From IAC to CJP: The Questions India Needs to Ask.
If one observes the trajectory of Indian politics closely, three events stand out as defining turning points that fundamentally reshaped its course: the JP Movement (JP Andolan), the demolition of the Babri Masjid, and the Anna Hazare-led anti-corruption movement (Anna Andolan). Each emerged from a distinct political and social context, yet all three transformed the political discourse of their time, reshaped political alignments, and left a lasting imprint on the Indian republic.
They have one thing in common: they all brought the RSS to power. Except the second one; the other two began as anti-INC movements, which seemed to make reforms in the contemporary system but, because all of them lacked ideology, gave power to the RSS.
JP Andolan and, eventually, the first non-Congress government in 1977 marked the first time the RSS tasted power until 1979, under Prime Minister Morarji Desai. After that, they started raising the Ram Mandir Issue by the VHP to get back to power; they demolished Babri Masjid, eventually getting power for 16 days in 1996 and then for 6 years and 64 days from 1998 to 2004 under Atal Bihari Vajpayee. But under Vajpayee, they could not be powered to the fullest, as we can see from the incident when then cabinet minister Arun Shourie once visited the RSS office in Jhandewalan. Upon his return, he was summoned by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. When Vajpayee asked him what he liked best about the RSS office, Shourie replied, “Their simplicity (saadgi)”. Parulekar then recounts Vajpayee’s poignant, long-paused response: “That is because they haven’t tasted the pleasures of power yet”.
The RSS recognized that its broader agenda would remain constrained under Vajpayee’s moderate coalition politics, leading to internal power dynamics alongside Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani.
However, a definitive shift occurred following the events in Gujarat in 2002. A figure grounded in the RSS from a young age offered the Sangh Parivar, particularly groups like the Bajrang Dal, unprecedented operational freedom during the 2002 violence. While this remains a point of intense debate among commentators, investigative documentaries and reporting from the period detail these systemic dynamics.
Cut to 2009: the BJP was weakening electorally under the leadership of L.K. Advani. Although public disillusionment with the ruling Congress party was growing, that frustration failed to translate into electoral gains for the BJP.
Recognizing this limitation, key figures within the broader ecosystem shifted their strategy toward institutional and civil-society channels. A central node in this network was the Vivekananda International Foundation (VIF),a think tank describing itself as an independent, non-partisan institution for strategic research.
The Foundation was established in December 2009 by Vivekananda Kendra, a Sangh Parivar organisation, at a site in Delhi allotted to the latter by the P. V. Narasimha Rao government in 1993. Ajit Doval, who retired as the director of the Intelligence Bureau in 2005, became its founder Director. Swaminathan Gurumurthy, associated with another Sangh Parivar organisation, Swadeshi Jagran Manch, was a force behind its creation. The Foundation made news in 2011–2012 when it was described as being instrumental in bringing together Anna Hazare, Arvind Kejriwal and Kiran Bedi, along with Baba Ramdev, to form the ‘Team Anna’. The anti-corruption protests of the team, which helped discredit the Indian National Congress government, were run from the VIF.
In 2014, its director Ajit Doval was appointed by the Prime Minister Narendra Modi as India’s National Security Advisor. The Prime Minister’s Principal Secretary Nripendra Misra and the Additional Principal Secretary P. K. Mishra were also recruited from the Foundation’s staff. The Prime Minister Modi is said to have been following the Foundation for some time and is impressed with its work.
The Foundation states that it has no formal organisational links with the RSS or the Bharatiya Janata Party. However, commentators have found Hindu nationalist ideas in several of its publications. The news magazine Tehelka has claimed that the Foundation supplied the intellectual inputs for the Narendra Modi campaign, defended him against charges in the Ishrat Jahan case, and spearheaded the Anna Hazare anti-corruption movement to undercut the United Progressive Alliance government.
One might argue that it is easy to make these observations with the benefit of hindsight in 2026. But how could one identify these underlying dynamics in real time? While discerning such patterns in the heat of a movement is challenging, key actions and events at the time provided unmistakable clues.
For instance, Kiran Bedi, a core committee member of IAC who was later appointed Lieutenant Governor, openly proposed that the movement back the BJP. This motion was ultimately rejected by other core members, according to IAC national committee member Chandra Mohan. Furthermore, key strategic meetings were routinely held at the residence of senior BJP leader Arun Jaitley, a fact that underscored the deep, quiet ties between the movement’s leadership and political actors.
