Why did the US embassy release an advisory three days before CJP agitation?
Total Views |
The controversy surrounding the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) agitation has taken a fresh and disturbing turn. Even as questions continue to be raised about the movement's funding, planning and alleged foreign links, a new revelation has added another layer of suspicion. Reports that the United States Embassy in New Delhi issued an advisory to its citizens ahead of the CJP's proposed march to Parliament on July 20 have triggered serious questions that deserve answers.
According to the advisory, the advisory asked American citizens to avoid specific areas of Delhi where the agitation was expected to take place. This was not a generic caution issued after violence had erupted. It was circulated in advance on July 17 - three days before the march and identified locations that would witness disruption. The obvious question arises as to how did the embassy acquire such precise information?
According to the advisory, which was also published on the website of the US Embassy in India, "large crowds are expected to gather on July 20 in Central Delhi, particularly in areas surrounding Jantar Mantar, Parliament and Kisan Ghat. Security measures may cause substantial disruption to traffic and public transit."
The advisory specifically noted that the gathering was scheduled on the first day of the Monsoon Session of Parliament. It further stated that protests were also expected at Kisan Ghat on July 21, adding that an alliance of 250 national farmers' organisations planned to arrive in Delhi. The advisory also issued eight recommendations for US citizens, advising them to take necessary precautions in view of the anticipated protests and possible disruptions.
ALSO READ: Jantar Mantar: it's not Protest, it's a conspiracy
The timing of the advisory also revives the larger debate over the CJP agitation itself. From the very beginning, critics have alleged that the movement is not merely a spontaneous citizens' campaign but part of a broader effort involving organisations and interests that seek to influence India's domestic politics. Allegations regarding foreign funding and external ideological support have already been made in the public domain. If these concerns are to be dismissed, they must be answered convincingly rather than brushed aside.
This is the second US connection during CJP agitation. Abhijeet Dipke, founder of Cockroach Janata Party, moved to the United States in 2022 for higher education.
He pursued a Master's degree in Public Relations at Boston University, where his studies focused on digital communication and public opinion. Before moving to the US, Dipke worked in political communications with the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), including on its social media campaigns during the 2020 Delhi Assembly election. He has publicly acknowledged this association.
ALSO READ: Around 100 CJP 'peaceful' protesters gherao RAF officer, assault him brutally; FIR filed
Besies, Dipke, Sonam Wangchuk has faced several controversies that his critics argue cannot simply be brushed aside. Questions have repeatedly been raised in the public domain about his foreign associations, including his personal and professional connections. His educational initiative has also attracted scrutiny, with critics alleging that it lacks the necessary government recognition and that certificates issued by it do not carry formal academic validity. These allegations have led some to accuse him of misleading students and the people of Ladakh. His institution has also received notices over alleged violations of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), during both the UPA and NDA governments.
Wangchuk's association with activists and public figures such as Arundhati Roy has further fuelled criticism from those who question his political positioning. Critics have also argued that his public articulation on issues relating to Jammu and Kashmir has lacked the clarity expected from someone seeking to lead a national movement. Therefore, Wangchuk has seriously failed to draw moral authority, unlike Anna Hazare.