Anti-Hindu hate speech: Cockroach Janata Party's Ambedkarite activist spreads false caste atrocity rhetoric, says "Dalits are not Hindus"
Delhi, India 
27 June, 2026
Case Summary
Anti-Hindu rhetoric was propagated by the Cockroach Janata Party's Ambedkarite activist, Neha Bharti, who stated that "Dalits are not Hindus" and called upon Dalits to separate themselves from the Hindu community. Notably, the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) emerged in mid-May 2026 as a satirical, youth-led online movement that rapidly transformed into a mass mobilisation platform for students and unemployed graduates through extensive social media engagement. It was founded by Abhijeet Dipke, a member of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), who repurposed a controversial public remark comparing unemployed youth to "cockroaches" as a symbol of collective identity and protest. Dipke initially portrayed the movement as a genuine, non-partisan, and constitutionally aligned initiative addressing youth unemployment and examination irregularities, including the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) and Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) controversies. However, it quickly departed from its original narrative of criticising government policy failures. Rather than maintaining its focus on systemic educational reforms, the movement shifted towards targeted ideological opposition, marked by anti-Hindu remarks from its co-founders and participants. By the time it culminated in its first major street-level protest at Jantar Mantar on 6 June 2026, its focus had drifted from neutral advocacy for students' rights to overt hostility towards the Hindu community, Hindu organisations, Hindu activists, and what it described as a "Hindutva-led government", exposing the initiative as an ideologically driven anti-Hindu platform rather than a neutral student advocacy group. During the Cockroach Janata Party protests, the accused, while interacting with the media, stated, "I am a Dalit, and I do not consider myself a Hindu." She further claimed that, "All Dalits are not Hindus, as Hindus can go to temples but Dalits cannot." She further said that when a Dalit President visits temples, Hindus purify the temples because they consider Dalits impure and polluted. She also said that Hindus refer to Dalits as Hindus only when they want them to oppose Muslims. When a reporter confronted her over her remarks and stated that she was attempting to break Hindu unity, she responded that Hindus themselves had done so by treating Dalits badly. She reiterated that the Dalits of this country were not Hindus and should not consider themselves Hindus. She further stated that Dalits were not Hindus because Hindus had oppressed them for thousands of years and that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and so-called upper-caste Hindus were continuing the same practice. She was then seen praising Dr BR Ambedkar.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
The primary category selected in this case is: Hate Speech against Hindus. The subcategory selected is: Anti-Hindu subversion and prejudice. Hate speech is defined as any speech, gesture, conduct, writing, or display that is prejudicial against a specific individual and/or group of people, which is leading to or may lead to violence, prejudicial action or hate against that individual and/or group. Media plays a specific and overarching reach in perpetuating prejudicial attitudes towards a community owing to unfair, untrue coverage and/or misrepresentation/misinterpretation, selective coverage and/or omission of facts of/pertaining to issues affecting a specific religious group. This type of bias can dehumanise the victim group, making it easier for others to justify harmful actions against them, which aligns with the objectives of hate speech laws aimed at preventing such harm. It is often observed that the media takes a prejudicial stand against the Hindu community driven by their need to shield the aggressor community which happens to be a numeric minority, however, is the one perpetrating violence against Hindus. For example, the media is often quick to contextualise religiously motivated crimes against Hindus, omit or misrepresent facts that point towards religiously motivated hate crimes, justify and/or downplay religiously motivated hate crimes or simply present fake news to stereotype Hindus. Such media bias leads to the denial of persecution and is often used to dehumanise Hindus, leading to justification for violence against them. For example, the media covered several fake allegations of Hindus targeting Muslims and forcing them to chant Jai Shree Ram. Most of these cases were proved false and fabricated after police investigation. These fake news reports were subsequently never retracted or clarified. Such fake news led to the justification of