Introductory note: Borrowed from the current political lexicon, the moniker “Dimagi Naxal”—combining dimag (brain) with the legacy of India’s extreme-left Naxalite movement whose historic leadership famously emerged from the country’s top educational institutions—is a term lately floated by Narendra Modi's ecosystem to disparage those who think critically of government policies. Yet, as Parliament remains captive and Parliament Street active, the newly minted vanguard of the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) and its allies must reckon with the true gravity of what lies before them.
As I write, parliament may continue to be captive, but thankfully, Parliament Street is once again active.
Leaders of the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP), cadres of the National Students Union of India and of the Bhim Army led by Chandrashekhar Azad are gathered at the police station there, demanding legal action against one Swatantra Bhardwaj.
Bhardwaj is a self-proclaimed right-wing vigilante who has publicly and proudly acknowledged having bashed a peaceful protester, Sanjay Azad, on the head at the peaceful Jantar Mantar protests on June 23.
Sanjay Azad received seven stitches following the murderous attack.
Bhardwaj has been gloating about how he escaped—ostensibly because of a phone call made to the police by the BJP leader, Kapil Mishra—what he admits should have been an arraignment under sections of the law pertaining to attempt to murder.
He also proudly claims proximity to Chirag Paswan and even Narendra Modi.
As a result of the public protests on September 4, we gather, this lumpen stormtrooper has finally been arrested, some 71 days after his crime. He is likely to be charged with sections pertaining to atrocities against members of a Scheduled Caste, since his victim is a Dalit.
The victim’s daughter, Nishu Azad, claims to have received constant threats from Bhardwaj, including of rape, for carrying on with her demand for justice.
It may be recalled that around two weeks ago, Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi had mounted a seven-hour-long dharna at the same police station to procure an FIR for the pellet gun fired on Sahil Lochab, which the powers-that-be deny even though medical reports and the physical evidence on Sahil’s body confirm it happened.
In a concatenation of events, news comes of a meeting between CJP leaders and the Samajwadi Party chief in Lucknow, ostensibly about the former’s continuing movement against the decrepit state of schools in Uttar Pradesh. This meeting has become the inevitable moment that fuels political speculation.
In elaborate public interviews and interactions, the leaders of the CJP have by now conclusively put to rest the many conspiracy theories with regard to their true colours, their patrons and so on.
Perhaps the most elaborate of these explanations was at a Gen Z Conclave hosted by News 24, wherein Abhijit Dipke unravelled the so-called mystery of their inexplicably genial reception at the airport in Delhi and the events that followed. He also revealed in detail matters pertaining to their ideological moorings.
CJP leaders have boldly and repeatedly said that they are secular, socialist and democratic and that they consider the Constitution of India a compendium of their entire ideological universe. They say they consider Jawahar Lal Nehru, “without a doubt,” India’s greatest prime minister, and that they see Shri Narendra Modi as a “skincare-PR” person and an “actor” to boot.
Arising from this is a larger issue that the CJP must now confront.
Can secularism, socialism, democracy, credibly enforced rule of law, non-discriminatory justice delivery, and “accountability and transparency”—which they highly prize as indispensable attributes of a legitimate people’s government that operates by the letter and spirit of the constitution—exist if the first basic feature of the Constitution, namely, universal adult franchise determined through free and fair elections, is in dire jeopardy?
In May 2026, the CJP issued a five-point manifesto in which the second point is that the Election Commission of India (ECI) would be held responsible under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, should even a single legitimate voter be deprived of her franchise.
Well, looking around them on any day of any week, the CJP may note just how the electoral system has been shamefully smashed to smithereens—how voters are being cast out of electoral rolls by the hundreds of thousands on the flimsiest of specious arguments, making a mockery of election results in state after state.
In West Bengal, the CJP would have noted, some 27 lakh citizens were deprived of their right to vote on the pretext of something the ECI called “logical discrepancy.” On appeal to tribunals, some 91% of appellants were found to be legitimate voters, but they were still deprived of their right to vote.
An honourable justice was pleased to quip that they could always vote the next time around.
In Maharashtra, there were 9.50 crore voters in the 2024 parliamentary elections, 9.78 crore in the subsequent assembly elections held the same year, and now, after the latest SIR, only 7.71 crore voters remain.
Who were the additional two crore or so who voted in 2024 and 2025? Where have they disappeared to in the space of roughly two years?
The full extent of the rot is acutely captured in an interview with Parakala Prabhakar published on The Wire.
Clearly, in its own five-point manifesto, the CJP has said it would address this issue, which is now the mother of all issues. With a more-than-questionable electoral process on an unstoppable rampage, what use is it to speak of school education or sundry other concerns if the republic is run through a political-electoral process that denotes a broken democracy, one tailored to produce an electoral autocracy?
So, here are two questions the new vanguard may consider before all others:
One, should the modality of appointing the ECI continue to be as hopelessly weighted in favour of the Executive as it is now?
Two, should a law be in place that forbids any individual or institution from proceeding against the ECI, no matter how germane the plaint?
A consideration of these issues may, of course, require the CJP to engage in wider political and legal consultations—but is there any other way to retrieve the credibility of the republic?