The rapid rise and overwhelming reach of the India Against Corruption (IAC) movement cannot be understood merely as a spontaneous outburst of public anger. It represented a textbook alignment of three decisive forces: religion, capital, and the state.
First, religious and hyper-nationalist mobilization played a central role. The prominent presence of figures like Baba Ramdev and Sri Sri Ravi Shankar injected religious undertones and hyper-nationalist symbolism into what was nominally a civil rights agitation. Rhetorical appeals shifted the discourse from constitutional anti-corruption mechanisms to emotional, identity-driven calls for national revival.
Second, a corporate and media symbiosis fueled the movement. The unprecedented, round-the-clock television coverage granted to Team Anna reflected a clear corporate-media apparatus in action. At a time when corporate interests sought a predictable, high-growth governance model, most visibly exemplified by the Gujarat development narrative, mainstream media effectively dismantled the public credibility of the existing administration.
Third, this created a totalitarian convergence. Political theorists often define classic fascism as the seamless integration of state power and corporate capital. When a third element, organized religious nationalism, is woven into this matrix, it creates one of the most powerful and resilient structures of political control.
What began in 2011 as an anti-establishment movement claiming to reform the state inadvertently assembled the exact ideological, corporate, and social machinery that would come to dominate Indian politics for the next decade.
One cannot critically analyze the India Against Corruption movement without deconstructing the core demand at its center: the Jan Lokpal.
The concept of the Jan Lokpal was profoundly utopian and structurally flawed. In a constitutional democracy, the Constitution remains the supreme framework. The demand for a Jan Lokpal effectively proposed an extra-constitutional ombudsman positioned above established democratic institutions. While contemporary political discourse rightly emphasizes defending the Constitution against texts associated with historical hierarchies, such as the Manusmriti, the proposed Jan Lokpal apparatus functioned, in practice, as a modern variant of an unchecked, centralized authority.
An oversight body of such absolute scale inevitably requires human stewards, and in the social reality of India, power structures are bound by caste and privilege. A close look at the composition of the core committee reveals a distinct lack of representative diversity and a clear concentration of dominant caste leadership.
Figures rooted in social justice politics, most notably Lalu Prasad Yadav, recognized this fundamental danger immediately. He understood that creating an unelected, hyper-centralized authority would disproportionately impact backward and marginalized communities while empowering traditional elites under the guise of civic purity. Figures like Swami Agnivesh similarly recognized these underlying dynamics. In contrast, the Congress party’s high command proved entirely oblivious, failing to grasp both the constitutional hazards and the social implications of the movement until its political foundation had already been hollowed out.
The label “Godi Media” is frequently framed as a post-2014 phenomenon, yet this framing ignores the foundational role newsrooms played between 2011 and 2013. During the height of the India Against Corruption movement, television newsrooms ran one-sided, highly sensationalized prime-time coverage centered around Arvind Kejriwal and Team Anna. Journalists who are viewed as independent critics today actively participated in creating an environment where questioning the anti-corruption crusade invited immediate public vilification. Even prominent media figures openly echoed hyper-nationalist sentiment, with tweets like Ravish Kumar proposing in 2012 that the Army Chief join hands with Anna Hazare, effectively priming the public for an anti-incumbent wave.
This era exposed a glaring asymmetry in media scrutiny. Under the UPA administration, mainstream media aggressively reported on alleged institutional corruption based on preliminary findings, as expected in a functioning democracy. However, when key institutional claims collapsed, media coverage fell quiet.
A prime example is the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) reporting under Vinod Rai, whose sensationalized estimates of notional loss in the 2G spectrum and coal block allocations provided the primary fuel for the IAC movement. Years later, Vinod Rai tendered an unconditional court apology for making false, defamatory allegations regarding political pressure in his reporting. Yet, this retraction and the eventual judicial acquittals in key scam cases received only a fraction of the prime-time coverage that the initial allegations enjoyed.
Similarly, when contemporary CAG audit reports highlight systemic financial irregularities under the current administration, mainstream prime-time debates largely ignore them. The evolution of Indian media reveals that selective bias, narrative manufacturing, and institutional cozying did not begin overnight in 2014; the template was perfected during the IAC protests
While public narrative framed the movement around Anna Hazare, presenting him as the nation’s second Gandhi, the operational reality was vastly different. A critical question arises when examining the movement’s core mechanics: who was truly driving the machinery, Anna Hazare or Arvind Kejriwal?
