top of page

By:

Abhilash Khandekar

6 December 2025 at 1:22:48 pm

CJP Must Remain as Watchdog

After forcing Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation, the Cockroach Janata Party faces a defining choice: remain an independent citizens’ watchdog or risk losing its credibility by entering electoral politics. Minutes after Dharmendra Pradhan resigned ‘on his own’, a friend from Delhi who understands politics very well called me in an exalted voice. Having followed Indian politics closely for over 60 years, the businessman felt the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) would win 100 seats across India in...

CJP Must Remain as Watchdog

After forcing Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation, the Cockroach Janata Party faces a defining choice: remain an independent citizens’ watchdog or risk losing its credibility by entering electoral politics. Minutes after Dharmendra Pradhan resigned ‘on his own’, a friend from Delhi who understands politics very well called me in an exalted voice. Having followed Indian politics closely for over 60 years, the businessman felt the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) would win 100 seats across India in the next general elections considering the zenith it had reached in popularity. He also had valid reasons to offer in support because he detests BJP’s overall governance in New Delhi and in states like MP or Maharashtra, despite having had good friends within the saffron party. I instantly disagreed. Knee-Jerk Response The CJP is a very young grouping, having been born in May this year, as a knee-jerk response to the weird and shocking comment by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant while hearing a petition. What may have prompted Abhijeet Dipke to swiftly post on X, asking, “What if all cockroaches come together?”, is not known. But the non-political platform opposing the “rotten system” came together before you could even spell cockroach. It is a fact that while the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its Government at the Centre suffered greatly in the process, the remark came from none of its leaders who are otherwise known for insulting anyone and uttering anything at any time. The power-drunk BJP leaders have embarrassed the party umpteen times, not even sparing women army officers or women wrestlers. However, in this case, it was a top judicial officer of the country who triggered a storm and Pradhan became the scapegoat. Of course, I have no sympathy whatsoever for the former Union minister because he was clearly incapable of handling a ministry which was headed by political stalwarts like Narasimha Rao, MM Joshi, Arjun Singh and Madhavrao Scindia in the past. The CJP was thus born in the Supreme Court, brought up in Boston where Dipke was studying and started running at Jantar Mantar in June. Everything happened with electrifying speed. Having claimed the scalp of Pradhan after a long-drawn struggle, the Gen Z has heightened the expectations of millions who are victims of poor governance and corruption. CJP must function as a fierce watchdog. Farmers, students, businessmen, women, the middle class and those who are ideologically anti-BJP all see a ray of hope in CJP to check corrupt practices and make BJP accountable. This is because Rajnath Singh, whom I personally like, is a seasoned and honest leader of the party and one who talks less. Yet, in another context, he made that pompous statement “NDA me istiphe nahi hote” (None resigns in NDA regime). CJP capitalized on it while setting a single-point agenda of its unique protests in New Delhi in June. Bad Governance Examination paper leaks, similar to the shady Vyapam scam of Madhya Pradesh, are crimes governments committed against the lives of students and job-seekers. In both cases it was BJP under which it all happened. BJP has always talked in glowing terms about its ‘good governance’. Paper leaks and Vyapam were specimens of bad governance of the highest order. Dipke and his core group were intelligent enough to pick the pulse of students and parents and carefully launched the massive agitation which grew by the day to spread across the country. But now they should stop, look back and reorganize their strategies. As I see it, CJP has now emerged as a solid pressure group that took up the issue of a totally collapsed education system, headed by Pradhan since 2024. How well-knit a force CJP will remain in the months to come is yet to be tested. But they should be thanked for reopening the blocked path of peaceful demonstrations in the country for exposing the wrongs. There are already ideas floating and, as my friend hinted, some of the CJP members are nursing political ambitions. I strongly feel that CJP must abhor politics. It should remain what it is—an altruistic platform to set wrong things right in sectors like education, health and the environment. Everyone knows Dipke has links with the AAP and Arvind Kejriwal but he has been able to create an apolitical image today which is unmatchable. The way Kejriwal and his party have performed over the last few years is a burning example of what happens when activists turn into politicians in India’s hopeless political system. Raghav Chadha’s case is another example. He did not utter a single word on students’ and Gen Z’s concerns for which he was well-known before joining the ruling BJP. Elected politicians are meant to raise their voices for the people when they need them but the otherwise vocal RS member, Chadha, was hidden deep inside an unseen burrow. If CJP becomes a political party, it will run the risk of getting sucked into the quagmire of dirty Indian politics. It should resist that temptation, for it cannot match the cunning of the BJP, the Congress or the NCP. (The writer is a senior political and environment journalist based in Bhopal. Views personal.)

Sacred Attire

Updated: Jan 30, 2025

The Siddhivinayak Temple Trust’s recent decision to implement a dress code prohibiting short skirts, torn jeans and other revealing attire is a necessary move to uphold the sanctity of religious spaces. Temples are spiritual spaces where devotees seek solace, offer prayers, and connect with the divine. Temples are not mere tourist attractions but sacred sanctuaries. The least that visitors can do is dress accordingly.


The Jagannath temple in Puri, Odisha, and the Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan have already implemented similar rules, reflecting a growing recognition that religious spaces require a modicum of decorum. In the case of Siddhivinayak, the temple attracts thousands of devotees daily, many of whom have expressed discomfort over attire that they feel clashes with the temple’s spiritual ambience.


Few would question the need for decorum in a courtroom, a government office, or even an upscale restaurant. Yet, when religious institutions enforce dress codes to preserve their sanctity, a chorus of indignation often rises in the name of personal freedom, with such ‘critics’ arguing that such rules reflect moral policing or an imposition of traditionalist values.

But this argument confuses religious sanctity with public space liberalism. No one is being compelled to enter the temple, and those who do should respect the customs that govern it. Even in non-Hindu religious spaces, dress codes are the norm. One does not enter a gurdwara without covering their head, nor a mosque or church dressed in attire deemed unsuitable for prayer. The sanctity of a religious institution should not be sacrificed at the altar of modern whims.


To dismiss this as an encroachment on personal liberties is to misunderstand the nature of such spaces. Religious sites operate under different expectations than public thoroughfares or commercial hubs. They are designed for reflection, devotion, and ritual. While Indian society has rightly evolved towards greater personal freedom in many spheres, faith-based institutions must be allowed to maintain traditions that are integral to their identity. The temple trust has made it clear that its goal is not to impose regressive restrictions but to ensure that all visitors feel comfortable and that the sanctity of the temple is upheld.


Moreover, the argument that religious sites must remain entirely open-ended in their dress codes simply does not hold water. Many of the people who object to these restrictions would scarcely question the need for appropriate attire at a formal event or while meeting a dignitary. The principle is the same -respect for the setting dictates the mode of dress. Those who seek to frame this as a battle between liberalism and conservatism fail to grasp that such measures are about propriety, not repression.


In an era where the lines between cultural expression and decorum are increasingly blurred, it is worth remembering that not every rule is an infringement on liberty. If people can abide by dress codes in secular spaces, they should extend the same courtesy to places of worship.

Comments


bottom of page