akrishnarao

Tag: youth

  • The Uncontainable Anger of India’s Disillusioned Youth

    “A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history,” said Mahatma Gandhi. India now seems to be moving toward an indefinable change. The siege of Parliament on the first day of the Monsoon Session in the national capital on Monday by activists of the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP)—who have been protesting for a month demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, holding him responsible for the NEET question paper leak—must be called a monumental development in recent times. Despite setting up four-tier barricades, deploying large-scale forces of the Rapid Action Force, CRPF, Delhi, and Tripura Police, closing metro stations, and shutting down the internet, the Cockroach army, thousands strong, charged up to the gates of Parliament. Even as the police beat them severely, the young men and women displayed sheer daring. The young people lying with injuries at Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital are direct witnesses to Monday’s brutality.

    It is clear that the Modi government, which remained unmoved despite a decade of attacks and criticism from the opposition, has been put on the defensive by this incident of the cockroach rebellion. A BJP MP said that it is not important how many people participated in the movement launched by the Cockroach Party, but how much impact it had. “My father is a very important leader in the BJP. However, the unfolding developments are not very healthy…” said a youth who participated in the Jantar Mantar protest. “Where politicians fail, children will question,” said a student.

    In reality, the Cockroach Janata Party is not an organization. It is a crowd of directionless young men and women in the country’s contemporary history. Those who came to the protest at Jantar Mantar or participated in the procession did not come because someone paid them. No one arranged buses or trains for their arrival. The discussion happening merely on social media made them set out for Delhi. They did not come raging only over the NEET question paper leak. The young men and women who came were simply fed up with the problems faced by youth—especially unemployment, meager salaries, systemic flaws, and the machinations of political parties. Those who came to the Jantar Mantar protest site did not have a specific goal. Youth aged between 14–28 cannot be fitted into the mold of Left or Right ideologies. The Emergency is not part of their experience. They do not know about Loknayak Jayaprakash Narayan, who once united the opposition. They lack even the experience of the Mandal and Kamandal movements. They have no memories of events that happened three decades ago. Struggling with contemporary issues, unable to decide what to do, with an uncertain future, and arriving with various questions… they are not bound by any traditional rules. Over the past four weeks, this protest platform served as a space where they asked their own questions and provided their own answers. That protest was widely publicized on social media. Examining alternative media sources makes one understand how concerned the youth were about the health condition of environmental activist Sonam Wangchuk, who has been on a hunger strike for more than three weeks.

    Believing that the opposition lacked credibility, that there was no alternative to them, and that whatever they did would pass, the Modi government seems to have underestimated the emergence of the Cockroach Janata Party. The Modi government was easily able to deal with the long-drawn protests by farmers over farm laws and Muslims over the Citizenship Amendment Act. It did not listen even to the cries of female wrestlers who questioned the assaults committed against them. Whichever movement occurred in the country, it adopted various means to damage its credibility. It berated the protesters with various names. The Modi government thought it would be enough to treat the surge of youth protest as a law-and-order issue and suppress it. As the Cockroach Party protest was reaching its peak, Delhi Police Commissioner Satish Golcha was removed and replaced by Anurag Kumar, who until then served as Special Director (Intelligence). As the in-charge of the Jammu & Kashmir desk, he played a key role in dismantling terrorist activities in Kashmir. There is no surprise in such a person attempting to suppress the youth protest with the same mindset.

    During the UPA government’s tenure as well, young men and women flooded the streets against the Nirbhaya rape incident. However, back then, social media was not as influential as it is now. There is no doubt that social media today has become an alternative media for the public. In fact, when Modi came to power, the BJP IT Cell carried out various campaigns to mobilize people, especially to inflame the emotions of Hindus. In particular, it made extensive use of WhatsApp groups. Today, those IT Cell campaigns seem to fade before the social media in the hands of the Gen Z generation. This development proves that if any campaign is not aligned with the sentiments of the people, it will not last long.

    The current generation has not failed to notice that the promises with which Modi came before the people have vanished into the background, and emotional issues have become the main agenda. Leave aside the failure to create jobs; they are closely observing the inability to conduct even exams properly, the failure to provide quality education, and the resorting to numerous machinations and unrighteous wars solely for the sake of power. Nevertheless, there is no evidence to say that the current generation is placing the opposition, especially the Congress, on a pedestal. It is an undeniable fact that for a decade, the Congress and other parties have failed to ignite public anger against Modi. However, no one expected that youth would step up where the opposition failed. If the Congress party had acted as a strong opposition and reflected the aspirations of the youth, the Cockroach Janata Party would not have emerged. It is an interesting point that many forces that failed to confront Modi are now visible in the Cockroach army.

