top of page

By:

Quaid Najmi

4 January 2025 at 3:26:24 pm

‘Tiger’ backs ‘Cockroach’

Mumbai: The Shiv Sena (UBT) became the first political party to openly support the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) launched by a Maharashtra youth Abhijeet Dipke who launched a huge protest in New Delhi on Saturday. In a strong statement, SS (UBT) President and ex-CM Uddhav Thackeray threw his weight behind the CJP as thousands of youngsters hit the streets of New Delhi in the scorching sun, not for politics but for their future. “Those whom we call the architects of the nation's future have come...

‘Tiger’ backs ‘Cockroach’

Mumbai: The Shiv Sena (UBT) became the first political party to openly support the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) launched by a Maharashtra youth Abhijeet Dipke who launched a huge protest in New Delhi on Saturday. In a strong statement, SS (UBT) President and ex-CM Uddhav Thackeray threw his weight behind the CJP as thousands of youngsters hit the streets of New Delhi in the scorching sun, not for politics but for their future. “Those whom we call the architects of the nation's future have come out carrying their pain, frustration and anxiety about their future. It is wrong to ridicule them as ‘cockroaches’ and deny them justice,” said the SS (UBT) Tiger. Thackeray said the recent NEET paper leak scandal had shattered the dreams of lakhs of students and their families, raising questions in the minds of youngsters whether merit still matters – as the movement which started on social media has spilled onto the streets across the country. “All these aggrieved young men and women are now raising their voices by becoming ‘cockroaches’. The government must listen to their demands. Do not underestimate the ‘cockroaches’ – this is the warning given by the agitation (today) at Jantar Mantar,” said Thackeray sharply. The SS (UBT)’s supportive stance came against the backdrop of mounting anger among students over the alleged irregularities in major public examinations like NEET, CBSE, CUET, and recruitment processes, which has shaken confidence in the country's education system. The Protest Around dawn, Dipke, 30 – who launched the online movement three weeks ago from the USA – reached India as thousands of supporters waited patiently and peacefully near the Parliament Street Police Station. Many waved the National Tricolour, copies of the Constitution or books of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, others carried flowers which they offered to the 1000-plus alert security personnel deployed there, and several sported symbolic cockroach masks. In a brief address, Dipke accused the government of focusing more on the CJP’s online presence than on the serious issues raised by the students. “You may be able to delete our posts, but you cannot erase us from this space,” he roared, amid loud cheers and thundering applause from the crowd. He said there must be accountability in the form of the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, failing which the CJP will continue its protests in New Delhi and also other parts of India. Anticipating detention after his homecoming, Dipke: “I was fully prepared to sacrifice my freedom for this cause.” In a warm gesture, environmental activist Sonam Wangchuk arrived from Ladakh to join the protest, declared himself as an ‘Honorary cockroach’ and expressed solidarity with Dipke. “People ask what is achieved through protests, sit-ins and marches. It proves that we are alive. The government may treat us like insects, but we are alive and capable of fighting for our rights,” mocked the CJP in a social media statement The CJP volunteers repeatedly urged the protestors to maintain decorum and make their impact in a democratic manner, which the crowds adhered to, but raised full-throated slogans intermittently, even as the protest ended without any untoward incidents. Incidentally, the Delhi Police granted permission for the demonstrations by allowing the crowds to gather directly at Jantar Mantar grounds as a ‘one-time exemption’. Demonstrations expressing solidarity to the cause were held in different parts of the country while tight security was deployed outside Dipke’s home in Chhatrapati Sambhajinar. Why are students forced to agitate?: Aaditya Thackeray Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Aditya Thackeray said why the students are being compelled to agitate when they should be planning out academic future and career options. “The young students exposed the NEET leak scam, or the CBSE marks scandal. The minister should have resigned or should have been sacked, some officials have been transferred but not suspended. The government should be ashamed of the situation,” said Aditya.

Stumped by Politics

Pakistan’s decision to avoid playing India at the T20 World Cup signals a shrinking space for even symbolic engagement between two hostile neighbours.

