Category: Articles

Cockroach Janata Party

Published on by Harpreet ChhachhiaLeave a comment

The Cockroaches Have Spoken

How an insult from the Supreme Court birthed India’s strangest youth movement

India wakes up every few months to a new outrage. A statement. A slogan. A clip ripped out of context. A politician saying the quiet part aloud. Social media erupts, hashtags trend for forty-eight hours, television panels scream at each other, and the nation moves on.

But this time, something unusual happened.

The insult refused to remain an insult.

It evolved.

What began as a controversial courtroom observation by Chief Justice Surya Kant — interpreted by many as likening unemployed youth to “cockroaches” and “parasites” — has now transformed into one of the most bizarre, hilarious, politically charged, and culturally revealing online movements India has seen in years. (Reuters)

The result?

The birth of the “Cockroach Janta Party” — a satirical digital political movement that exploded almost overnight across Instagram, X, and meme culture, attracting millions of followers within days. (AP News)

At the time of writing this, the Instagram account has crossed an astonishing 16 million followers, turning what may have begun as internet satire into something far more potent: collective rage disguised as humour.

The Remark That Sparked It

During a Supreme Court hearing, comments attributed to Chief Justice Surya Kant were widely circulated online as describing unemployed youth in terms associated with “cockroaches”. The backlash was immediate and visceral. (Business Today)

Soon after the controversy exploded, the Chief Justice issued a clarification, stating that his remarks had been misquoted and that he was referring specifically to people entering professions through fake or bogus degrees — not India’s youth at large. He also expressed pride in the younger generation of the country. (Reuters)

But by then, the internet had already done what the internet does best:

It had weaponised the insult.

From Slur to Symbol

There is something deeply fascinating about marginalised or insulted groups reclaiming language meant to demean them.

Queer people reclaimed “queer.”
Dalit writers reclaimed slurs once thrown at them.
Memes themselves are often acts of reclamation.

And now, unemployed, anxious, digitally exhausted Indian youth reclaimed the cockroach.

Not merely as a joke — but as identity.

The symbolism was unexpectedly powerful.

Cockroaches survive.
Cockroaches adapt.
Cockroaches outlive systems.
Cockroaches are impossible to eradicate.

Almost instantly, “Main Bhi Cockroach” began appearing online. AI-generated posters emerged. Satirical manifestos circulated. Young Indians dressed as cockroaches in protest videos. Meme pages turned into political commentary overnight. (Maktoob)

Enter Abhijeet Dipke

The movement was initiated by Abhijeet Dipke, a 30-year-old media strategist and former political social-media worker, who launched the Cockroach Janta Party as a satirical response to the controversy. (Republic World)

Its branding was brilliant in the way only internet-native politics can be brilliant: self-aware, ironic, absurd, and emotionally accurate.

The party described itself as:

“a political front of the youth, by the youth, for the youth.”

Its tongue-in-cheek membership criteria included:

  • being unemployed “by force, choice, or principle”
  • being chronically online
  • being emotionally exhausted by the system
  • mastering the art of professional online ranting

Behind the humour lay something unmistakably real. (Republic World)

Why This Went Viral

People will dismiss the Cockroach Janta Party as meme politics.

That is precisely why they misunderstand it.

Humour is often the final language available to a generation that feels unheard.

India today has one of the youngest populations in the world, but also one struggling with unemployment, inflation, educational pressure, burnout, collapsing work-life balance, and an increasingly performative digital culture. (Reuters)

The Cockroach Janta Party did not become viral merely because it was funny.

It became viral because it converted humiliation into participation.

And participation into community.

For years, Indian youth have been told they are lazy, distracted, entitled, oversensitive, unemployed, overeducated, underqualified, politically apathetic, and perpetually online.

The Cockroach Janta Party answered:

“Yes. And?”

The Devdutt Pattanaik Connection

Interestingly, the metaphor itself had appeared earlier in cultural and intellectual commentary by Devdutt Pattanaik, who has often explored how language, symbolism, and mythological metaphors shape public imagination. In some of his online commentary, Pattanaik had also used the term “cockroaches” to describe trolls — people who attack others senselessly and anonymously online.

But when similar imagery emerged from the judiciary — especially in relation to unemployment and youth frustration — it acquired an entirely different moral and political weight.

A mythological metaphor in literature becomes symbolism.

The same metaphor from a constitutional authority becomes power speaking downward.

That difference matters.

The State Responds

As the movement continued growing, the reactions became increasingly surreal.

Reports emerged that the movement’s X account had been withheld in India. Its founder also alleged hacking attempts against the Instagram page. (The Times of India)

Naturally, this only intensified public curiosity.

