An internet joke has turned into one of the biggest youth movements seen in India in recent years. The Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), an entity created on the basis of satire and social media, has evolved into a countrywide protest movement against corruption within the education system, demanding responsibility from the government for repeated leaking of the examination papers and expressing the dissatisfaction of millions of young Indians about their unemployment and lack of opportunities. Far from putting an end to the movement, the harsh measures of the Indian government have actually promoted its political nature, providing another example of a lesson learned in the political history: repression might strengthen, but not suppress the popular resistance.
The background of the CJP is rather specific. After remarks of one of the high-rank judicial officials, calling unemployed youth “cockroaches,” were perceived as humiliating by many young Indians, they decided to use this label as their political identity. Thus, the movement was started on the basis of demands for more transparency in India’s examination system and responsibility for the repeated paper leaks.
The examination system in India is known to be the most competitive one in the whole world. Each year millions of people take examinations to get university places and government jobs. In this context, examination leaks were seen as something which undermined public confidence greatly. It was no longer just about an examination for many young people but about merit itself. Added to the problem of unemployment among graduates, these protests turned out to be not sector-specific but much more general.
What made things worse for the government was the response to the protests themselves. When thousands of protesters were marching on Parliament in New Delhi, the police tried to stop them by barricading their path and using tear gas and batons. Protest leaders claimed that 180 people were injured, along with some police officers. Photos and videos of people running from tear gas and being treated for injuries quickly spread on social networks and international news channels.
This issue finds its explanation in the context of political science. The literature on contentious politics claims that the use of repression by state authorities may lead to the so-called “backfire effect.” Brian Martin’s research on repression shows that if governments use force against demonstrators and the usage of force is seen by the general public as excessive, repression may unintentionally reinforce the legitimacy of the protest movements. Instead of seeing protesters as a threat to public order, repression may turn them into victims who defend their legitimate rights. In democratic countries, this phenomenon may enlarge the base of supporters and involve media.
The development of CJP perfectly illustrates this process. At first, the movement was focused on the reform of examinations and youth unemployment. After the police raid, it started attracting wider layers of society. Volunteers organized food supplies, doctors gave assistance, lawyers were giving legal help, and people from all over India were donating money to support the protest camp at Jantar Mantar in Delhi. According to Reuters, supporters both from inside and outside India maintained protests infrastructure and allowed demonstrators to keep up with protests amid pressure from the authorities.
One clear sign of the expanding influence of the movement was when opposition parties openly participated in the protests. For example, Rahul Gandhi and other opposition lawmakers tried to join the protest marchers before being stopped by police. Their participation was evidence of their realization of the political importance of the youth dissatisfaction. As reported by Reuters, the way in which the government dealt with the protests presented the fragmented Indian opposition with its best opportunity in recent years to take on Prime Minister Narendra Modi on matters going beyond party politics.
It should be noted that leaders of the CJP have tried to keep the movement independent. Although appreciating public support, they stressed that their initiative is not meant to be used as a platform for elections. The principal demands of the protestors are connected with education reform, punishment for leaking of examination papers and resignation of the Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. Even when the government decided to create fast-track courts to prosecute the exam cheating people, the movement leaders believed that changes were necessary.
These protests also pose a bigger challenge to the governance structure of India. With more than half of the Indian population being below the age of thirty, young people’s aspirations now play a vital role in determining political stability. Fast-growing economic progress will not be enough to maintain faith in the government if young Indians feel that the education, competition exams, and job prospects are threatened with corruption and inefficiencies. CJP has managed to combine all these issues into a single package and has done so successfully.
The fact that the government turned to coercive policies only added fuel to the fire. International media reported about use of forceful means against the protesters, while human rights activists spoke about the right of peaceful assembly in times of political tensions. On the other hand, authorities justified police actions, claiming that they were needed to keep the peace in the society. Whatever way you look at it, the result is obvious: the protests did not die out and have transformed into one of the biggest youth protests against the Modi government.
History is testimony that movements are usually more determined by the state reaction than the actual grievances of the movement. It can be observed that movements like the Indian independence movement, 2011 corruption protests, and even the farmers’ movements gained momentum after the reactions of the state. This pattern could be replicated in the case of Cockroach Janta Party as well because the movement has been able to take the form of an expression of wider expectations and demands of people for accountability and institutional reforms through a satirical comment of a politician.
It still needs to be seen whether this movement is going to succeed in meeting the targets that it had set for itself. Maintaining public interest, unity of the organization, and avoiding political parties would be some of the problems that the movement would face. However, one thing has become quite clear; trying to suppress the movement through force only seems to have raised its profile and made it a national political issue.
