooked. The history of Bangladesh was not built by a single individual alone. It was shaped through the sacrifices and contributions of countless leaders, activists, freedom fighters, and martyrs. Alongside Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, figures such as Maulana Bhashani, Tajuddin Ahmad, the National Four Leaders, Comrade Moni Singh, General Osmani, Colonel Taher, Khaled Mosharraf, and the seven Bir Sreshthas all played vital roles in the creation of Bangladesh. Remembering and honoring all of them is essential to preserving the true spirit of the nation.