India: Can Modi’s political grip be threatened by ‘cockroaches’?

NEW DELHI, 14 OCTOBER 2026 —

New Delhi, India — The Indian government has deployed an unprecedented security apparatus to contain a new wave of youth-led protests, detaining thousands of demonstrators and arresting movement leaders upon their arrival in the capital.

The scale of the state’s response, characterized by mass detentions, internet cutoffs, and preemptive arrests, marks a sharp departure from previous handling of civil unrest and has drawn scrutiny from political analysts and sociologists regarding the future of democratic dissent in the world’s most populous democracy.

The immediate trigger for the current agitation is a controversy surrounding the integrity of India’s electoral rolls. The CJP is demanding Kumar’s resignation after reports emerged that more than 130 million names were removed from electoral rolls nationwide. This figure, if accurate, represents a massive proportion of the electorate and has fueled fears among young voters that their right to participate in the democratic process is being systematically undermined.

The movement’s name, an ironic riff on the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the ruling party of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, signals its satirical origins but reflects a growing frustration among the youth with established political institutions.

The government’s response on October 10 was swift and heavy-handed. CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke, accompanied by co-conveners Ashutosh Ranka and Saurav Das, was detained directly from the plane on which he landed in New Delhi on Saturday. This airport arrest was part of a broader strategy of preemptive action that included notices served to individuals associated with earlier protests, transport cuts, and internet shutdowns in key areas.

Police were also stationed outside the homes of several prominent figures associated with the movement, including social media personality Dhruv Rathee, who commands nearly 20 million followers on Instagram. In central Delhi, buses were loaded with protesters, many of whom were transported to far-flung detention centers where they were held for hours. Local media reports indicate that at least 3,000 people were detained across the city during this initial phase of the crackdown.

This aggressive posture contrasts sharply with the government’s approach in July, when thousands of young protesters took to the streets to demand the resignation of the education minister over repeated exam paper leaks. At that time, authorities relied on batons, detentions, and rubber bullets to disperse crowds that had gathered in central Delhi for days. However, in the current instance, the state has shifted to a strategy of mass security deployments and preemptive containment.

Pearl Pandya, a senior analyst for Asia at global monitor ACLED, noted that the government has learned from its previous experience. "They didn't allow people to sit at Jantar Mantar for any length of time, so it couldn't balloon," Pandya said. Jantar Mantar, an 18th-century observatory in central Delhi, has historically been a designated site for protests, but the government recently removed it from the list of approved locations, a decision Pandya described as worrying.

"What's worrying is whether this becomes a playbook for the future — that you are not allowed to protest in the first place," she added. Authorities have announced three new designated protest sites in the national capital, but the removal of Jantar Mantar has been interpreted by critics as a signal of the state’s intent to restrict public assembly.

The timing of these protests is particularly significant as Prime Minister Narendra Modi marks 25 uninterrupted years leading elected governments, first as the chief minister of Gujarat state and then as the prime minister of India. Delhi-based writer Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay, author of the 2013 biography "Narendra Modi: The Man, The Times," observed that this celebration coincides with a period when the prime minister is politically at his weakest.

"Ironically, 'this celebration has happened at the time when he's politically at his weakest,'" Mukhopadhyay told DW. He argued that the scale of the security deployment is, in itself, a defeat for the government. "The scale of this deployment is actually a defeat for Mr. Modi," he said, contending that it is a setback for the administration to be forced to mobilize such extensive security forces in response to a completely new socio-political movement.

Despite the momentum of the current protests, the CJP has not yet replicated the success of its July agitation. The July protests were driven by a cross-cutting issue—education—that resonated broadly across the population. In contrast, the current demand for electoral reform is viewed by some as more intrinsically political, often framed as a contest between the opposition and the BJP. "Education was far more of a cross-cutting issue...

the right to vote is still seen as an intrinsically political one, where it's the opposition versus the BJP," Pandya explained. The CJP has long maintained that it is a non-political movement, a stance that has helped it amass a large following among young people who may be disillusioned with traditional party politics. However, Mukhopadhyay criticized this positioning, arguing that it is impossible to raise issues about electoral neutrality without acknowledging their political nature.

"You cannot raise issues about electoral neutrality... without saying that these are political issues," he stated.

Sociologist Surinder Singh Jodhka emphasized the continuity between the July and October protests, noting that young people are once again the primary mobilizers. "I don't think they're qualitatively different. Once again, young people are the ones who are mobilized, and they are much more encouraged because the earlier round of protests was successful," Jodhka told DW. He highlighted that the current movement is asking similar fundamental questions about institutions, democracy, transparency, and accountability.

