VasyGrek arrests: how Russia polices its own hackers
The VasyGrek case fits a pattern in which the line Russia draws around cybercrime runs through the victim, not the crime. A rare arrest…
← Back to latest
Essay
Cockroach Janta Party: built online, tracked offline
The Cockroach Janta Party reached 22 million Instagram followers in about two weeks, then saw Delhi Police seal its protest site and detain its founders after tracking them for days, according to police officers. The platforms that made the movement cheap to build also made it visible, and the government can order those platforms to restrict access in ways the movement cannot.
Listen to this briefing
Cockroach Janta Party: built online, tracked offline.
The Cockroach Janta Party reached 22 million Instagram followers in about two weeks, then saw Delhi Police seal its protest site and detain its founders after tracking them for days, according to police officers. The platforms that made the movement cheap to build also made it visible, and the government can order those platforms to restrict access in ways the movement cannot.
When an Air India flight from Mumbai landed in Delhi on 10 October, police officers boarded the aircraft to detain the three founders of the Cockroach Janta Party, and the movement's leader, Abhijeet Dipke, filmed it for Instagram. The arrest was the end point of an operation that, according to police officers quoted by the Hindustan Times, had followed the organisers from Mumbai. It is a compact picture of a contest in which the same phones and platforms serve both the movement and the state, and in which neither side owns the infrastructure it depends on.
The Cockroach Janta Party (CJP, "Cockroach People's Party") is not a registered political party. It is a satire, its name a parody of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, launched on 16 May by Dipke, a political communications strategist, a day after Chief Justice Surya Kant made remarks widely reported as comparing unemployed young people to cockroaches. Kant later said he had been misquoted. Its first campaign concerned a cancelled national medical entrance exam. Its latest, which police moved to shut down on 10 October, demanded the resignation of the chief election commissioner over a revision of voter lists that protesters say favours the BJP. The commission and the BJP deny wrongdoing.
Built to be seen
The launch kit was simple. According to Global Voices, Dipke posted a Google Form and an Instagram graphic captioned "Main Bhi Cockroach" ("I am also a cockroach"), and registrations passed 25,000 within 48 hours. Writing "cockroach" in a social media bio became the badge of membership. By 1 June, Reuters reported the Instagram account at more than 22 million followers, more than double the BJP's. That counts followers, not supporters, and the claim of a million website sign-ups, made by Dipke, has not been independently verified.
Dipke had worked on the Aam Aadmi Party's social media team, and it shows: an AI-generated mascot that spread through feeds and news channels, a membership rule that turned an insult into an identity, and video messages telling followers where to turn up, including one asking them to meet him at Delhi airport and accompany him to seek police permission for a protest.
That describes the launch better than the present. By June Dipke had taken protests to Mumbai, Bengaluru and Nagpur, and the 10 October rally was organised with student groups including the All India Students' Association, whose president was among those detained. The movement also has co-convenors, spokespeople and a legal head. How far it has turned an audience into an organisation is unclear from the reporting. What is clear is that it still depends on channels it does not own.
Levers over the platform
On 21 May, X withheld the CJP's account in India, hours after its Instagram following overtook the BJP's. A government official told the Indian Express, as relayed by The Wire and CBS News, that the IT ministry had received an input from the Intelligence Bureau citing a threat to sovereignty. The government has not commented publicly. Dipke then said the campaign's Instagram page and his personal account had been hacked, that Meta had removed its backup account and that the website had been taken down. Those are his claims, reported by Scroll as claims, and they have not been confirmed. A replacement X account appeared within hours.
The mechanism is Section 69A of the IT Act, which lets the government order platforms to block content. X has publicly said it was ordered to block more than 8,000 accounts under threat of fines and jail for its local staff, and that in most cases India did not specify which posts broke the law. The same section underpinned a blunter measure in June, when the government temporarily restricted Telegram nationwide around the re-sit of the medical entrance exam.
