The internet built the Modi era. Can it also disrupt it?

The BJP mastered social media to bypass traditional gatekeepers. Now, young Indians are using the same digital space to challenge its narrative and overcome a culture of political fear.

The BJP understood the political power of the internet before most of its opponents did. Social media allowed Narendra Modi to reduce his dependence on traditional journalism, speak directly to voters and build a political image that was everywhere at once. Online campaigns did not merely promote the BJP. They helped create the Modi era.

But the internet does not remain loyal to those who master it first.

When the weapon changes hands

Young Indians are now using the same digital space to question authority, ridicule political messaging and turn private frustration into public anger. The Cockroach Janta Party, or CJP, is the latest example.

What began as an online satirical response to a judicial remark about unemployed youth soon became a rallying point for anger over unemployment, examination paper leaks and official accountability. Its rise showed that young people no longer need a political party, television studio or newspaper editor to decide whether their anger deserves an audience.

That independence is precisely what makes digital dissent powerful. It is also what makes it vulnerable.

The government blocked CJP’s X account after it rapidly attracted a large following. In July, the Delhi High Court directed that the blocking order be revoked after the Centre said it no longer opposed restoring the account.

India also recorded 65 internet shutdowns in 2025, its lowest annual total since 2017, but still the highest reported among democracies. Meanwhile, Amnesty International has warned that proposed changes to digital regulation could give authorities wider powers to police and remove users’ content.

Each action may arrive with an official justification: national security, public order, misinformation or platform accountability. Some of these concerns are real. Online movements can spread falsehoods, become abusive and mistake virality for organisation. But harmful speech cannot become a blank cheque for the state to decide which criticism may survive.

When fear becomes the censor

The danger is not limited to a blocked account or deleted post. It lies in the calculation ordinary citizens increasingly make before speaking. Could a comment invite an abusive campaign? Could a political post affect a job, bring a police complaint or create trouble for one’s family?

Fear is not experienced equally and not every critic is silenced. Yet when enough people begin editing their thoughts before publishing them, censorship no longer requires a visible censor.

This is where the BJP’s digital dominance becomes politically ironic. The party rose by bypassing gatekeepers and building its own online networks. Now that young people are bypassing the BJP’s communication machinery, the open internet appears less like an opportunity and more like a threat to be managed.

CJP may fade. Another movement may replace it. Hashtags may fail to become votes, and viral outrage may collapse without leadership or structure. But the larger shift will remain: the government no longer controls where political conversations begin.

The question is not whether the internet will defeat the BJP. It is whether India will permit the internet to remain a place where power can be challenged at all. If fear performs the work of censorship, the resulting silence must never be mistaken for consent.