    Strangely, on the first day of Parliament’s Monsoon Session, people did not care about the bills the government intended to introduce or the issues the opposition wanted to raise. The ‘Chalo Sansad’ call given by the Cockroach Janata Party received immense publicity. In a way, this development questioned not only the existence of the government but also the existence of the opposition. Congress leaders, who had been silent all this while on the Cockroach Janata Party protest, making a hue and cry about the lathi charge on the youth, or Rahul Gandhi protesting in front of the Prime Minister’s residence, are all part of Congress trying to prove its own existence. Time alone will tell whether Congress will resurrect itself as a strong opposition learning from the experience of the Cockroach Janata Party. Even for Modi, it is fortunate for the opposition to exist at least to some extent. Otherwise, there are chances of more entities like the Cockroach Janata Party being born.

    Moral responsibility has become an unacceptable taboo in present times. Today, there are no leaders like NTR, who made the entire cabinet resign because the budget was leaked, nor are there ministers who take responsibility and resign for train and plane accidents. When Dharmendra Pradhan is constantly utilized to win elections for the party, how can he focus on his ministerial responsibilities? It is true that Dharmendra Pradhan, who efficiently strategized for the BJP’s victories in Bihar, Haryana, and Bengal, did not manage his ministry efficiently. However, that mistake is not entirely his. Treating their party’s victory in elections as a matter of life and death and diverting all energy and skill in that direction is the cause of the failure of leaders like Dharmendra Pradhan. Will the Modi government act with sincerity at least now to take responsibility for the mistakes committed and build public trust in system institutions?

  • The Cockroach Crisis: Is India’s Judiciary Losing Public Trust?

    “If the judiciary loses its credibility, nothing else will remain. An independent judiciary is the lifeblood of the Constitution. Without it, judges will exist, courts will exist, and judgments will exist—but their heart and soul will disappear,” said Supreme Court Judge Ujjal Bhuyan in a recent memorial lecture in Pune.

    He referred to a stark reality: the collegium itself recorded in its minutes that a High Court judge was being transferred in accordance with the wishes of the Central Government. This serves as a clear example of how a judiciary constitutionally expected to function independently can find itself working under government pressure.

    “The judiciary must remain distant from party politics and function firmly. Changes in government should have absolutely no connection with the judiciary. It should act with goodwill and sympathy towards everyone, but should not side with anyone,” said the first Chief Justice of India, H. J. Kania, at the inaugural sitting of the Supreme Court. Yet, reviewing the situation more than 75 years after the Constitution came into force, deep doubts arise as to whether standards in the higher judiciary have improved or deteriorated.

    The Historical Shield and the Ultimate Downfall

    For nearly twenty-five years after the Constitution came into force, the judiciary largely fulfilled its responsibility of preserving its own existence, protecting the fundamental rights of citizens, and defining the limits of government authority. The Supreme Court progressively interpreted Articles 14, 15, 19, and 31. In the 1967 Golaknath case, it clarified that fundamental rights could not be diluted, and in the landmark 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case, it solidified that Parliament had no authority to alter the basic structure of the Constitution.

    However, after coming to power with an overwhelming majority in 1971, Indira Gandhi’s administration began to toy with judicial independence. The absolute peak of the judiciary’s downfall in capitulating to executive overreach was the infamous ADM Jabalpur case during the Emergency.

    When thousands of political opponents and journalists were jailed without trial, and citizens sought the intervention of the courts to protect their fundamental liberties, a five-judge Constitution Bench delivered one of the most disgraceful judgments in Indian history. By a 4:1 majority, the bench ruled that during an Emergency, citizens do not even possess the right to life under Article 21.

    The majority consisted of Chief Justice A. N. Ray, Justice P. N. Bhagwati, Justice M. H. Beg, and Justice Y. V. Chandrachud (father of former Chief Justice D. Y. Chandrachud). When Justice H. R. Khanna—the sole courageous dissenter—asked during the hearings, “Does that mean people cannot question even if they are shot dead in the name of Emergency?”, the then-Attorney General chillingly replied, “My Lord, that is what the law says.”

    A Era of Introspection and Activism

    Following the Emergency—one of the darkest chapters in judicial history—the Supreme Court undertook deep introspection and initiated significant corrective measures. Moving past its catastrophic failure, the court aggressively declared that the Constitution, not the executive, was supreme.

    It opened its doors to the masses through Public Interest Litigations (PILs), ordered the release of thousands of undertrial prisoners languishing in jails, liberated bonded laborers, and eventually introduced the collegium system to insulate judicial appointments from political interference.

    Most importantly, it expanded the scope of personal liberties, protected the environment, championed the interests of working women, and curbed the arbitrary dismissal of state governments by ruling that political majorities must be proven on the floor of the legislature. At that stage, judicial activism was a remarkable shield for the vulnerable.

