Booker Prize-winning author and activist Arundhati Roy has described India’s emerging “Cockroach Janata Party” movement as a symbol of mounting public anger over unemployment, alleged examination paper leaks, and what she characterizes as the erosion of democratic institutions.
In an essay titled “Cockroach Democracy: Unarmed and Dangerous,” Roy argues that a student-led protest movement has grown far beyond its original demand for the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, evolving into a broader challenge to India’s political establishment.
According to Roy, the movement began after Chief Justice of India Surya Kant allegedly referred to unemployed young Indians as “cockroaches.” The remark prompted Boston-based student Abhijeet Dipke to post on Instagram, “What if all cockroaches come together?” The post quickly gained traction online, leading to the formation of what supporters call the “Cockroach Janata Party.”
Roy writes that the movement initially focused on alleged irregularities in India’s examination system, including repeated paper leaks. She cites opposition claims that more than 150 public examination papers have been leaked since 2014, devastating the prospects of millions of students.
The essay says protests intensified after Dipke returned to India and joined demonstrations at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar alongside education reform advocate Sonam Wangchuk and student activists affiliated with the All India Students Association (AISA). Roy claims the demonstrations expanded into a large march toward Parliament on July 20 despite restrictions imposed by authorities.
Describing the protests as peaceful, Roy alleges that police used force against demonstrators, including baton charges and tear gas, while protesters continued marching toward Parliament. She argues that the government’s response exposed what she calls an increasingly authoritarian approach to dissent.
Roy further contends that the movement has united people across religious, caste, and class divisions and has become a wider expression of frustration over unemployment, inflation, environmental disputes, and citizenship-related policies.
In the essay, she also raises concerns about the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), the National Register of Citizens (NRC), and the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, arguing that these measures have intensified uncertainty over citizenship and voting rights for many Indians.
The author claims India’s democratic institutions including the Election Commission, judiciary, police, and sections of the media have become increasingly compromised, allegations that have been repeatedly rejected by the Indian government.
While acknowledging that the movement may not immediately lead to political change, Roy argues that it reflects growing public dissatisfaction and could mark an important moment in India’s contemporary political history.
She concludes by warning that tensions could escalate if authorities respond with further force, while urging citizens and opposition parties to build on what she describes as a rare display of youth-led civic mobilization.