Real Credit for the Success of the Cockroach protests Should Go to Arvind Kejriwal and Not Abhijit Dipke
By S.N. Verma
The recent success of the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) agitation has triggered widespread political debate. While many have projected Abhijit Dipke as the face of the movement, I believe the real credit—if one considers the agitation to have been politically successful—belongs not to Abhijit Dipke but to Arvind Kejriwal.
I have remained one of the strongest critics of Arvind Kejriwal over the years. Yet, political analysis demands objectivity. Whether one likes him or not, one cannot ignore what appears to be a well-planned political strategy. In my assessment, the CJP agitation succeeded far beyond the expectations of most observers, including myself, and according to me the principal strategist behind that success was Arvind Kejriwal.
According to my interpretation, the idea of projecting the Cockroach Janata Party did not arise out of preference but out of political necessity. Kejriwal, it may be argued, realised that both he and the Aam Aadmi Party had suffered a significant erosion of public credibility. Any nationwide agitation launched directly under the AAP banner or his own leadership would have struggled to generate broad public support. Consequently, the movement was allegedly presented through a different platform and different public faces.
The next step, in this view, was the careful selection of an issue capable of generating nationwide emotional resonance. Repeated allegations of examination paper leaks, particularly concerning NEET, had already created widespread frustration among students and their families. The issue naturally attracted public sympathy and media attention.
It may be noted that other examination-related issues also existed, yet NEET was strategically chosen because it affected lakhs of students across India and had the potential to inflict maximum political damage on the Union Government. Combined with dissatisfaction among certain sections of society over recent UGC amendments 2026, the controversy offered an opportunity to target education minister Dharmendra Pradhan in order to inflict maximum damage to Modi Govt.
Thereafter, according to my interpretation, individuals such as Abhijit Dipke emerged as the visible faces of the agitation, while the actual political direction remained elsewhere. Public leadership and strategic leadership, it is argued, were deliberately separated.
Supporters of my view further contend that resources, organisational backing, and campaign management were mobilised from various groups opposed to the Modi Government. Simultaneously, efforts were allegedly made to associate respected public personalities with the movement in order to enhance its credibility.
In this context, Sonam Wangchuk is viewed by some observers as someone who provided moral legitimacy to the movement in a manner somewhat comparable to the role Anna Hazare played during the anti-corruption movement. Whether this comparison is justified is open to debate, but there is little doubt that his presence attracted considerable public attention.
The movement also appeared to receive support from sections of Left-leaning organisations, several civil society groups, several social media influencers and several public personalities. Incidentally most of them happen to be big Modi haters for their own different reasons. As the protests expanded, other opposition parties also began expressing solidarity.
Interestingly, the Congress initially maintained visible distance from the agitation. One possible explanation is that its leadership perceived the movement as being politically advantageous to Arvind Kejriwal. However, once the protests gathered nationwide momentum, attempts were reportedly made to associate with the agitation indirectly, though by then the movement had already acquired its own independent identity.
As events unfolded and the agitation appeared to achieve significant political traction, Kejriwal and senior AAP leaders became increasingly visible. To many political observers, this reinforced the impression that the movement had been strategically guided from behind the scenes.
Ultimately, when the Union Government accepted what was seen as one of the principal demands of the protesters by seeking the resignation of the Education Minister, the agitation was widely viewed as a political success. Whether that governmental decision was influenced by the protests or by other considerations is a matter of political interpretation. Nevertheless, the perception of victory has significantly strengthened the movement.
If this assessment is correct, then among contemporary Indian politicians, Arvind Kejriwal demonstrated once again his ability to identify politically sensitive issues, mobilise public sentiment, and convert public dissatisfaction into organised political campaigns.
From the Government's perspective, however, this may not be the end of the story. If the underlying political strategy is indeed to keep identifying issues that evoke strong public emotions and continuously mobilise protests around them, then similar agitations may emerge on other subjects in the future.
It is therefore possible that new issues affecting large sections of the public may become the next focus of political mobilisation. In my opinion, next item in agenda of these cockroaches/Kejriwal could be Ethanol and next minister under attack could be Nitin Gadkari. As I understand, policies relating to ethanol could become future flashpoints, potentially placing ministers such as Nitin Gadkari under increased political attack by Cockroaches. Whether such predictions prove accurate remains to be seen.
Political movements often have visible leaders and invisible strategists. In the case of the Cockroach Janata Party agitation, Abhijit Dipke may have become the public face of the protests, but if the above political reading is accepted, the principal architect behind its strategy, planning and execution was Arvind Kejriwal.