Cricket has long been described as the last remaining civil language between India and Pakistan, a rare arena where dialogue, however competitive, was still possible. The Pakistan Cricket Board’s reported decision to not allow its national team to play against India in the T20 World Cup is therefore not just a sporting withdrawal; it is a symbolic retreat.


It also marks a sharp departure from a long, if fragile, tradition in which cricket survived even during periods of near-total diplomatic paralysis. Even after the wars of 1965 and 1971, cricketing ties were eventually restored, often serving as an early indicator of political thaw rather than its consequence.


The question is not whether a single match will be missed, but what this refusal reveals about the present and future state of Indo-Pak relations. At one level, the decision reflects political compulsions rather than sporting logic.


Commercial Driver

India-Pakistan matches are the biggest commercial drivers in world cricket, commanding massive global viewership and sponsorship revenues. Walking away from such a fixture is a political statement. But what exactly is being achieved by it? Is the objective to apply diplomatic pressure on India, or merely to signal ideological rigidity to domestic audiences in Pakistan?


Past precedents suggest that such gestures rarely yield strategic dividends. Pakistan suspended cricketing ties after the 1999 Kargil conflict, only to quietly resume them years later with little alteration in India’s core policy positions.


Historically, cricket diplomacy has worked precisely because it allowed engagement without endorsement. From General Zia-ul-Haq’s ‘cricket for peace’ visit in 1987 to the resumption of tours in the early 2000s, the game often softened tensions when official channels froze. If even this minimal, controlled engagement is now deemed unacceptable, does it suggest that bilateral hostility has hardened to a point where symbolism matters more than dialogue?


The 2004 series in India, which followed years of military standoff after the Parliament attack, remains a telling example. Played amid tight security and deep mistrust, it nevertheless humanised the ‘other side’ creating political space, however briefly, for confidence-building measures.


One must also ask: who bears the cost of such decisions? It is certainly not the administrators or politicians. It is the players, many of whom share personal camaraderie across borders, and the fans, particularly Pakistani fans, who lose a global stage to showcase their team’s competitiveness. Is denying young Pakistani cricketers the chance to test themselves against India’s formidable side truly in the nation’s sporting interest?


Even during the aftermath of the 2008 Mumbai attacks, when bilateral relations were at their lowest ebb, cricket was suspended reluctantly, not triumphantly.


Negligible Impact

From India’s perspective, the impact may be limited. Indian cricket, both economically and structurally, is resilient enough to absorb such absences. The BCCI does not depend on Pakistan fixtures to sustain the game’s ecosystem. But diplomatically, does Pakistan’s withdrawal reinforce India’s long-held position that sports and terrorism cannot coexist? Or does it instead harden Indian public opinion further against people-to-people engagement, making future reconciliation even more remote?


There is also the international dimension to consider. Global sporting events like the T20 World Cup are meant to transcend bilateral disputes. When political vetoes dictate participation, what message does it send to the International Cricket Council? If one board can selectively opt out of marquee fixtures for political reasons, does it undermine the credibility of multinational tournaments? And will other nations, facing geopolitical disputes, feel emboldened to do the same?


Sporting history offers cautionary tales. The apartheid-era boycott of South Africa succeeded because it was multilateral and morally coherent. Unilateral withdrawals, by contrast, tend to isolate the withdrawer more than the target.


This episode forces us to confront an uncomfortable truth whether has cricket lost its power as a bridge between India and Pakistan, or is it being deliberately stripped of that role by political establishments that fear the softening of public hostility?


One must ask whether disengagement has ever produced positive outcomes in the subcontinent’s history. If cricket, arguably the most neutral and emotionally resonant platform, cannot be insulated from politics, what hope remains for cultural or civil exchanges?


The refusal to play India is about a door being quietly shut. The real question when dialogue through diplomacy is frozen and conversation through sport is silenced, what channels remain for peace - if peace is still the goal at all?

Comments

bottom of page