BORDER DEFENCE OR CAPITAL CRACKDOWN? CJP’S ABHIJEET DIPKE ACCUSES CENTRE OF MISPLACED SECURITY PRIORITIES
October 23, 2026
Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) founder Abhijeet Dipke has accused the Narendra Modi government of prioritising the prevention of protests in New Delhi over national security, arguing that the deployment of security personnel to control demonstrations raises questions about the country’s preparedness along its border with China.
In a statement posted on social media on Friday, Dipke reacted to remarks by Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) Director General Shatrujeet Singh Kapoor about continuing face-offs with Chinese troops at multiple locations along the Arunachal Pradesh border. Dipke argued that security forces should be concentrating on protecting the country’s frontiers rather than being deployed to prevent citizens from exercising their right to protest.
“The priority should be securing our borders, not turning Delhi into a fortress to suppress peaceful protests,” Dipke said, accusing Prime Minister Narendra Modi of putting national security at risk by using security personnel against protesting citizens. His remarks linked the government’s handling of demonstrations in the capital with the wider question of India’s preparedness for potential confrontations with China.
The criticism came amid heightened security arrangements in Delhi following protests organised by the CJP and other groups. The demonstrations have been associated with demands for the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over concerns surrounding the revision of electoral rolls. Authorities have imposed restrictions on gatherings and deployed security personnel to prevent unauthorised demonstrations.
Dipke also criticised a Delhi court’s decision to permit American national Matthew Aaron VanDyke to travel to the United States. VanDyke and six Ukrainian nationals had been arrested by the National Investigation Agency in March 2026 over allegations that they provided weapons and drone-warfare training to ethnic armed groups in Myanmar. The allegations form part of the case against the foreign nationals and should not be treated as established findings of guilt.
Mocking the court’s decision, Dipke remarked, “Why not, he wasn’t waving the Tiranga,” drawing a sarcastic comparison between the treatment of the foreign national and the restrictions imposed on protesters in India. His comments suggested that the authorities were applying different standards when dealing with a case involving alleged security offences and demonstrations by Indian citizens.
The CJP leader’s remarks followed the ITBP chief’s account of the force’s operational preparedness along the China border. Kapoor had spoken about measures to prepare personnel for difficult combat situations, including training intended to equip troops for confrontations resembling the 2020 Galwan Valley clash. He also referred to the deployment of drone platoons in border units and the development of infrastructure to support operations in challenging terrain.
Dipke argued that these developments made the deployment of security forces to contain protests in the capital particularly troubling. His criticism centred on whether the government was allocating its security resources according to the country’s most pressing strategic requirements or placing excessive emphasis on preventing political demonstrations.
The government’s handling of protests has remained contentious, with authorities citing public order and legal restrictions while critics have raised concerns about the space available for peaceful dissent. The latest intervention by Dipke has brought these competing arguments into the same debate as India’s security challenges along the Line of Actual Control.
His allegations concerning the government’s priorities represent the CJP leader’s political assessment; they do not independently establish that border security has been compromised by the deployment of personnel in Delhi. Nevertheless, the controversy highlights the tension between maintaining public order in the national capital, protecting the right to peaceful protest and ensuring that India remains prepared to respond to security challenges along its international borders.
