Abhijeet Dipke, founder of the Cockroach Janta Party, has begun a hunger strike in Delhi to protest government inaction and alleged police brutality [1, 2].

The protest highlights a deepening rift between the CJP and the national government over the appointment of key officials and the treatment of political dissidents. Dipke's actions signal an escalation in the party's efforts to force the government to adhere to previously agreed-upon demands [1, 2].

Dipke said he was beaten and detained by Delhi Police during the unrest [1, 2]. He is using the hunger strike to pressure the government to honor promises, specifically regarding the removal of the Education Minister [1, 2].

While Dipke acknowledged that the previous Education Minister was removed, he criticized the subsequent appointment. Dipke said, "Our demand was the resignation of the Education Minister, and it was met. But in place of him (Dharmendra Pradhan), who was made the Education Minister? It was Pralhad Joshi."

Dipke said the appointment of Pralhad Joshi was problematic, noting that Joshi had been seen garlanding the rapists of Bilkis Bano. He questioned how school-going girls would be affected by such a leadership choice [1].

The CJP founder said that the party intends to maintain its pressure on the administration to ensure the agreed terms are fully realized. Dipke said, "We want the government to do this (fulfill the demands agreed upon); otherwise, we will have to sit in protest again" [1].

The protest occurs amid broader tensions in the capital, where Dipke alleges a pattern of state-led aggression against those challenging the current administration [2].

“"We want the government to do this... otherwise, we will have to sit in protest again."”

This hunger strike reflects a strategic move by the Cockroach Janta Party to leverage personal sacrifice and public visibility to challenge the government's integrity. By linking the appointment of Pralhad Joshi to the Bilkis Bano case, Dipke is attempting to frame the government's administrative choices as a moral failure, thereby expanding the protest's appeal beyond a simple political disagreement to a broader human rights concern.