When CJP first started appearing on my social-media feed, I wasn't particularly interested.

It seemed like another campaign that had suddenly gone viral. Then youngsters gathered at Jantar Mantar. The movement grew. Sonam Wangchuk joined.

My reaction was scepticism.

When a people's movement becomes this large, political ambition is difficult to resist.

Perhaps that reaction comes from my own generation's experience.

We have seen this before

I remember the Anna Hazare movement and the anger against corruption.

Most of us weren't at Jantar Mantar. We lived with that anger silently — frustrated by corruption, poor governance and a system that never seemed to improve.

We wanted the movement to succeed because we wanted India to improve.

Then Arvind Kejriwal entered politics.

This isn't a judgement on what followed. My point is simpler: once a citizens' movement becomes a political party, its priorities inevitably change.

There are elections to win, candidates to defend and power to retain.

Social responsibility may remain, but now it must coexist with political survival.

That history made me suspicious of CJP.

Then my Gen Z son made me see something I had missed.

My son wasn't watching another protest

My son has just passed Class 12. He was genuinely anguished.

He kept telling me: there are Class 10 and 12 students there. There are 19-, 20- and 25-year-olds protesting.

To me, they were protesters on a screen.

To him, they were his generation.

Young people have every right to protest. Their anger shouldn't be dismissed merely because they are young.

But that makes the responsibility of older organisers greater, not smaller.

When the first serious confrontation happened and tear gas was fired, I believe the more experienced people in CJP should have stopped and reassessed.

Not end the movement. Not surrender.

End the protest for that day.

A 19-year-old swept up in a movement may want to continue. A 35- or 40-year-old leader should know when the risk has changed.

Leadership is not only about knowing when to bring people onto the streets.

Sometimes it is knowing when to take them home.

Then #SchoolTheekKaro changed my question

This is where CJP becomes much more interesting to me.

Take a neglected government school.

Dirty toilets. Poor meals. Broken facilities.

CJP arrives. The problem is filmed. Media attention follows. Officials realise they are being watched.

Suddenly the school is cleaned. Better food appears. Things begin moving.

Perhaps some of it is managed for the cameras. Perhaps children are even brought from elsewhere to present a better picture.

But doesn't even that reveal something?

The system could do better. It simply wasn't doing it.

If public scrutiny can improve one school, why stop at one?

Take up 100 schools.

Then hospitals.

Roads.

Colleges.

Document the problem. Name the responsible authority. Return after a month.

Ask one wonderfully simple question:

Theek hua ya nahi?

#SchoolTheekKaro could become #IndiaTheekKaro.

And it shouldn't matter who governs.

BJP? Ask questions.

Congress? Ask the same questions.

Anyone else? Same standard.

That kind of movement could become a powerful watchdog precisely because it has no government of its own to defend.

But Anna Hazare left us another lesson

There is a problem with my argument.

Anna Hazare protested again after 2011. He went on hunger strike again.

India didn't respond the same way.

The crowds shrank. The cameras moved on.

Movements can lose their moment.

That may be the strongest argument for CJP eventually entering politics: public attention fades, while political power gives you the authority to act.

But political power extracts its own price.

Once CJP contests elections, it will have candidates to protect, elections to win and perhaps eventually its own government to defend.

Can a watchdog remain the same watchdog after it enters the house?

CJP's decision not to immediately form a political party therefore reassured me, even if politics remains an option.

Why rush?

First test the power it already has.

Take #SchoolTheekKaro further. Try it with hospitals, roads and colleges. See whether sustained public scrutiny can actually make government work better.

If it can, scale it.

India already has plenty of people who want to govern it.

What we have far fewer of are people organised enough to make whoever governs India do the job properly.

CJP has the attention of young India today.

Before converting that attention into votes, perhaps it should try converting it into something else:

#IndiaTheekKaro.