    Modern Shadows and Internal Fractures

    If the Supreme Court denied protection to human life twenty-five years after Independence, today, five decades after that judgment, the core functioning of the institution faces renewed skepticism. We may not be living in a formal Emergency, but public faith in the judiciary is noticeably shrinking.

    The fact that sitting judges themselves feel compelled to speak out demands serious reflection:

    • Justice Ujjal Bhuyan publicly emphasized that no external forces should be allowed to intrude upon judicial independence, asserting that personal political or ideological views must not influence decisions on the bench.
    • Justice B. V. Nagarathna warned that judges must not succumb to external pressures, noting that those who cannot live contentedly on their legitimate income should be eliminated from the system entirely. “A tainted judge is a stain on the entire system,” she remarked.
    • Justice S. Muralidhar, former Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court, once noted: “Impartiality is the soul of the judiciary, and independence is the blood flowing through its veins.” Notably, during his tenure at the Delhi High Court, he was transferred overnight after questioning police inaction during civil unrest in the capital.

    In her book Constitution Is My Home, senior advocate Indira Jaising recalled a harrowing 2022 case involving sexual harassment allegations made by a female Additional District Judge against a Madhya Pradesh High Court judge. Not only did the victim fail to find immediate recourse, but she was also swiftly transferred and forced to resign.

    Through Jaising’s persistent legal battles, a Supreme Court bench headed by Justice L. Nageswara Rao eventually restored her position and questioned why the then-Chief Justice of the High Court had refused to even grant her an interview. Disturbingly, just days later, that very Chief Justice was elevated to the Supreme Court.

    Growing Questions and the “Cockroach” Backlash

    Why has it become necessary for judges to comment so defensively on their own institution? Critics increasingly argue that the higher judiciary—originally designed to protect the common citizen—is becoming overwhelmingly responsive to the wealthy, the state, and political elites.

    Calculated bench allocations and predictable judgments in politically sensitive cases have sparked intense debate. Former Supreme Court Bar Association President Dushyant Dave openly criticized the court for failing to check the erosion of vital institutions like the Election Commission, pointing out that judges routinely scramble for lucrative post-retirement positions.

    Simultaneously, ethical questions have mounted. Organizations like the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) heavily criticized several judges and their families for utilizing private aircraft provided by state governments, arguing it severely compromises judicial ethics. Furthermore, instances like the discovery of massive cash bundles at the residence of a former Delhi High Court judge—followed by an apparent lack of accountability—have deepened public cynicism.

    Perhaps because the public, especially the younger demographic, is closely watching these lapses, an explosive reaction occurred following recent remarks made by Supreme Court Judge Surya Kant.

    During a judicial hearing, Justice Surya Kant criticized unemployed youth, comparing them to “cockroaches” who populate social media, media outlets, and RTI activism to attack institutions. Though he later clarified that the comment was contextualized within a specific petition regarding a lawyer’s designation and was not aimed at the youth at large, the damage was done.

    Justice Surya Kant has faced widening backlash for a series of oral remarks. On May 11, 2026, during a hearing on the Pipavav Port expansion project in Gujarat, his comments drew sharp rebukes from environmentalists and legal experts. Former civil servants under the Constitutional Conduct Group warned that these remarks showed a disturbing pro-corporate bias from the bench, creating an atmosphere of fear that silences dissent. Over 70 lawyers noted that treating citizens who enforce environmental laws as “obstructionists” marks a dangerous jurisprudential shift.

    Similarly, on January 29, 2026, during a PIL hearing on domestic workers’ rights, Justice Surya Kant blamed trade unions for stifling industrial growth and shutting down traditional industries. Labor bodies, including the AITUC, strongly condemned the court for misreading economic realities, arguing that industrial stagnation is driven by corporate monopoly and pro-corporate state policies, not by workers asserting their legal rights.

    The Danger of Erased Boundaries

    Following the “cockroach” commentary, a young citizen created a social media movement under the banner of the “Cockroach Janata Party.” Millions responded. Instead of merely deflecting the insult, the youth weaponized it, using the platform to furiously criticize the government over unemployment, inflation, corruption, and systemic scams, proclaiming: “Yes, we are cockroaches.”

    This reaction highlights a profound systemic crisis. The derogatory comments were made by a member of the judiciary, yet the public directed its anger squarely at the executive government.

    This reveals a terrifying reality: the public no longer views the government and the judiciary as separate entities.

    In a constitutional democracy, nothing is more dangerous than the total erasure of the boundary between the ruling executive and the independent judiciary. The judiciary must aggressively reform and rescue itself from this crisis. If it fails, the day may soon arrive when the “cockroaches” themselves feel forced to become the arbiters of justice.