Nothing accelerates internet mythology faster than attempted suppression.

More Than A Meme

It would be easy to laugh this off as another fleeting internet phenomenon.

But movements like this reveal something profound about modern India.

Traditional politics speaks in speeches.
Young people speak in memes.

Traditional politics uses manifestos.
Young people use irony.

Traditional politics demands obedience.
Internet culture thrives on mockery.

And increasingly, satire has become the only safe language through which disillusionment can speak.

Perhaps that is why the Cockroach Janta Party unsettled people so deeply.

Because beneath the jokes was a truth nobody wanted to confront:

An entire generation recognised itself more easily in a cockroach than in the promises of the system itself.

The Wheel Turns

Published on by Harpreet ChhachhiaLeave a comment

For the last few days, I have been asking the tarot about a little brindle Boxer puppy named Malaika.

Not because I believe cards can predict life with scientific certainty, but because sometimes symbolism becomes a language for emotions too large to hold plainly. Sometimes the cards do not tell the future so much as reveal the shape of the heart standing before it.

And perhaps that is why the readings around Malaika have felt so strangely coherent — as though they are not speaking about fate alone, but about love, grief, memory, fear, and the terrifying courage of beginning again.

The first cards that emerged were the King of Pentacles, the Queen of Wands, and the King of Wands.

Two kings surrounding a queen.

The energy was not chaotic or ominous. It felt protective. Grounded. Warm. The King of Pentacles spoke of stability, guardianship, home, and long-term commitment — the kind of energy that says an animal is not entering a temporary space but becoming family. The Queen of Wands felt unmistakably like Malaika herself: spirited, magnetic, fiery, affectionate, impossible to ignore. And then came the King of Wands — passion, movement, decisive action, the moment emotion becomes reality.

The cards did not feel like they were asking whether she would come. They felt like they were describing a household already emotionally preparing for her arrival.

Then I asked when she would come home.

The Wheel of Fortune appeared. Twice.

The Wheel is not a card of stillness. It is movement, transition, alignment, journeys, shifting circumstances, destiny turning upon its axis. And suddenly the practical reality mirrored the symbolism uncannily. Malaika would not arrive by train after all. She would fly to Pune and then travel onward by road to Mumbai. A literal wheel turning. A journey in motion. Logistics aligning. One life travelling toward another.

Atif would return home by seven to drive me to collect her.

And that was the moment the adoption stopped feeling hypothetical.

Then came my fear for Zuri.

Any person who truly loves animals knows the guilt that accompanies bringing a new one home. Love is never mathematical, but the heart still fears imbalance. I asked how Zuri would react to Malaika and received the Five of Wands, the Seven of Swords, and the The Hanged Man.

Not hatred. Not doom. Adjustment.

The Five of Wands felt like the chaos of puppy energy colliding with established routines. The Seven of Swords suggested caution, observation, emotional strategy. Zuri watching carefully before surrendering trust. And the Hanged Man whispered patience — the reminder that relationships are not always born instantly but sometimes grow quietly over time through shared space, routine, and acceptance.

Then I asked simply:
Will Zuri be okay?

The Justice appeared.

At first I panicked. But Justice is not punishment. Justice is balance. It is the card that says transitions must be handled consciously and fairly. It reminded me that bringing home a new puppy does not mean replacing old love. It means making room for another soul without abandoning the ones already entrusted to your care.

And perhaps that is what this entire emotional journey has really been about.

Because underneath all of this lies Zach. Xena. Grief. Memory. Fear. The unbearable anxiety that loving again somehow betrays those we have loved before.

So I asked the tarot if Malaika was somehow being sent by Zach and Xena.

The Two of Cups emerged.

No dramatic prophecy. No thunderbolt. Just love.

Connection. Continuity. The joining of hearts.

And then, as if the universe had decided symbolism had not yet been heavy-handed enough, my literature society notification appeared on my phone with Eugene Field’s poem Little Boy Blue.

A poem about a little toy dog waiting faithfully through years of absence and dust.

A poem written by a grieving father after the death of his child.

A poem about love remaining behind in objects, spaces, and memory long after someone is gone.

“Oh, the years are many, the years are long,
But the little toy friends are true!”

I sat staring at those lines with tears in my eyes because they captured something I have always known instinctively about animals and about love itself.

Love does not vanish because life changes shape.

The dogs we lose do not become erased simply because another paw enters the house. Memory does not die to make room for joy. Grief and hope coexist. The old love remains standing faithfully in the corner of the heart while new love comes bounding clumsily through the front door with oversized paws and bright eyes.