The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Delhi government to ensure medical treatment for protesters injured during the July 20 Parliament march from Jantar Mantar, while also ordering the Centre to preserve records related to weapons and ammunition used by the Rapid Action Force during the demonstration. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohan was hearing petitions concerning the alleged use of pellet guns against protesters during the Cockroach Janta Party's march. The court, however, declined for now to impose a blanket ban on pellet guns, observing that police may use such weapons in specific situations under the existing framework. The bench said it would be difficult to prohibit their use without a direct challenge to the police rules that permit such weapons. At the same time, the Supreme Court sought the Centre's response on guidelines governing the use of pellet guns and directed that records concerning RAF weapons and ammunition deployed during the Jantar Mantar protest be kept safe.

The petitions were filed by former IPS officer Yashovardhan Azad and alleged victims Prashant Kumar Singh and Sheikh Irshad Mansoori, who sought a ban on pellet guns. They claimed that the RAF used pellet guns against students during the July 20 march. The issue has remained controversial since the protest, with allegations surrounding the type and extent of force used by security personnel. According to the details presented, more than 100 people were injured during the clashes, including protesters and police personnel. The CJP had called for a march from Jantar Mantar towards Parliament, with the demonstration continuing from around 8 am until 5 pm and witnessing repeated confrontations between protesters and security forces. Some demonstrators allegedly broke barricades and moved towards Parliament through Parliament Street, Janpath, the War Memorial area, Kartavya Path and Vijay Chowk. Police and Rapid Action Force personnel resorted to crowd-control measures as the situation deteriorated, including lathi-charge and tear gas. Images of stone-pelting also emerged later in the evening, while protesters alleged that pellet guns had been fired at students. Police cleared Jantar Mantar by around 5 pm, but CJP supporters reportedly returned to the protest site around 11 pm and resumed their demonstration.

The case has also brought wider attention to the rules governing the use of pellet guns in India. Pellet guns are not completely prohibited in the country. According to the framework described in the petition-related material, law-enforcement agencies operate under guidelines and standard operating procedures for the use of such less-lethal weapons in crowd-control situations. The stated approach is that police should first use methods considered less likely to cause serious injury when dealing with a breakdown of law and order. Weapons such as pellet guns are meant to be considered only when other measures fail to bring a violent crowd under control, and their use should remain proportionate to the situation. Security personnel are also expected to take precautions to minimise injuries to civilians and fellow personnel. Thursday's Supreme Court directions do not amount to a finding that the RAF unlawfully used pellet guns during the July 20 protest. The allegations and circumstances surrounding their reported use remain before the court. By directing preservation of weapons and ammunition records and seeking the Centre's response on the guidelines, the bench has ensured that material connected with the security operation remains available while the matter is examined further.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to grant an urgent hearing on a petition challenging the alleged police action against students during the recent protest at Jantar Mantar led by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP). The matter came up before Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, who refused the request for an immediate listing and made strong remarks while hearing the petitioner's counsel.

During the brief exchange in court, the petitioner's lawyer argued that students had raised significant concerns regarding the conduct of the NEET examination and the functioning of the National Testing Agency (NTA). The counsel requested that the case be listed urgently, citing alleged police excesses during the July 20 protest march and referring to video footage of the incident.

However, the Chief Justice declined to consider the request. Responding to repeated references to video evidence, CJI Surya Kant said, “We are not interested in watching the videos. We don't have time to watch them. We don't want to watch the videos.” When the lawyer again pressed the issue, the CJI remarked, “Don't waste our time.”

Protest Triggered Clashes

The plea stems from the events of 20 July, when the Cockroach Janata Party organised a march from Jantar Mantar to Parliament over the alleged NEET paper leak and other education-related issues. During the march, clashes reportedly broke out between protesters and Delhi Police at multiple locations after security personnel attempted to stop the rally from moving toward Parliament.

Police resorted to baton charges to disperse sections of the crowd. According to official figures, more than 100 protesters and police personnel sustained injuries during the violence. The incident has since become the subject of political debate, legal petitions, and public criticism.