The two cases should be kept apart. The CJP block was reported as a national-security matter; the Telegram restriction was framed as a response to cheating rackets, and nothing shows it was aimed at the CJP. Together they show how broad the power is. Telegram's challenge shows the harder question: it told the Delhi High Court it had already removed more than 900 links and that the restriction hit 150 million Indian users, which raises whether the measure was proportionate to the harm. The exam leak that fuelled the protests is reported to have travelled on WhatsApp and Telegram, so the tools that spread the grievance were later switched off by the state.
Tracking the organisers
The most detailed account of 10 October comes from the Hindustan Times, which spoke to police officers on condition of anonymity; the Delhi Police and Home Ministry did not respond to its requests for comment. The officers said that in the days before the protest police collected organisers' home addresses, mobile numbers and social media accounts and shared them with teams for "electronic surveillance and ground monitoring". Crime branch and special cell officers were asked to track movements, plain-clothes personnel were stationed outside homes and hotels, and beat officers checked hotel registers for group bookings. One officer said supervision came from the Union Home Ministry.
On the day, Reuters and Al Jazeera reported thousands of police and paramilitary personnel, mobile internet suspended in the central business district, dozens of metro stations shut and the protest site sealed. More than 2,000 people were detained by Reuters's count, nearly 2,500 by The Hindu's, including opposition leaders, lawyers and journalists. The operation stopped the main rally, not the protest: small demonstrations still took place elsewhere in the city.
The pattern is the point. A movement that grows by announcing itself, through public accounts, a sign-up page and videos of where its leaders will be, is easy to watch. The reporting does not establish how much of what police gathered came from the movement's own posts, and the officers did not say. It does show digital monitoring combined with conventional police surveillance: hotel registers, cars outside homes, a tail on a flight. "Electronic surveillance" is the officers' phrase and its technical meaning is not spelled out; no report seen for this piece names spyware or facial recognition.
After their release, CJP spokesperson Saurav Das alleged that police seized the leaders' phones without giving seizure memos, a specific procedural claim that police records and court proceedings could test. Separately, he said he suspected the phones had been hacked or cloned so material could be planted. That is a suspicion; he presented no evidence for it. Delhi Police has maintained that the preventive detentions followed legal procedure.
Each side also records the other. On 20 July a CJP spokesperson posted on X that Dipke had been picked up by police; Delhi Police replied on X that the claim was "entirely false", and the spokesperson retracted it. On 10 October the arrest on the plane reached Instagram through Dipke's own video. Neither side controls the story.
A third participant
The Supreme Court was involved before the rally. On 9 October, according to Bar & Bench, a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant said metro and other transport should not be completely shut down, described the restrictions as overreaching, recorded the Solicitor General's assurance that authorities would reconsider them, and ordered compliance reports within four days. A lawyer then filed a contempt plea alleging that the Delhi Metro had announced closures at 45 stations from that night and that gates were shut when he visited. That is the petitioner's allegation, and it has not been tested. Al Jazeera reported on the day that dozens of metro stations were closed.
On 11 October the court held a special Sunday sitting. According to The Week, it directed authorities to review barricades across Delhi, restore normal metro and rail services and ensure free movement, said internet services should remain undisturbed in accordance with the law, said people in peaceful, unarmed assemblies outside areas under prohibitory orders cannot be detained, and sought a response to allegations of excessive force and illegal detentions. It did not rule the restrictions unlawful; that question is open.
The founders' release is also contested. Delhi Police said a Special Executive Magistrate released them. Reuters reported that the CJP described the release as conditional on a pledge to keep the peace, and LawBeat reported that each furnished a ₹50,000 bond for one year. Dipke has said he signed no bond, so the precise terms are disputed. Lower courts have been less uniform in other matters: a plea over the detention of the CJP's legal head was dismissed as defective in form.
