What the cockroach doesn’t know

The Cockroach Janta Party was launched by Abhijit Dipke, who was earlier associated with the Aam Aadmi Party, amid a controversy over remarks attributed to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant comparing unemployed youth to “cockroaches” and “parasites”. Pic/AI generated

A Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) gets 20 million followers. Twitter explodes. Instagram reels flood your feed. WhatsApp groups turn into political battlegrounds. And suddenly, everyone is hoping for an overnight political revolution.

But here's a simple question, if followers alone could change the system, why does the system keep surviving?

The extraordinary response to the CJP reveals something deeper than a social media trend. Millions do not rally behind an untested movement without a reason. The enthusiasm surrounding it suggests that many citizens, especially young people, are dissatisfied with the existing political choices and are looking for an alternative.

It also exposes a larger failure of the opposition. If so much public anger exists, why has it been unable to channel it? The rise of relatively unknown faces is often a sign of a political vacuum that emerges when established parties fail to recognise and represent public sentiment.

Every generation believes it is witnessing the movement that will finally change something, if not everything. Every few years, a new wave emerges, captures public imagination and creates the feeling that the existing political order is about to collapse.

Around fifteen years ago, the anti-corruption movement swept across the country. Mumbai's local trains were full of people wearing "Main Anna Hoon" caps. College students who rarely discussed politics suddenly found themselves debating corruption, governance and accountability. Public anger had found a voice.

For a moment, it felt as if Indian politics was about to be transformed forever. The anger, frustration and hope were genuine.

In 2006, Maharashtra witnessed a similar political wave when Raj Thackeray launched the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS). Massive rallies, powerful speeches and strong appeals to Marathi identity generated enormous enthusiasm among young people. In colleges, canteens and tea stalls, political discussions revolved around a single question: was Maharashtra witnessing the rise of a new political force?

More recently, India witnessed the anti-CAA protests, the farmers' movement and other social media campaigns that created the impression that change was inevitable. Each movement reflected genuine public concerns and captured national attention. Yet history repeatedly teaches us a difficult lesson.
Emotion can create momentum. It cannot create permanence.

Public anger can mobilise millions and social media can amplify that anger. Yet politics has a rule that social media often struggles to accept, trends do not defeat systems. Organisations do.

This is why some movements survive while others disappear.

The Shiv Sena under Balasaheb Thackeray did not become influential merely because of emotion or speeches. Its strength came from an extensive organisational structure built through shakhas and local workers who remained connected with people on the ground.

The Congress dominated Indian politics for decades because it possessed a nationwide organisation stretching from villages to Parliament.

The communist parties too became a formidable force because they built disciplined cadre networks, trade unions and student organisations that extended far beyond elections.

Similarly, the BJP's rise cannot be understood without recognising the decades-long organisational work of the RSS. Elections may be fought by leaders, but political dominance is usually sustained by organisation.

A viral reel is not a cadre. A hashtag is not a political strategy. A follower is not necessarily a worker. And outrage is not leadership.

Social media has undoubtedly changed politics. It can mobilise people, amplify voices and create pressure within hours. But it can only create visibility.
Organisation creates power.

Building a political movement requires leadership, discipline, patience and people willing to work long after the cameras leave and the hashtags stop trending. It requires institutions, local leadership and a long-term vision.

History shows that movements endure only when public anger is converted into organisation and public support into sustained action. That transformation is slow, often frustrating and rarely glamorous. But it is the difference between a moment and a movement.

Mahatma Gandhi observed that "an ounce of practice is worth more than tonnes of preaching." Political history continues to prove him right. Real change requires organisation, sacrifice and sustained effort.

Perhaps that is the real test of any movement. Not how many followers it gains in a week. Not how many hashtags it trends under. Not how many reels are made in its support. But whether it can build the leadership, discipline and organisation needed to outlive the excitement.

Because history is not written by those who trend for a week. It is written by those who remain standing long after the trend disappears.
Followers create trends. Organisations create history.

Sanjeev Shivadekar is political editor, mid-day. He tweets @SanjeevShivadek

Send your feedback to mailbag@mid-day.com

The views expressed in this column are the individual's and don't represent those of the paper