Similar Plea Earlier Rejected

Before approaching the Supreme Court, petitioners had moved the Delhi High Court seeking urgent intervention. The High Court, however, also declined to immediately hear the matter, observing that the court should not be drawn into ongoing political developments.

Despite the setback in both courts, those challenging the police action continue to seek judicial scrutiny into the events surrounding the protest and the alleged use of force against demonstrators.

Bar Association Seeks Probe

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has called for an independent inquiry into the alleged lathi-charge on student protesters.

In a statement, the association expressed concern over reports that several students suffered serious injuries during the demonstration. It urged authorities to conduct a fair investigation into the circumstances under which force was used and whether standard operating procedures were followed.

Political Tensions Continue

The protest has also triggered sharp political reactions. Opposition parties have criticised the government's handling of the demonstration and demanded accountability for the alleged police action. The issue has disrupted proceedings during the ongoing Monsoon Session of Parliament, where opposition members have repeatedly raised concerns over the treatment of student protesters and sought discussions on the NEET controversy.

The Centre, meanwhile, has maintained that law enforcement agencies acted to preserve public order and prevent protesters from breaching security restrictions near Parliament.

Background of the CJP Movement

The Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) emerged in May after remarks attributed to CJI Surya Kant referring to some youths as "wandering like cockroaches" generated widespread discussion online. The movement quickly gained traction on social media, attracting a large following and positioning itself around issues related to education reforms and accountability.

In recent weeks, the organisation has intensified its campaign by staging demonstrations at Jantar Mantar and demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over the alleged NEET paper leak.

With the Supreme Court declining an urgent hearing and political tensions continuing both inside and outside Parliament, the legal and public debate over the July 20 protest is expected to remain in focus in the coming days.

Abhijit Dipke was in no mood to back down on Tuesday. Standing before protesters at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi for the fourth consecutive day, the founder of the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) fired back at Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, who had called the outfit the "B team of terrorists."

"The Education Minister is calling the youth of the country terrorists. Sir, we are not terrorists. We do not need patriotism certificates from people like you," Dipke told the crowd gathered at the protest site.

He followed that up with a sharp post on X, writing that Pradhan's hands "are stained with the blood of more than 17 students" — a reference to student deaths linked to competitive exam stress and coaching institute conditions, a charge the minister's office has not directly addressed.

Pradhan, for his part, showed no signs of softening his position. In an interview with NDTV on Tuesday, the minister said those "rejected by democracy have come back in disguise" and are now targeting the system. "They raise slogans for those who want to divide the country. Their identity has been established," he said. Pradhan also warned that coaching centres and what he called "education mafias" are under watch. "We will bring them to their knees; we cannot secure the future of the country's children," he added.

The war of words marks a sharp escalation in what has become one of the more unusual political standoffs in recent memory — a movement built around a judicial insult, now squaring off against a senior cabinet minister.

CJP came into existence following a remark by Chief Justice Suryakant during a May 15 court hearing, in which he referred to unemployed youth who become RTI activists or media workers as "cockroaches who attack the system." The comment lit a fuse. The very next day, Dipke — a 30-year-old digital media strategist from Sambhaji Nagar, Maharashtra, currently pursuing a Master's in Public Relations at Boston University — launched the Cockroach Janata Party from the United States and set up its social media accounts.

What followed was a rapid and unexpected surge. By June 10, CJP's Instagram account had amassed 2.27 crore followers — more than BJP's 94 lakh and Congress's 1.37 crore, though the figure has since dipped by roughly two lakh. On X, the party has 2.79 lakh followers. On May 22, Dipke launched an online petition demanding Pradhan's resignation, which reportedly drew support from over eight lakh people.

The movement has now spread to eight cities over 15 days, with protests running in parallel across locations. Dipke, who studied journalism in Pune before moving abroad and was previously associated with the Aam Aadmi Party, has emerged as the face of what his supporters describe as a youth-driven pushback against institutional apathy toward unemployment and student welfare.