This changes the picture, and not only by adding a participant. The institutions move at different speeds. A platform can restrict an account within hours, police can seal a site overnight, and a court can call a restriction overreaching without stopping it being applied. The reporting does not show whether the 9 October order was breached; that is the contempt question. It would be wrong to conclude that the courts are ineffective. It does raise whether legal safeguards can constrain operational restrictions that are implemented faster than they can be reviewed.
The strongest counter-reading
The government's case deserves its best form. Authorities have a lawful duty to protect public order, and there is no right to assemble anywhere at any time; the Supreme Court's own wording protects peaceful assemblies outside areas under prohibitory orders, which implies that such areas can lawfully exist. Online engagement is not proof of representativeness. Movements can spread unreliable claims as governments can, as the 20 July episode showed. The Telegram restriction followed reports of exam-related cheating and was justified by the government as an anti-fraud measure, though the proportionality of a nationwide restriction is what Telegram contested. India's mission in Geneva told UN critics that the right to assemble is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order. Critics, many of them Modi supporters, see an opposition-aligned gimmick, but Dipke's past with the Aam Aadmi Party is context, not evidence that the CJP is controlled by anyone.
None of this settles the central question. The government can order a channel restricted, and police were able to locate and detain the organisers; officers say digital monitoring helped. What is not established is whether any check can work at the speed of the restriction. The Supreme Court spoke the day before the rally and again the day after, and the main rally still did not take place at Jantar Mantar. As political organising moves onto platforms and phones that governments can reach, the question for any democracy is how much accountability survives the interval between a restriction and its review.
Sources: Al Jazeera, with Reuters (10 October report); Hindustan Times, as republished by The Business Standard (anonymous police sources); The Wire and CBS News, citing the Indian Express; Bar & Bench (9 October Supreme Court order and contempt plea); The Week, Outlook India, OneIndia and Free Press Journal (11 October Supreme Court sitting, release and phone-seizure allegation); LawBeat (bonds; Reuters's account of the release as relayed by ThePrint); ETV Bharat/PTI and IANS (20 July episode); Scroll.in; Global Voices; The Boston Globe; CNN; Reuters via Aaj News (follower count); AFP via The Sun (Malaysia); Yahoo News (X's statement on blocking orders); The Business Standard and TelecomTalk (Telegram restrictions). The terms of the founders' release are disputed.
Enable JavaScript and use a browser with spoken audio support to listen.
Read aloud by your browser. Voice and availability depend on your device.
When an Air India flight from Mumbai landed in Delhi on 10 October, police officers boarded the aircraft to detain the three founders of the Cockroach Janta Party, and the movement’s leader, Abhijeet Dipke, filmed it for Instagram. The arrest was the end point of an operation that, according to police officers quoted by the Hindustan Times, had followed the organisers from Mumbai. It is a compact picture of a contest in which the same phones and platforms serve both the movement and the state, and in which neither side owns the infrastructure it depends on.
The Cockroach Janta Party (CJP, “Cockroach People’s Party”) is not a registered political party. It is a satire, its name a parody of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, launched on 16 May by Dipke, a political communications strategist, a day after Chief Justice Surya Kant made remarks widely reported as comparing unemployed young people to cockroaches. Kant later said he had been misquoted. Its first campaign concerned a cancelled national medical entrance exam. Its latest, which police moved to shut down on 10 October, demanded the resignation of the chief election commissioner over a revision of voter lists that protesters say favours the BJP. The commission and the BJP deny wrongdoing.
Built to be seen
The launch kit was simple. According to Global Voices, Dipke posted a Google Form and an Instagram graphic captioned “Main Bhi Cockroach” (“I am also a cockroach”), and registrations passed 25,000 within 48 hours. Writing “cockroach” in a social media bio became the badge of membership. By 1 June, Reuters reported the Instagram account at more than 22 million followers, more than double the BJP’s. That counts followers, not supporters, and the claim of a million website sign-ups, made by Dipke, has not been independently verified.