Finally, I asked what the day of Malaika’s arrival would feel like.

The The Fool came out.

Of course it did.

The Fool is not foolishness. It is innocence. The beginning of the journey. The leap taken despite uncertainty. The willingness to love again without guarantees.

And perhaps that is where I stand now.

Not at the end of grief.

Not beyond fear.

But at the edge of a new beginning, waiting for a little Boxer girl named Malaika to come home.

Marianne Dashwood

Published on by Harpreet ChhachhiaLeave a comment

Sense and Sensibility is often interpreted as a battle between reason and emotion, with Elinor positioned as the moral victor. Generations of readers have been taught to admire restraint, composure, and emotional discipline while quietly mocking Marianne’s intensity. Even in the celebrated film adaptation starring Emma Thompson and Kate Winslet, audiences frequently emerge calling Marianne dramatic, irrational, or immature.

But what if Marianne is not the cautionary tale?

What if she is the soul of the novel?

The tragedy of Marianne Dashwood is not that she feels too much. The tragedy is that the world around her lacks the courage to feel with the same honesty.

When Marianne quotes Shakespeare’s “Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments,” she is not being naïve. She is articulating an ideal of love that refuses compromise, calculation, and emotional bargaining. William Shakespeare understood something Austen herself perhaps struggled against: love is rarely logical. It is disruptive by nature. Even Elinor, the embodiment of “sense,” cannot reason herself out of loving Edward Ferrars. Logic never prevented attachment. It only controlled its expression.

And that distinction matters enormously.

Elinor suffers silently and is rewarded largely through circumstance. Had Edward married Lucy Steele as intended, Elinor’s restraint would not have magically transformed her pain into happiness. Her silence would simply have become permanent heartbreak. Austen’s ending depends not upon the superiority of sense, but upon fortune intervening at the right moment.

Marianne, meanwhile, is punished not because she loves wrongly, but because she loves visibly.

That is what society condemns in her.

People are often comfortable with emotion as long as it remains private, tidy, and non-disruptive. Elinor’s feelings are socially acceptable because they are hidden. Marianne’s feelings become embarrassing because they demand acknowledgement. She speaks. She weeps. She longs openly. She refuses to reduce love to etiquette.

And that openness is frequently mistaken for weakness.

But emotional transparency is not weakness. In many ways, it is the highest form of courage.

To love openly is to relinquish control.
To communicate honestly is to risk humiliation.
To say “this hurt me” or “I need you” requires far more vulnerability than silence ever does.

Modern psychology and therapy culture understand this far better than Austen’s society could. Today we recognise that repression is not inherently virtuous. Communication sustains relationships. Speaking fears aloud prevents emotional rot. Processing feelings openly is healthier than burying them beneath civility until they calcify into loneliness.

Marianne’s emotional fluency, viewed through a contemporary lens, becomes not childishness but radical honesty.

The irony is that many people who idolise Elinor in fiction would find her exhausting in real life. Relationships cannot survive indefinitely on restraint and implication. One person constantly communicating while the other withholds creates emotional asymmetry. Love cannot thrive where vulnerability flows only one way.

And this is perhaps why Marianne resonates so profoundly with people who feel deeply. She represents those who refuse emotional minimalism. Those who would rather risk heartbreak than become numb. Those who understand that life without intensity may be safer, but it is also dimmer.

Without people like Marianne, the world becomes emotionally efficient but spiritually barren.

Art would not exist without Marianne souls.
Poetry would not exist.
Music would not exist.
Great love stories would not exist.

Compassion itself depends upon sensibility — upon the ability to feel another person’s suffering intensely enough to respond to it.

Pure logic builds systems.
Sensibility preserves humanity within them.

Even Colonel Brandon’s love for Marianne is rooted in sensibility, not sense. He loves her because she reminds him of emotional truth — of passion, sincerity, vitality. Marianne awakens feeling in everyone around her. She changes the emotional temperature of the novel merely by existing within it.

And perhaps Austen knew this too, even if she ultimately retreated toward social conservatism in the ending.

Because despite the novel’s title, readers remember Marianne most vividly.

Not because she is perfect.
But because she is alive.

Her tears, her impulsiveness, her idealism, her inability to perform emotional moderation — all of it makes her unforgettable in a way composure rarely is. Elinor may represent survival within society, but Marianne represents the part of the human spirit that refuses to become smaller merely to be safer.

And perhaps that is why so many sensitive people see themselves in her.

Not because they are weak.
But because they have chosen feeling over emotional self-erasure.