Quick answer: BOOM Live examined the main claims used to discredit the Cockroach Janta Party and found that they do not hold up well. The report looked at the Pakistan-follower allegation, the X account withholding, and the theory that CJP took down its own website. BOOM’s conclusion: there is no credible data backing the Pakistan-follower claim, the website “inside job” theory does not hold up technically, and the official triggers behind the X block and registrar action remain unexplained.
They said the followers were fake. They said Pakistan was behind it. They said CJP took down its own website. BOOM checked the claims.
The discredit campaign did not survive the evidence.
What BOOM Live investigated
BOOM Live published a Decode report titled “The Claims Used To Discredit Cockroach Janta Party Don’t Hold Up.” The article examined the wave of claims that appeared after CJP went viral.
According to BOOM, CJP launched on 16 May 2026 after Chief Justice Surya Kant’s “cockroach” and “parasites” remarks about unemployed youth who turned to activism. BOOM reported that within days, CJP’s website had ten lakh registrations, its Instagram page had crossed 20 million followers, and its X account had more than two lakh followers.
Then, the movement came under attack: the X account was withheld in India, the website went offline globally, claims spread that most Instagram followers were from Pakistan, and Abhijeet Dipke alleged death threats and hacking attempts.
The Pakistan-follower claim
One of the biggest claims used to discredit CJP was that the majority of its Instagram followers were from Pakistan.
BOOM reported that as CJP’s Instagram crossed 20 million followers, political leaders and users on X began claiming that 90% of the followers were from Pakistan. The implication was clear: CJP’s growth was fake, foreign, or manufactured.
BOOM found no credible data backing this claim.
Dipke had shared a screen recording of Instagram analytics showing around 94% of the audience as Indian. BOOM also spoke to experts and checked third-party tools. While independent verification is limited because Instagram does not publicly reveal geographic audience data, the tools BOOM checked still pointed to a predominantly Indian audience, not a Pakistan-driven one.
BOOM’s core finding was simple: neither the available data nor third-party estimates supported the Pakistan narrative.
Why that matters
The Pakistan-follower claim was not just a numbers claim. It was a legitimacy attack.
If CJP’s audience could be described as foreign, then Indian youth anger could be dismissed as outside interference. If the movement could be painted as Pakistan-linked, then the conversation could move away from unemployment, exam leaks, youth dignity, and digital censorship.
BOOM’s report makes that harder.
CJP’s reply remains simple: Indian students do not need Pakistan to be angry about Indian exams, Indian unemployment, Indian institutions, and Indian political contempt.
The X account withholding
BOOM also reported that five days after launch, CJP’s X account was withheld in India “in response to a legal demand.” The account remained accessible outside India.
The legal demand behind the withholding has not been made public. BOOM reported that Dipke had moved the Delhi High Court challenging the block.
This matters because the public still does not know exactly what legal reasoning was used to restrict the CJP account inside India.
If a youth satire movement can be withheld through an unpublished legal demand, then the issue is not only CJP. The issue is transparency around digital speech restrictions.
The website takedown theory
The most technical part of BOOM’s investigation concerned CJP’s website going offline globally.
After the website went down, some users claimed CJP had taken it down itself and falsely blamed censorship. Their evidence included DNS errors, server responses, and a clientHold domain status.
BOOM’s technical examination found that this reading did not hold up.
What clientHold actually means
BOOM spoke to researchers who explained that clientHold is a domain status that can only be applied by the domain registrar. It is not a simple switch a website owner turns on by themselves.
Technology researcher Karan Saini also noted that while clientHold can sometimes be triggered by unmet verification requirements, the timing did not fit that explanation. The domain had been registered on 16 May, and registrars typically allow a 15-day grace period, which would not have expired by the time the website went offline.
That weakens the theory that the website was voluntarily taken down by its own team.
Why self-shutdown does not make practical sense
BOOM’s experts also explained that if a website owner wants to shut down their own site, there are easier ways to do it: turn off hosting, delete content, change DNS, or redirect the page.
A clientHold status is far more disruptive. It can wipe the domain off the internet entirely and affect related services such as email. Reversing it can take time and requires dealing with the registrar.
In other words, clientHold is not a practical method for someone simply trying to take down their own website.
The NXDOMAIN and 403 claims
BOOM also examined other technical signals that were being used to suggest an inside job.
Some users argued that an NXDOMAIN error proved the CJP team had deleted DNS records. BOOM’s experts said that is not correct. When a registrar places a domain on clientHold, DNS records are stripped, and NXDOMAIN is exactly the kind of error users may see.
A temporary 403 Forbidden response was also read as suspicious by some users. BOOM’s experts said it was consistent with a suspension in progress, when traffic can temporarily route through registrar systems.
In short, the technical signals being used as proof of a self-takedown were more consistent with registrar-level suspension.
What could have triggered registrar action?
BOOM reported that possible triggers include a legal order, a significant security incident, or non-payment. The report notes that non-payment and large-scale abuse seemed unlikely in this case.
That leaves the legal and regulatory route as a serious possibility.
BOOM also noted that Hostinger, the registrar involved, is headquartered in Lithuania but has a registered presence and local infrastructure in India, bringing it within the scope of Indian regulations.
The website returned
BOOM reported that the CJP website came back online on 25 May.
That detail is important. It means the outage was not permanent, but the controversy around why it happened remains unresolved.
The key point is that the technical record does not support the easy “inside job” claim pushed by critics.
What BOOM concluded
BOOM’s conclusion cuts through the noise:
- The Pakistan-follower claim has no credible evidence behind it.
- The website “inside job” theory does not hold up technically.
- The legal trigger behind the X withholding remains officially unexplained.
- The trigger behind the registrar-level action also remains officially unexplained.
That is not a small fact-check. It removes two of the biggest narratives used to discredit CJP.
Why this matters for CJP
This BOOM report gives CJP something important: outside verification that the smear campaign did not have solid evidence.
The movement had already said the Pakistan claim was false. BOOM found no credible data behind it.
CJP had already rejected the website self-takedown theory. BOOM’s technical examination found that the theory did not hold up.
For supporters, this matters because movements do not only fight bans. They fight narratives.
The larger pattern
The claims followed a familiar pattern:
- CJP grew rapidly.
- Critics claimed the growth was fake or foreign.
- The account was withheld in India.
- The website went offline.
- Critics claimed CJP staged the outage itself.
- Fact-checkers found little evidence for the discrediting claims.
The timeline tells a larger story: when youth anger became visible, the first reaction was not to answer it. The first reaction was to delegitimise it.
CJP’s reply
CJP does not need fake followers to explain its rise. The explanation is already visible.
Students were angry. Job seekers were angry. Young people felt mocked. The word “cockroach” gave that anger a symbol.
The movement grew because the insult was recognisable.
That is the part no discrediting theory can erase.
Source
This article is based on BOOM Live’s Decode report titled “The Claims Used To Discredit Cockroach Janta Party Don’t Hold Up”, written by Hera Rizwan and published on 26 May 2026. BOOM investigated the Pakistan-follower allegation, the X account withholding, and the website takedown theory, including technical analysis of clientHold, NXDOMAIN, and registrar-level suspension.
The cockroach record
They said Pakistan. BOOM found no credible evidence.
They said inside job. The technical record did not support it.
They said fake movement. The registrations, followers, and public reaction said otherwise.
That is the cockroach record.
The smear came fast.
The evidence came back harder.
Join CJP free → or buy the digital badge →
Membership is free. Badge optional. Main Bhi Cockroach.