The evidence points clearly to a division of labor between public messaging and political strategy. Anna Hazare served as the moral shield and public face, yet he was increasingly aware of how the agitation was being steered, particularly after the high-voltage events at Delhi’s Ramlila Maidan. Recognizing the political pressures and personal risks involved, Anna later attempted to lead an independent demonstration in Mumbai. The contrast was stark: without Kejriwal managing the organizational framework, attendance collapsed, proving that the movement’s momentum relied entirely on a centralized management engine rather than moral appeal alone.
Arvind Kejriwal was not merely a participant; he was the primary organizer, managing logistics, backchannel coordination, and strategic messaging. Incidents involving core committee members, such as the public assault on Prashant Bhushan, further highlighted the volatile atmosphere nurtured around the movement’s core leadership.
Under the banner of the Jan Lokpal and a corruption-free India, a carefully crafted atmosphere was cultivated. This narrative resonated strongly with groups aligned with RSS ideology, systematically propagating the idea that the existing constitutional order had failed completely and that only a sweeping, extra-parliamentary intervention could restore the nation.
The transition from the streets of Ramlila Maidan to formal electoral politics culminated in November 2012 with the birth of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). Following the 2013 Delhi Assembly elections, AAP formed a brief 49-day government backed by conditional minority support from the Indian National Congress. However, as the party expanded its footprint, its strategic positioning and public stances increasingly aligned with key elements of the Sangh Parivar ecosystem rather than traditional opposition ideology.
Get Gauraksh Singhi’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Throughout its evolution, AAP consistently maintained a calculated silence or outright alignment on core ideological flashpoints:
- Abrogation of Article 370: When the central government revoked Jammu and Kashmir’s special status in August 2019, AAP openly supported the move in Parliament, framing it as a matter of national integration.
- Calculated Silence on Civil Rights Flashes: On major civil rights issues, including the anti-CAA protests at Shaheen Bagh and the release of convicts in the Bilkis Bano case, the party leadership maintained a deliberate silence or offered neutral, evasive responses to avoid alienating majoritarian voters.
- Deflecting Opposition Campaigns: In 2023, when opposition parties attempted to anchor a united national campaign around corporate governance and the Adani controversy, AAP frequently deflected public discourse toward peripheral topics, such as questioning Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s academic degrees.
Furthermore, the party’s digital machinery and IT cell systematically targeted Congress far more aggressively than the BJP. Even after the BJP consolidated power nationally in 2014, AAP focused its primary political rhetoric on discrediting Congress as an ineffective opposition, effectively weakening the traditional anti-BJP base. These ideological compromises, strategic deflections, and targeted political attacks reinforced the observation that AAP’s political trajectory served as a complementary force rather than a fundamental alternative to the ruling ideological framework.
In the long-term strategic calculations of the BJP and the Sangh Parivar, third-party political entities often serve a temporary, transitional purpose. The Aam Aadmi Party effectively disrupted the traditional political ecosystem, eroded the organizational infrastructure of the Congress, and normalized majoritarian rhetoric under the banner of civic welfare. However, once an alternative mechanism completes its task of clearing political ground, the dominant ideological movement inevitably moves to reclaim direct control.
This trajectory reached its logical conclusion in the 2025 Delhi Assembly elections. After utilizing AAP as a buffer against traditional opposition networks for over a decade, the BJP dismantled the party’s electoral hold on the capital, securing a decisive victory and removing Arvind Kejriwal’s administration from power.
A similar pattern is quietly taking shape at the grassroots level in Punjab under Bhagwant Mann’s government. While AAP holds state power, significant political shifts are visible beneath the surface:
- Urban Shift: Across major cities and urban centers in Punjab, the BJP is making steady inroads into the hearts of the urban electorate, as evidenced by expanding ground visibility, prominent campaigning, and rising confidence among local cadres.
- Local Body Gains: The BJP’s performance in local body elections demonstrates a growing footprint, capturing municipal mindshare that was historically split between regional parties and the Congress.
- The Opposition Vacuum: Rather than strengthening a genuine anti-BJP alternative, AAP’s governance model has created a space where urban voters, disillusioned by administrative friction, increasingly view the BJP as a viable, direct alternative.
The political narrative comes full circle: what began in 2011 as an anti-establishment movement claiming to clean up politics ultimately served to break open closed political systems, only for the central ideological force to consolidate full control.
To understand the political trajectory of the Aam Aadmi Party, one must examine the striking structural parallels in its internal governance and leadership style. Centralized control, high personal branding, and the systematic alteration of party constitutions to perpetuate individual leadership reflect a familiar pattern of political centralization. From its inception, the party was built around the personal image of its founder, establishing a tightly controlled hierarchy where internal dissent was routinely purged.
