The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, began with the avowed intention of making India Congress-mukt, or free of the Indian National Congress. Since the Congress remains the principal opposition party with a nationwide presence, the expression could also be understood as an aspiration to make India free of an effective opposition.

The serial decimation of regional parties, through the political maneuvering of Amit Shah, India's Union Home Minister and a senior leader of the ruling BJP, has made this increasingly evident. Often referred to as the "Chanakya of Indian politics," Shah draws this epithet from Chanakya, an ancient Indian political strategist and adviser to a king, traditionally associated with the art of statecraft and political maneuvering.

What has been unfolding, particularly over the last couple of years, is a sequence aimed at making India a curious specimen of ‘one-nation, one-party’ democracy.

A New Source of Youth Hope

It was against this backdrop that the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) emerged spontaneously as a counterbalancing force, almost as if an agent of destiny itself. Without the CJP's effective intervention in India's national political life, we might not have reached the present moment.

It is possible that the crucial report on the Election Commission would not have been published, and the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA), the opposition coalition, would not have attained its present degree of motivation, vigor and cohesion.

Ironically, the much-debated Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, associated with Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, has proved a shot in the arm for the CJP. It has brought people across India into greater alignment with the movement.

In a short span of time, the CJP has become a new source of hope for the people, as well as an outlet for the pent-up frustration and anger of India’s youth. After all, it was the mounting frustration and desperation of the country’s youth that catalyzed the CJP's emergence.

The message embedded in the birth of CJP must be noted. When a ruling dispensation succeeds in suppressing opposition parties one after another, the people must rise and play the role of the opposition themselves.

An opposition-less democracy is a de facto dictatorship. The good news is that the citizens are the best custodians of their own welfare, rights and interests. Popular power is the one force against which every form of Chanakya-Neeti—a term derived from Chanakya's political philosophy and commonly used to describe shrewd political strategy and maneuvering—can prove powerless.

Although the CJP is not an official political party, its campaigns and interventions increasingly engage with political issues and policy debates, giving its activities a distinctly political dimension.

It is at this juncture that the CJP’s functioning will inevitably be judged by several critical factors: its associations and dissociations, its likes and dislikes, and, above all, whom it supports and whom it chooses not to support—particularly in its dealings with political parties, both at the Centre and in the states.

The Challenge of Remaining Independent

Ideology, political philosophy and political vocabulary are critical elements of democracy. Yet, given the state of affairs in the country, it may suffice to say that, in practice, they have come to matter little.

While successive governments have contributed to India’s growth and development, it is equally important to acknowledge the persistent failures that have accompanied that progress. From the long rule of the Left Front and the Trinamool Congress in West Bengal to the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) in Bihar, and BJP- and Congress-led governments at the national and state levels, all have, to varying degrees, been marked by glaring failures and shortcomings affecting democratic institutions and the broader national interest.

Nor does a mere change of government necessarily brighten the future of ordinary citizens or alleviate their sufferings. Kerala, where power has routinely alternated between the Left Democratic Front (LDF) and the United Democratic Front (UDF), is a case in point.

These developments need to be seen as part of a broader pattern of democratic accountability. The issue is not whether one government or another is solely responsible, but whether our democratic institutions, political leadership and citizens are sufficiently vigilant to ensure that power remains accountable, public resources are protected, and institutions function with integrity.

Development and economic growth, important as they are, cannot by themselves be the sole measures of a healthy democracy.

All this inevitably places greater responsibility on the CJP. Its task is therefore arduous, tougher and more complex: to create greater public awareness of political hypocrisy wherever it exists, across political party lines.

The task becomes even more difficult when the media, expected to serve as a watchdog of democracy, allows itself to be co-opted by the ruling dispensation, squandering its independence and credibility and corrupting its distinguished heritage, boldly and painstakingly built by its doyens in the not-so-distant past

The pertinent question, therefore, is this: if the CJP is to establish itself as a credible and trustworthy public pressure group amid a cobweb of competing claims, counterclaims and assertions of ideological superiority, its leadership would do well to bear the following factors in mind:

1.     Maintain its independence from established political parties: The CJP should guard against allowing political parties that have, despite being in power, failed to adequately address the concerns of citizens to appropriate its objectives or use its platform for their own political ends. Such associations could undermine the CJP’s unique role in India’s political life and cripple their core effectiveness.

Rather than being influenced by political parties, the CJP should serve as an agent of renewal in India's political culture. It should maintain pressure on all parties to retrieve their misplaced commitment to the people of India. 

2.     Avoid political and corporate funding: This would demonstrate its opposition to the influence of large-scale political financing, which has corrupted the political landscape. After all, funding rarely comes without conditions; it can create expectations and transactional relationships.

3.     Be cautious of tacit external ploys aimed at internal sabotage: In particular, the danger of being penetrated by sleeper cells of political parties. Strategies such as provocations and allurements have often been used to undermine popular movements in the past. 

4.     Remain open to diverse participation while exercising vigilance: Popular movements cannot—and should not—restrict the participation of intellectuals, opinion-makers, and influencers of diverse kinds. It is equally true, however, that some may bring hidden agendas of their own. The morale of a pressure group depends very substantially on its integrity and purity of purpose. The CJP should therefore remain cautious against prowling Trojan horses.

5.     Remain equally cautious of self-appointed flagbearers of secularism and torchbearers of religion: Their credibility or conduct may be open to question. This requires clarity and consistency about the CJP's mandate and how best to achieve it, ensuring that its methods remain aligned with its stated objectives.

Building a Different Political Culture

For the CJP, S. E. Finer’s words are particularly significant:

“The pressure groups are, by and large, autonomous and politically neutral bodies, which bargain with the political parties and the bureaucracy irrespective of the political complexion of the government in power.”

The more faithfully the CJP adheres to this principle of autonomy and political neutrality, the stronger its foundation will be. Over time, this could help nurture an alternative political culture, one grounded in accountability, ethical conduct and responsible citizenship.

Whether or not the CJP would eventually give rise to a new political party is impossible to say. But if it does, it should be genuinely different, not just one more among a large menagerie of parties, but the expression of a political culture that is, in the truest sense, remedially different.

Those associated with the CJP, which has emerged as a viral political phenomenon, know that many of the issues it is addressing are quite capable of being resolved. The real challenge lies in persuading political parties to adopt these priorities and in sustaining the necessary political will to address them.

That willingness may vary from issue to issue and from party to party, even when it comes to concerns such as inequality, gender-based violence, women's safety, poverty, unemployment, and underemployment.

The thornier question is whether political parties, driven by lust for power, will pay heed to the CJP, unless doing so promises substantial electoral gains.

As the CJP increasingly captures the public imagination through its interventions on people-centric issues, expectations from the movement will continue to rise, both nationally and regionally. It is now for its leadership to determine whether the movement should make history—or, with time, become yet another flash in the pan that promised a utopia but fell by the wayside for want of clarity of purpose, moral courage and ethical consistency.

Whatever the outcome, the need for trusted voices has never been greater.

(Valson Thampu, author and former Principal, St. Stephen's College, Delhi. Debasish Bhattacharyya, author and former Deputy General Manager, India International Centre, New Delhi. The views expressed are personal. They can be contacted at db.bhattacharyya@gmail.com )