Quick answer: OpIndia claimed that Abhijeet Dipke may have voluntarily deactivated the CJP website because the domain showed a clientHold status and returned a DNS error. But clientHold is a registrar-level status, not a simple “owner switched off the site” button. The timing also matters: the website went offline during the same wider crackdown in which CJP’s X account was withheld, Instagram access was lost, and backup accounts were removed.
The claim sounds technical. The timeline makes it political.
What OpIndia claimed
After cockroachjantaparty.org went offline on 23 May 2026, OpIndia advanced an alternative theory: that CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke had deactivated the website himself.
The claim relied mainly on three points:
- The website returned a DNS_PROBE_FINISHED_NXDOMAIN browser error.
- A WHOIS lookup showed the domain status as clientHold.
- No public Section 69A blocking order had been published.
From this, OpIndia suggested that Dipke may have voluntarily taken down the site. But the technical detail at the centre of the claim does not prove that.
What clientHold actually means
clientHold is an EPP domain status code. When a domain is placed on clientHold, it is removed from the DNS zone file, which is why users may see a DNS error when trying to open it.
The important point is this: clientHold is applied by the registrar. It is not normally something a domain owner directly toggles like turning off a website.
A domain can be placed on clientHold for reasons such as unpaid renewal, WHOIS verification issues, or compliance-related action. In a compliance context, a registrar can place a hold after receiving instructions through legal or government channels.
So clientHold does not automatically mean “Dipke deactivated the website.” If anything, it is also consistent with a registrar implementing an external compliance hold.
The DNS error does not prove self-deactivation
OpIndia’s argument also pointed to the DNS error. But that error is exactly what can happen when a domain is on clientHold. The browser cannot resolve the domain because the domain has been removed from DNS resolution.
In other words, the DNS error does not independently prove anything. It is an expected result of the clientHold status.
The Section 69A order problem
Another part of the claim was that no public government blocking order was available. But that misunderstands how Section 69A works in India.
Section 69A blocking orders are generally confidential. The rules around blocking access to online information do not require every order to be publicly published. So the absence of a public order is not proof that no order exists.
This is why using “no public order exists” as evidence is weak. Secrecy is part of the system.
The timeline that weakens the OpIndia theory
The self-deactivation theory also has a major timeline problem.
CJP’s website did not go offline in isolation. It happened during a broader digital crackdown:
- CJP’s X account was withheld in India under Section 69A-related action.
- CJP’s Instagram account was reportedly hacked and access was lost.
- Dipke’s personal Instagram was reportedly compromised.
- The CJP backup account was also removed or suspended.
- The main website went offline during the same period.
For the OpIndia theory to work, one would have to believe that Dipke voluntarily killed his own flagship website at the same time that multiple other CJP digital surfaces were being hit. That is a much harder explanation than the website being part of the same crackdown pattern.
“Why is the government so scared of cockroaches?”
— Abhijeet Dipke
What mainstream outlets reported
Multiple mainstream outlets reported the CJP website as blocked or taken down by government action. The source article cites Business Today, Al Jazeera, The Tribune, and Internet Freedom Foundation coverage around the crackdown, while noting that OpIndia was advancing the self-deactivation theory. :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}
That does not mean every detail is automatically settled. But it does mean OpIndia’s version is not the only available explanation — and it depends heavily on a narrow reading of clientHold.
Dipke’s behaviour does not match self-deactivation
If Dipke had voluntarily deactivated his own flagship website, the next logical step would have been silence, retreat, or reduced public activity.
That is not what happened.
After the .org site went down, CJP continued operating through the .buzz website. Dipke continued speaking publicly. The movement kept pushing the message that “cockroaches never die.”
That behaviour is consistent with someone responding to a takedown. It is not consistent with someone quietly shutting down his own movement infrastructure.
The fact-check conclusion
The OpIndia claim rests on two weak pillars:
- A technical status code, clientHold, that does not prove voluntary self-deactivation.
- The absence of a public Section 69A order, even though such orders are generally confidential.
Against that, there is the broader timeline: X withheld, Instagram compromised, backup accounts removed, website offline, and CJP immediately rebuilding on .buzz.
The cleaner reading is simple: the website takedown fits the crackdown pattern.
The cockroach record
The .org went down. The .buzz stayed alive.
They called it deactivation. CJP calls it a crackdown.
The badge is the record of that moment: when the website disappeared, the nest moved.
Join CJP free → or buy the digital badge →
Membership is free. Badge optional. Main Bhi Cockroach.