violence and dehumanisation of Hindus based on the argument that since Hindus targeted Muslims and forced them to chant Jai Shree Ram, the dehumanisation of Hindus and violence against them was par for the course and merely a retaliation. Such media bias leads to prejudicial portrayal of Hindus and offers a justification for violence against them and therefore, is considered hate speech under this category. This case has been added to the tracker because Cockroach Janata Party activist Neha Bharti's statements that "Dalits are not Hindus" and her call for Dalits to separate themselves from the Hindu community were a deliberate attempt to undermine Hindu religious identity and divide Hindu society along caste lines. By asserting that Dalits were not Hindus and urging them to distance themselves from Hindu temples and the broader Hindu community, she sought to delegitimise the Hindu identity of Dalits and portray them as separate from the wider Hindu civilisational framework. This narrative mirrors the long-standing rhetoric promoted by anti-Hindu political groups like the Ambedkarites, Phuleites, and Periyarites, which assert that Dalits are not Hindus. The same ideological framework seeks to fragment Hindu society by portraying lower caste communities as being outside the Hindu fold. In reality, Dalits have historically formed an inseparable part of the Hindu collectivity, with their religious practices, traditions, deities, festivals, temples, and pilgrimage traditions deeply embedded within the broader Hindu civilisational framework. While different communities have distinct customs and local traditions, these exist within the wider continuum of Sanatan Dharma. By declaring that Dalits were "not Hindus" and urging them not to identify with the Hindu community, Neha Bharti directly challenged the historical, cultural, and religious links between the Dalit community and the rest of the Hindu community. Such remarks went beyond social or political commentary and constituted an attack on Hindu religious sentiments, as they sought to erode the collective religious and cultural identity of Hindus. Her remarks cannot be viewed merely as political expression; they reflected an attempt to divide Hindu society by promoting caste-based identities in opposition to a shared Hindu identity. During her interaction with the media, Bharti also stated that Hindus only identified Dalits as Hindus when they wanted them to oppose Muslims and argued that Hindus had oppressed Dalits for thousands of years. The assertion that Hindus only acknowledge Dalits to oppose Muslims serves to portray the Hindu community as inherently manipulative and insincere, reducing complex social dynamics to mere political opportunism. By framing Hindu identity as a transactional tool used solely for conflict, this narrative seeks to undermine the organic cultural bonds within the community and depict it in a uniformly negative, divisive light. This line of reasoning is further extended to argue that Dalits exist outside the Hindu fold, transforming historical and social challenges into an absolute rejection of shared identity, which is a deliberate attempt to foster internal hostility. She further referred to instances of temple purification following visits by a Dalit President to support her assertion that Dalits should not regard themselves as Hindus. Furthermore, she also claimed that Dalits are systematically barred from temples, which misrepresents reality, as Hindu temples do not filter or question visitors regarding their caste before entry. Presenting isolated incidents or supposed historical grievances as a universal rule ignores widespread legal protections, internal reforms, and the shared religious practices that unite the Hindu community. Such sweeping generalisations are frequently utilised by anti-Hindu ideological groups to demonise the broader Hindu community, portraying it as uniquely tyrannical and oppressive rather than acknowledging efforts toward integration and equality. Her remarks against the 'upper caste Hindus' aim to perpetuate the narrative that ‘upper caste’ Hindus are tyrannical towards disadvantaged sections of the Hindu society. This rhetoric is spread with the specific intention of discrediting the Hindu society and its faith by branding it oppressive and tyrannical. The intent of spreading such disinformation is to signal that Sanatan Dharma itself is discriminatory in nature and that it is a faith that is only meant for the practice of a specific class of Hindus who are considered ‘upper caste’. Such a false narrative is perpetuated in order to discredit and delegitimise the Hindu faith and dehumanise its followers. The direct consequence of the creation of such false ‘atrocity literature’ is an increase in violence against specific sections of Hindus and the exertion of pressure on another section of Hindus to alienate themselves from