In an in-depth interview with the ECPS, Dr. Subir Sinha, Director of the SOAS South Asia Institute, examines how India’s emerging Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) is challenging Narendra Modi’s authoritarian-populist hegemony. Situating youth mobilization within broader crises of unemployment, neoliberal restructuring, electoral legitimacy, and Hindu majoritarianism, Dr. Sinha argues that Modi’s strategies for containing generational discontent have begun to unravel. He identifies the CJP as a potential “counter-people” capable of challenging Modi’s construction of political sovereignty through digital resistance, Dalit and Muslim participation, and decentralized mobilization. Drawing comparisons with youth movements in Senegal, Bangladesh, and Serbia, he explores how state repression can undermine political legitimacy and how popular protest might evolve into structural democratic transformation. He emphasizes the importance of translating counter-hegemonic mobilization into legislative power.
Interview by Selcuk Gultasli
India’s emerging youth revolt is exposing the fragility of Narendra Modi’s authoritarian-populist hegemony, challenging not only the government’s developmental promises but also its construction of political legitimacy, popular sovereignty, and Hindu majoritarian identity. In an in-depth interview with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Dr. Subir Sinha, Reader in the Theory and Politics of Development, Director of the SOAS South Asia Institute, member of the SOAS Food Studies Centre, and affiliate of the Department of History at SOAS University of London, examines how generational discontent is developing into a potentially transformative counter-hegemonic movement.
Across India, Senegal, Bangladesh, Serbia, Nepal, and France, youth-led protests have challenged corruption, economic insecurity, political exclusion, and established structures of power. Our discussion examines India’s emerging Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) movement within this comparative framework, exploring why similar generational grievances produce different forms of mobilization, institutional responses, and democratic outcomes. Dr. Sinha’s scholarship on authoritarian populism, political hegemony, and social movements provides valuable insights into these dynamics.
At the center of Dr. Sinha’s analysis is the argument that unemployment, educational injustice, and democratic exclusion have generated a profound crisis of political representation. Observing that Modi’s strategies to absorb popular discontent into authoritarian populism have begun to unravel, he identifies the CJP as potentially “the central mechanism through which a counter-people is being imagined and manifested on the streets.”
This emerging counter-people challenges the ideological foundations of Modiism. Dr. Sinha argues that young protesters are dismantling Modi’s conception of “the people,” creating space for Dalits, Muslims, and economically marginalized citizens within a more inclusive political imagination. Digital mobilization has proved particularly disruptive. According to Dr. Sinha, “the social media game that the BJP had mastered” has slipped from its control, while “the image of a feared and revered leader” has been broken.
State repression, meanwhile, risks further undermining the government’s legitimacy. Dr. Sinha describes how police violence and vigilante attacks have alienated even some longstanding BJP supporters, exposing tensions between coercive authority and democratic consent.
The interview also explores a striking cultural contradiction: Dr. Sinha observes “an increasing feeling that Hinduism is in danger from Hindutva,” suggesting that dissatisfaction with religious majoritarianism may extend beyond conventional opposition constituencies.
Ultimately, Dr. Sinha distinguishes between temporary institutional concessions and enduring structural transformation. Drawing comparative lessons from youth movements worldwide, he argues that meaningful change requires converting popular mobilization into legislative power. The decisive question is whether India’s fragmented movements can construct an inclusive counter-people capable of translating resistance into lasting democratic change.