As the party faced severe political contractions, particularly with its defeat in the capital, new tactical maneuvers began to emerge. The phenomenon of informal, unstructured platforms, such as the satirical Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), highlights how non-registered organizations continue to be used as political proxies.
These unregistered entities serve distinct strategic functions within the broader media and political ecosystem:
- The Illusion of Neutrality: Unregistered platforms allow organizers and sympathizers to present themselves as independent, civic-minded citizens. This grants accommodating journalists a veneer of neutrality, enabling them to provide extensive, uncritical publicity without appearing explicitly partisan.
- Interlocking Leadership Networks: A close examination of key organizers behind such movements frequently reveals deep organizational roots within the AAP infrastructure, bridging the gap between formal party strategy and street-level mobilization.
- Strategic Narrative Deflection: During major public grievances, such as student protests over exam irregularities, these platforms often work to redirect public anger. When opposition campaigns target the central political leadership, secondary movements frequently shift focus toward individual ministers or procedural negotiations with government officials, blunting the impact of broader systemic critiques.
- Controlled Mobilization and Disappearing Leadership: The pattern of calling for mass demonstrations, only for core organizers to remain absent on key protest dates or during police interventions, raises critical questions regarding accountability. These tactical disappearances often leave ordinary protesters vulnerable while shielding key strategists behind the scenes.
Just as the India Against Corruption movement provided a seemingly non-partisan platform to dismantle the UPA, these satellite initiatives continue the legacy of outsourcing political messaging. They allow political actors to construct fresh narratives, absorb youth anger, and shield established political targets under the guise of spontaneous civil activism.
The recent agitation over electoral integrity provides a clear case study in how systemic accountability is diluted through deliberate narrative shifts and strategic withdrawals. When questions emerged regarding election irregularities and the legitimacy of electoral rolls, the core political issue was the accountability of the state and the ruling administration. However, rather than sustaining pressure on government legitimacy, the discourse was rapidly redirected toward individual bureaucratic targets, specifically demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
This tactic mirrors earlier administrative replacements, such as shifting accountability from Pralhad Joshi to Dharmendra Pradhan during educational controversies. By narrowing a systemic crisis down to an individual official, the core machinery of power remains insulated from scrutiny.
Furthermore, as broad-based support began building across student unions, opposition parties, and civil groups like AISA, the movement’s messaging abruptly pivoted. The sudden introduction of majoritarian symbols and nationalistic appeals, such as shifting focus to the Tiranga, served to dilute the original mandate for institutional reform. This pattern of ideological pivot ensures that non-partisan agitations are quickly brought back into alignment with majoritarian optics.
The structural weakness of these informal entities becomes most apparent when momentum peaks. Calling a sudden halt to mass mobilizations under the guise of a festive Diwali break, accompanied by calls for supporters to return home, underscores the lack of long-term strategy or genuine autonomy. Unregistered platforms like CJP function as temporary pressure valves. When an agitation threatens to spill over into unpredictable political territory, the leadership defaults to stalling tactics, awaiting fresh directional cues from backchannel managers.
By outsourcing youth mobilization to non-registered, hyper-casualized outfits, political strategists retain maximum control while bearing zero institutional responsibility. When protests face police crackdowns, core organizers disappear, leaving ordinary participants exposed while the leadership retreats to recalibrate its next tactical maneuver.
History rarely repeats itself identical in form, but it routinely reuses the same political template. Just as Millennials rallied behind India Against Corruption in 2011 believing they were participating in an unblemished, non-partisan revolution, many today look back with deep regret over how their collective idealism was leveraged to clear political ground for majoritarian consolidation. Today, Gen Z finds itself at a similar crossroads with proxy platforms like CJP.
Recognizing the tactical flaws of informal, proxy-driven movements does not mean granting an exemption to established political parties. The Indian National Congress, along with other regional opposition parties, carries severe historical and contemporary failures that demand rigorous public questioning. Demanding accountability from traditional political actors is essential for a functioning constitutional democracy.
However, abandoning institutional political engagement in favor of casualized, non-registered proxy groups creates a dangerous illusion of resistance. When movements rely on non-transparent leadership, shift goalposts during critical protests, and call sudden pauses when public pressure peaks, they function as political shock absorbers rather than vehicles for genuine structural reform.
If Gen Z is to avoid the pitfalls that trapped the generation before them, it must learn to recognize these operational patterns before the momentum is once again harnessed to serve the very power structures it set out to challenge.
I will soon write about the Indian National Congress and the questions we need to ask them too in the next article.
Bye