their professed faith, as it seeks to convince them that the faith itself discriminates against them. Since such narratives attack the core of the faith with the intention of delegitimising, dehumanising, and alienating Hindus, it is considered a hate crime against Hindus and the faith they profess. Therefore, in this context, Bharti's speech represented a deliberate attempt to fragment Hindu society by promoting a narrative of caste-based separation and targeting Hindu religious identity rather than addressing social issues. Such actions seek to divide Hindu society along caste lines while diminishing its collective religious identity. Her remarks constitute hate speech because they were intended to demean, marginalise, and create animosity towards Hindus by exploiting caste divisions. Crucially, the accused identifies as an Ambedkarite. 'Ambedkarism' is an anti-Hindu political ideology. While superficially it claims to fight for Dalit rights and against caste discrimination, it is, in reality, an anti-Hindu movement that harbours animosity towards all Hindus, irrespective of caste, including Dalits themselves. Ambedkarite adherents are often seen abusing Hindu gods, desecrating temples, and verbally abusing Hindus who do not agree with their political ideology. Their euphemism is that they are fighting 'casteism' and are not anti-Hindu, but their actions reveal deep-seated anti-Hindu sentiment. Notably, the Hinduphobia Tracker has documented multiple previous instances of Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) leaders, activists, and Ambedkarites making anti-Hindu remarks and engaging in actions targeting the Hindu community. For example, CJP leader Saurav Das has a long record of statements, articles, and social media posts critical of Hindu religious symbols, Hindu causes, and Hindu political aspirations. He criticised the Ram Mandir judgment and reconstruction process, by describing 6 December, the anniversary of the Babri structure's demolition, as a "sad day" in Indian history, and opposed the abrogation of Article 370, describing it as a grave assault on the Constitution while approvingly citing remarks made by Pakistan's Chief Justice. He consistently portrayed post-2019 developments in Jammu and Kashmir through the lens of state excesses and democratic decline. Das also publicly supported Umar Khalid, describing the charges against him as false and frivolous, questioned the use of anti-terror legislation in several national security cases, and authored an article on the killing of Atiq Ahmed in which he expressed concern over his death and wrote that the chant "Jai Shri Ram" had become a war cry used by Hindu groups against Muslims, a characterisation that drew criticism from Hindus who regard it as a sacred expression of devotion to Bhagwan Ram. Similarly, during a Cockroach Janata Party protest on 6 June 2026, Hindu sentiments were outraged when a party supporter mockingly questioned the existence of Lord Ram, a revered Hindu deity, and ridiculed him during interactions with the media. The Hinduphobia Tracker has also documented several instances of Ambedkarites denigrating Hindus and the Hindu community through rhetoric rooted in ideological hostility. For example, in March 2026, Indian politician Sunil Astay, an Ambedkarite and member of the Bhim Army, raised violent slogans targeting "Manuvadis" (Hindus) at a public gathering, employing rhetoric that invoked violence and humiliation. In October 2025, an Ambedkarite issued rape and murder threats against Hindu Brahmin women on social media and glorified the gang rape and murder of Girija Tickoo, a Kashmiri Pandit woman. During the same month, an Ambedkarite woman published anti-Hindu social media posts targeting the Brahmin community, denying the genocide of Kashmiri Pandits, and mocking the film The Kerala Story, which depicts religiously motivated crimes against Hindu women in interfaith relationships. Also in October 2025, Ambedkarite leader Prakash Chandra Gautam threatened that, if his government came to power, he would kill Kanwariyas, the Hindu devotees who undertake the sacred Kanwar Yatra pilgrimage. Overall, given that this case meets the parameters of a religiously driven hate speech, it is being added to the hate crime database of the Hinduphobia Tracker. Disclaimer: Hinduphobia Tracker records the date of an incident based on when the act or offence occurred, rather than the date on which it was reported by the media. In this case, the available media reports did not specify the exact date on which the incident occurred. Accordingly, 28 June 2026, the date on which the incident was first reported in the media, has been recorded as the indicative incident date solely for documentation and record-keeping purposes.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Others
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
female
Sources 