"There is a new hope for those who had earlier given up on India, and felt like the right wing was in complete control," Jodhka added. This sentiment reflects a broader shift in public perception, where the success of the July protests has emboldened a new generation of activists to challenge the status quo.

Analysts have dismissed comparisons with the volatile protests in neighboring Nepal and Bangladesh, which recently brought down their respective governments. Instead, they point to India’s strong state institutions as a safeguard against a dramatic change of government. Jodhka explained that even opposition parties are calling for the "revival of institutions, rather than an overthrow of the state." This distinction is crucial in understanding the nature of the current unrest.

The goal is not to dismantle the state but to restore faith in its democratic mechanisms. Pandya also noted that faith in the judiciary would prevent these protests from tipping over into a popular revolution that unseats the government. The resilience of India’s legal and institutional framework is seen as a key factor in maintaining stability, even in the face of significant public discontent.

Nevertheless, the sustained nature of this discontent could have long-term implications for the ruling party. Pandya suggested that this erosion of trust "might come to bite the government in 2029... or before that in the state elections." The 2029 general elections are a significant milestone for the BJP, and any further erosion of public confidence in the electoral process could impact its electoral prospects.

The current protests highlight a growing anxiety among young voters about the integrity of the democratic system. For Mukhopadhyay, the most troubling aspect of the current situation is the erosion of the electoral body's credibility. He recalled the pride he felt when he registered to vote at the age of 21 and drew a stark comparison with the current generation.

"The youngsters are now fighting for their vote," he said, underscoring the severity of the crisis facing India’s democratic institutions.

The government’s decision to remove Jantar Mantar from the list of designated protest sites has further fueled criticism of its approach to civil liberties. While authorities have announced three new sites, the removal of a historically significant location has been viewed as a symbolic act of suppression.

The internet cutoffs and transport cuts implemented during the October 10 protests have also drawn attention to the state’s willingness to use digital and physical infrastructure to control the flow of information and movement. These measures have been criticized by human rights advocates and political analysts as disproportionate responses to peaceful dissent.

The detention of high-profile figures like Dhruv Rathee, who has nearly 20 million followers on Instagram, underscores the government’s focus on silencing influential voices that could amplify the movement’s message.

The CJP’s strategy of using satire and online mobilization has proven effective in reaching a young, digitally connected audience. However, the transition from online activism to offline protests has exposed the movement to the full force of the state’s security apparatus. The detention of Abhijeet Dipke and other leaders has raised questions about the sustainability of the movement in the face of such aggressive countermeasures.

Despite these challenges, the movement has managed to maintain a significant presence in public discourse, with many young Indians expressing solidarity with the protesters. The success of the July protests in forcing the resignation of the education minister has set a precedent that the CJP is seeking to replicate in the current electoral controversy.

The broader implications of these protests extend beyond the immediate demand for Kumar’s resignation. They reflect a deeper crisis of confidence in India’s democratic institutions, particularly among the youth who will form the backbone of the electorate in the coming decades. The removal of 130 million names from electoral rolls, if verified, would represent a significant disruption to the democratic process and could have far-reaching consequences for the legitimacy of future elections.

The government’s response to this controversy will be closely watched by domestic and international observers as a test of its commitment to democratic norms and values.

As the protests continue, the tension between the state and the movement is likely to persist. The government’s reliance on preemptive action and mass detentions may serve to contain the immediate unrest, but it risks exacerbating the underlying grievances that have fueled the movement. The ability of the CJP to maintain its momentum and broaden its base will be crucial in determining the long-term impact of these protests on Indian politics.

For now, the focus remains on the demand for the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the restoration of trust in the electoral process. The outcome of this confrontation will shape the future of democracy in India and serve as a benchmark for how the state handles civil dissent in an increasingly polarized political landscape.

The situation in New Delhi remains tense, with security forces maintaining a heavy presence in the capital. The detention of thousands of protesters and the arrest of movement leaders have drawn widespread criticism from opposition parties and civil society groups. The government has defended its actions as necessary to maintain law and order, but critics argue that the response is disproportionate and undermines the right to peaceful protest.

As the weeks progress, the focus will shift to the legal proceedings against the detained leaders and the potential for further protests in other parts of the country. The resilience of the CJP and the broader youth movement will be tested in the coming days, with the stakes high for the future of democratic participation in India.