Dipke had worked on the Aam Aadmi Party’s social media team, and it shows: an AI-generated mascot that spread through feeds and news channels, a membership rule that turned an insult into an identity, and video messages telling followers where to turn up, including one asking them to meet him at Delhi airport and accompany him to seek police permission for a protest.
That describes the launch better than the present. By June Dipke had taken protests to Mumbai, Bengaluru and Nagpur, and the 10 October rally was organised with student groups including the All India Students’ Association, whose president was among those detained. The movement also has co-convenors, spokespeople and a legal head. How far it has turned an audience into an organisation is unclear from the reporting. What is clear is that it still depends on channels it does not own.
Levers over the platform
On 21 May, X withheld the CJP’s account in India, hours after its Instagram following overtook the BJP’s. A government official told the Indian Express, as relayed by The Wire and CBS News, that the IT ministry had received an input from the Intelligence Bureau citing a threat to sovereignty. The government has not commented publicly. Dipke then said the campaign’s Instagram page and his personal account had been hacked, that Meta had removed its backup account and that the website had been taken down. Those are his claims, reported by Scroll as claims, and they have not been confirmed. A replacement X account appeared within hours.
The mechanism is Section 69A of the IT Act, which lets the government order platforms to block content. X has publicly said it was ordered to block more than 8,000 accounts under threat of fines and jail for its local staff, and that in most cases India did not specify which posts broke the law. The same section underpinned a blunter measure in June, when the government temporarily restricted Telegram nationwide around the re-sit of the medical entrance exam.
The two cases should be kept apart. The CJP block was reported as a national-security matter; the Telegram restriction was framed as a response to cheating rackets, and nothing shows it was aimed at the CJP. Together they show how broad the power is. Telegram’s challenge shows the harder question: it told the Delhi High Court it had already removed more than 900 links and that the restriction hit 150 million Indian users, which raises whether the measure was proportionate to the harm. The exam leak that fuelled the protests is reported to have travelled on WhatsApp and Telegram, so the tools that spread the grievance were later switched off by the state.
Subscribe
New essays and snapshots, by email, roughly weekly.
Tracking the organisers
The most detailed account of 10 October comes from the Hindustan Times, which spoke to police officers on condition of anonymity; the Delhi Police and Home Ministry did not respond to its requests for comment. The officers said that in the days before the protest police collected organisers’ home addresses, mobile numbers and social media accounts and shared them with teams for “electronic surveillance and ground monitoring”. Crime branch and special cell officers were asked to track movements, plain-clothes personnel were stationed outside homes and hotels, and beat officers checked hotel registers for group bookings. One officer said supervision came from the Union Home Ministry.
On the day, Reuters and Al Jazeera reported thousands of police and paramilitary personnel, mobile internet suspended in the central business district, dozens of metro stations shut and the protest site sealed. More than 2,000 people were detained by Reuters’s count, nearly 2,500 by The Hindu’s, including opposition leaders, lawyers and journalists. The operation stopped the main rally, not the protest: small demonstrations still took place elsewhere in the city.
The pattern is the point. A movement that grows by announcing itself, through public accounts, a sign-up page and videos of where its leaders will be, is easy to watch. The reporting does not establish how much of what police gathered came from the movement’s own posts, and the officers did not say. It does show digital monitoring combined with conventional police surveillance: hotel registers, cars outside homes, a tail on a flight. “Electronic surveillance” is the officers’ phrase and its technical meaning is not spelled out; no report seen for this piece names spyware or facial recognition.
After their release, CJP spokesperson Saurav Das alleged that police seized the leaders’ phones without giving seizure memos, a specific procedural claim that police records and court proceedings could test. Separately, he said he suspected the phones had been hacked or cloned so material could be planted. That is a suspicion; he presented no evidence for it. Delhi Police has maintained that the preventive detentions followed legal procedure.
