By Arun Srivastava
Antonio Gramsci in his Prison Notebooks (written between 1929 and 1935) explains how a ruling class maintains power not through military or physical force (coercion), but through ideology, culture, and consent (hegemony). He argued that the capitalist state is divided into two spheres: political society (which uses force, like the police and legal system) and civil society (which uses persuasion, like schools, media, churches, and family). The ruling class uses civil society to project its own worldview as the “common sense” of all society. Because subordinate classes accept this bourgeois worldview as natural and universal, they willingly cooperate.
It is a historical fact that capitalist forces have often patronised or promoted movements which give the impression of being against prevailing powers but in reality, their mission has been to dilute and frustrate the emergence and consolidation of powerful peoples’ movements which would endanger their class interest. This is a well-documented historical phenomenon, often referred to by sociologists and political theorists as co-optation, controlled opposition, or the recuperation of radical movements. Throughout history, capitalist interests and established state powers have frequently funded, elevated, or steered moderate reformist movements. They do this specifically to neutralise systemic threats and prevent the rise of more radical, revolutionary alternatives that could fundamentally disrupt the economic status quo.
Ostensibly, it may appear that Congress and CJP are reluctant to share their platform or cede the leadership of anti-government movements to other, but the reality is, it is their incompatible class character and nature of organisation that act as deterrents. It is entirely wrong to construe that Congress has deliberately kept its distance from the CJP’s agitation as it views the CJP as an immediate contender for the crucial youth and Gen-Z voting demographic. The rightist Hindutva forces have been deliberately spreading the message that Congress is haunted by the fears that supporting the CJP will allow the youth movement to cannibalise its traditional vote share.
Yet, the superficial analysis falls woefully short of the real reason, which is the underlying ideological and strategic differences. The class character of the CJP is a petty-bourgeois phenomenon, though its founder Abhijit Dipke claims to belong to the Dalit community. Basically, this exposes the perception that caste certainly is not the key/sole factor to judge the class character of a movement; nonetheless, it would of course would have some sort of lateral impact. Unlike traditional Indian political parties rooted in deep agrarian, caste, or explicitly working-class socialist frameworks, CJP has an urban middle-class leadership, representing firmly capitalists’ managerial interest. It positions itself not as a “working class” pitted against capital, but as “citizens” and “consumers” seeking capitalist patronage.
The rivalry is not speculative. CJP has publicly told the Congress that “the world doesn’t revolve around your party”, and resisted attempts by traditional politicians to co-opt their student base, while a section of the Congress has dismissed CJP tactics as “performative”. Rahul Gandhi, who has been striving for the last five-six years to reorient the ideological tenet of the party back to its left-of-centre beginnings, is not too keen to identify with any organisation which has overtly capitalist connection/foundations. CJP has its own ideological compulsions, despite the “apolitical” facade. A friendly step towards Congress would erode its base in the form of strategic shift. CJP cannot take this risk. CJP has deliberately chosen not to officially approach the Congress party for support because it wants to protect its identity as an independent, youth-led pressure movement, rather than being absorbed by a traditional political party.
CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke has explicitly stated that the movement does not intend to become a traditional political party and has no desire to induct established politicians, noting that their Gen Z base would dislike it. By keeping their distance and referring to leadership figures neutrally (such as addressing Rahul Gandhi strictly as the “Leader of the Opposition”), the CJP avoids being labelled as a front or “toolkit” for the Congress. This “independent approach” allows them to talk to politicians across the spectrum without becoming dependent on them.
While the CJP hasn’t formalised ties with Congress, it has successfully coordinated on an agenda-by-agenda basis with other opposition parties. Parties within the INDIA bloc, like the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), Trinamool Congress (TMC), and various Left student unions (like AISA), have openly backed or joined the CJP’s mass demonstrations. Because the CJP can easily garner support from these individual regional allies, it has felt little structural need to formally appeal to the Congress leadership. CJP does not look at them as a potential threat to its existence. For strategic reasons, Abhijeet Dipke and spokesperson Saurav Dass have repeatedly emphasized that the CJP is a public pressure group rather than a conventional political outfit. Approaching the Congress specifically or bowing to its leadership would dilute their image as an independent, Gen-Z-led mass movement.
Formed as a satirical political movement by Gen Z students, the CJP protest focused mainly on the cancellation and paper leaks of the NEET-UG 2026 medical entrance exam, CBSE On-Screen Marking irregularities and unemployment. After 49 days of agitation, PM Narendra Modi obliged the CJP leaders by making the education minister Dharmendra Pradhan resign on July 25, though the fact is, it was the RSS veto that forced Modi to seek his resignation. It is widely known fact INDIA bloc and Rahul Gandhi played a crucial role in organising the students across the country and creating pressure on Modi for Pradhan’s resignation.
With this initial gain while the CJP felt satisfied, Rahul kept up the momentum by focusing on SIR-electoral manipulation and launched the agitation against the Special Intensive Revision as well as other alleged electoral manipulations to force CEC Gyanesh Kumar to quit. Interestingly, the CJP was quick to lap up this issue. There are many other issues, like restoration of scholarship to SC/ST students which was disbanded by Modi, working out agitational programme for educational accountability, demand for the scrapping of the RSS-aligned National Education Policy (NEP) and revamping the educational environment at the base level. Instead of focussing on these demands, CJP raised the issue of electoral manipulation, addition of the deleted names of the voters and Gyanesh’s resignation. Any democracy-loving person has the right to raise this issue, but the question arises what was the compulsion for Dipke to prioritise Gyanesh’s resignation as the sole objective of the CJP agitation. This puts the intention of Dipke and CJP under scanner.