Whether CJP's social media muscle translates into sustained street pressure remains to be seen. But Tuesday's exchange showed both sides digging in — Dipke framing it as a generational fight for dignity, Pradhan framing it as a threat to national unity. The protests at Jantar Mantar are expected to continue.

'Brijbhushan harassed me too': Vinesh Phogat reveals she is among six sexual harassment complainants

Indian wrestling star Vinesh Phogat publicly identifies herself as one of six victims in the sexual harassment case against former WFI chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, citing unfair trial arrangements in Gonda ahead of Asian Games 2026.

In a move that has jolted Indian sport, Olympic wrestler Vinesh Phogat has come forward to disclose that she is one of six women who formally complained of sexual harassment by Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, the former chief of the Wrestling Federation of India. Until now she had maintained anonymity, in line with Supreme Court guidelines protecting the dignity of complainants in such cases. She broke that silence on Saturday in a video statement, citing what she described as deliberate institutional pressure being mounted against her return to competition.

Breaking a long silence

Phogat was measured but unmistakably distressed as she explained her decision to speak. "The Supreme Court guidelines say that the identity of any victim should not be revealed," she said, before adding that circumstances had made it impossible for her to stay quiet any longer. "I want to say that I myself am one of those six victims who filed a complaint, and our testimonies are still ongoing." It is the first time any of the complainants has voluntarily identified herself in the case, which remains under trial before a Delhi court.

The Gonda problem

The immediate trigger, Phogat said, was a decision by the current WFI leadership to hold the Asian Games 2026 ranking trials at a wrestling facility in Gonda, Uttar Pradesh — a town strongly associated with Brij Bhushan, who maintains a private college and substantial local influence there. She called the choice of venue anything but coincidental.

"He has his own private college, and this competition is being organised there," she said. "That every hardworking athlete will get their due there — this is something very unlikely and almost impossible." She alleged that Brij Bhushan continues to direct affairs at the federation through its current president, Sanjay Singh. "Who will referee whose match, how many points a referee will give — all of this will be controlled by Brij Bhushan and his people," she said, accusing the sports ministry of watching as a silent spectator.

Mental toll on a comeback attempt

Phogat has been working toward competitive wrestling again after stepping away following the heartbreak of Paris 2024, where she was disqualified from the gold medal final on a weight issue in one of the most controversial moments in Indian Olympic history. Her statement made clear that the prospect of competing in Gonda is deeply unsettling.

"Going to his place, to his own college, where every person would be connected to him — going there and competing in such a situation is extremely difficult," she said. "Even after that, whether I will be able to go there and give my 100 percent, I do not think so." She spoke explicitly about the psychological weight that survivors carry into competitive situations. "For a woman, competing in such a situation is very difficult, and every athlete who has gone through such a situation can relate to this."

A protest movement revisited

Phogat was one of the most prominent faces of the prolonged sit-in at Jantar Mantar in early 2023, where she, Bajrang Punia, and Sakshi Malik led wrestlers in demanding Brij Bhushan's arrest and removal. Their agitation drew national attention and eventually led to the former WFI chief stepping down, though his supporters have retained considerable influence within the federation's structure. The criminal case — which includes charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act in relation to one complainant who was a minor — has moved slowly through the courts.

Pressure mounts on sports ministry

Her statement puts fresh heat on the sports ministry and its oversight of WFI. Critics have repeatedly argued that despite formal leadership changes at the federation, the old power network remains intact. Phogat's account of how referees and match outcomes could be manipulated in Gonda gives that criticism a sharper, more specific edge. Sources within the wrestling community said several other ranked wrestlers share her concerns about the venue but have not spoken publicly.

Whether the WFI or the sports ministry responds by reconsidering the venue, or pushes ahead with Gonda, will be closely watched — and is likely to define Vinesh Phogat's decision on whether she competes in the Asian Games trials at all.