Each side also records the other. On 20 July a CJP spokesperson posted on X that Dipke had been picked up by police; Delhi Police replied on X that the claim was “entirely false”, and the spokesperson retracted it. On 10 October the arrest on the plane reached Instagram through Dipke’s own video. Neither side controls the story.
A third participant
The Supreme Court was involved before the rally. On 9 October, according to Bar & Bench, a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant said metro and other transport should not be completely shut down, described the restrictions as overreaching, recorded the Solicitor General’s assurance that authorities would reconsider them, and ordered compliance reports within four days. A lawyer then filed a contempt plea alleging that the Delhi Metro had announced closures at 45 stations from that night and that gates were shut when he visited. That is the petitioner’s allegation, and it has not been tested. Al Jazeera reported on the day that dozens of metro stations were closed.
On 11 October the court held a special Sunday sitting. According to The Week, it directed authorities to review barricades across Delhi, restore normal metro and rail services and ensure free movement, said internet services should remain undisturbed in accordance with the law, said people in peaceful, unarmed assemblies outside areas under prohibitory orders cannot be detained, and sought a response to allegations of excessive force and illegal detentions. It did not rule the restrictions unlawful; that question is open.
The founders’ release is also contested. Delhi Police said a Special Executive Magistrate released them. Reuters reported that the CJP described the release as conditional on a pledge to keep the peace, and LawBeat reported that each furnished a ₹50,000 bond for one year. Dipke has said he signed no bond, so the precise terms are disputed. Lower courts have been less uniform in other matters: a plea over the detention of the CJP’s legal head was dismissed as defective in form.
This changes the picture, and not only by adding a participant. The institutions move at different speeds. A platform can restrict an account within hours, police can seal a site overnight, and a court can call a restriction overreaching without stopping it being applied. The reporting does not show whether the 9 October order was breached; that is the contempt question. It would be wrong to conclude that the courts are ineffective. It does raise whether legal safeguards can constrain operational restrictions that are implemented faster than they can be reviewed.
The strongest counter-reading
The government’s case deserves its best form. Authorities have a lawful duty to protect public order, and there is no right to assemble anywhere at any time; the Supreme Court’s own wording protects peaceful assemblies outside areas under prohibitory orders, which implies that such areas can lawfully exist. Online engagement is not proof of representativeness. Movements can spread unreliable claims as governments can, as the 20 July episode showed. The Telegram restriction followed reports of exam-related cheating and was justified by the government as an anti-fraud measure, though the proportionality of a nationwide restriction is what Telegram contested. India’s mission in Geneva told UN critics that the right to assemble is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order. Critics, many of them Modi supporters, see an opposition-aligned gimmick, but Dipke’s past with the Aam Aadmi Party is context, not evidence that the CJP is controlled by anyone.
None of this settles the central question. The government can order a channel restricted, and police were able to locate and detain the organisers; officers say digital monitoring helped. What is not established is whether any check can work at the speed of the restriction. The Supreme Court spoke the day before the rally and again the day after, and the main rally still did not take place at Jantar Mantar. As political organising moves onto platforms and phones that governments can reach, the question for any democracy is how much accountability survives the interval between a restriction and its review.
Sources: Al Jazeera, with Reuters (10 October report); Hindustan Times, as republished by The Business Standard (anonymous police sources); The Wire and CBS News, citing the Indian Express; Bar & Bench (9 October Supreme Court order and contempt plea); The Week, Outlook India, OneIndia and Free Press Journal (11 October Supreme Court sitting, release and phone-seizure allegation); LawBeat (bonds; Reuters’s account of the release as relayed by ThePrint); ETV Bharat/PTI and IANS (20 July episode); Scroll.in; Global Voices; The Boston Globe; CNN; Reuters via Aaj News (follower count); AFP via The Sun (Malaysia); Yahoo News (X’s statement on blocking orders); The Business Standard and TelecomTalk (Telegram restrictions). The terms of the founders’ release are disputed.
Subscribe
McCyber intelligence briefings and structural essays, directly. No institutional spin.