While some perceive CJP, even some Left leaders share the view, as a crusader against the corrupt practices of Narendra Modi, many also realise that on the lines of New Deal, the CJP, a satirical online movement and political parody launched on May 16, 2026 by Abhijit Dipke following remarks by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant that compared unemployed youth to cockroaches, is a tool of the rightist BJP and capitalists to weaken the opposition-led mass movements, especially of students who since March have been agitating on the issue of paper leaks and education reforms under the leadership of Rahul Gandhi.
Some see the CJP as part of a conspiracy by the BJP to weaken Rahul Gandhi as the main opposition leader; previously, both Dipke and spokesperson Ashutosh Ranka were closely involved with the AAP. That Dipke wasn’t arrested on arrival from the US, but was allowed to proceed to Jantar Mantar, was seen as proof of his political backing. The Oct 2, CJP protest rally of Mumbai was not marred by any police violence. Though the police did not give permission for holding the Mumbai rally, CJP went ahead. It was a successful rally. This approach of Mumbai police was in fact severely criticised by independent observers. The impact of this criticism was visible in Delhi. In order to show its impartiality and not to send the message that Modi was patronising CJP, the Delhi Police cracked down on CJP leaders and more than 30000 policemen were deployed to prevent the CJP from holding protest meet at Jantar Mantar on October 10. It was like “Methinks the lady doth protest too much.” (A famous Shakespearean quote used when someone overacts or exaggerates their innocence, making themselves look guilty). Unprecedented in the political history of Indian politics, a strong posse of Delhi Police rushed inside the aircraft carrying Dipke, Sourav Dass and Ranka, soon after landing in Delhi and arrested them.
Surprise came just after Dipke’s arrest. Following the lines of a famous saying “suspicion always haunts the guilty mind.” (A classic quote from Shakespeare’s Henry VI, meaning guilty people always feel like they are about to be caught), Dipke announced the name of the person who will look after the affairs of CJP in his absence. He tried to send the impression that “He is the key protester” and there is no chance of his being released soon. But to the utter surprise, Dipke and his three comrades were released the very next day. Police had informed Dipke of his grandmother’s death and even offered help to travel home. Let’s consider for a moment: had the protest been led by a less imperfect, more ideological CJP, or by Rahul Gandhi, or by the combined opposition (a fantasy), would it have attracted the diverse support it did? The answer is obvious.
CPI(ML) general secretary Dipankar Bhattacharya agreed that the success of the protests has given the Left a fillip. “This movement has re-energised ongoing struggles across the country for democracy, justice, and the defence of the Constitution.” This has been particularly evident in the spectacular leadership of the student leader Neha Bora, the 29-year-old president of the All India Students Association, the student wing of CPI(ML), a PhD scholar at JNU. Neha’s tenacious presence leading the protest marches from the front, her physical stamina to outpace and outsmart Delhi Police on multiple occasions, has been acknowledged by all and sundry. In fact, many have compared Neha’s indomitable presence at the civil battlefield of democratic protests on the streets of New Delhi to the capricious social media/reels-heavy arrogance of the CJP troika, whose absence from the dirt and grime of physical protests has now been noted by most.
So, while Bhattacharya has called upon INDIA bloc to carry the energy, resolve, and democratic spirit of this movement into Parliament and intensify the struggle for affordable and quality education for all, CJP’s lack of on-ground organizational acumen has been a sore point. However, CPI(ML) maintains a stance of strong active solidarity, ideological alignment, and strategic alliance with the CJP, in the spirit of coming together. The far-left political party views the CJP not merely as a civil advocacy group, but as a critical vehicle for mobilizing India’s youth against the ruling establishment. The party adopts and integrates CJP’s institutional targets into its own political manifestos.
A central Marxist critique of the CJP, articulated by leftist thinkers and publications, targets its self-proclaimed “apolitical” or “neutral” stance. Founder Abhijeet Dipke routinely emphasised that the CJP is completely detached from established political parties. Though the Leftist students organisations have been extending their whole hearted support to the CJP’s programmes, Dipke depends on his apolitical friends. The “compulsion” of the Left to support the CJP stems from tactical political alignment, shared student-wing networks, and a mutual focus on anti-establishment campaigns. The Neha Bora-led AISA, a key student wing of the Left ideology, has acted as a primary bridge between the CJP and traditional left students organisations, SFI and AISF.
While the Left is part of the broader INDIA block at the national level, their student wings are working along with CJP. Political observers note that while the Congress has historically been uneasy about giving up the spotlight to the CJP or holding joint stages, the Left has faced a tactical compulsion to back the CJP’s ground protests to maintain momentum against the ruling party, even if it means maintaining a slight distance from the Congress’s preferred strategy. The Left and its student factions are actively supporting the CJP as part of a wider effort to build a united front and expand their collective footprint among Indian students. On the contrary the CJP is not so aligned with Left-wing student organizations. The joint movement of the CJP, and the INDIA bloc students organisations, NSUI, SFI, AISF and AISA is an imperative at the present movement to impart a new dimension to the struggle against the ruling establishment. (IPA Service)
