American singer Mary Millben and Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) founder Abhijeet Dipke exchanged sharp statements on October 14, 2026, after Millben alleged that US-based donors opposed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi were funding Dipke and his political movement.
Dipke hit back, questioning why Modi would need American support to discredit Indian citizens and arguing that foreign nationals should not interfere in India’s internal affairs. Millben subsequently defended Modi, saying he did not need American support because he had the backing of Indian citizens, and urged Dipke to work with the Prime Minister instead.
The exchange unfolded amid protests by CJP and opposition groups demanding Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. However, the funding allegation remains unverified in the reporting reviewed, and no direct response from Modi or the Election Commission to this specific claim was identified.
The controversy has brought renewed attention to foreign influence, political dissent and the evidence required to substantiate allegations against a protest movement.
A Public Exchange
The confrontation began when Millben, an American singer known for her public support for Modi, posted allegations on X that Dipke and CJP were receiving money from US-based donors opposed to the Prime Minister. She claimed that the funding was connected to efforts to disrupt governance and undermine Modi’s leadership.
Calling on young Indians to take a stand, she urged them to peacefully oppose what she described as CJP’s disruptive activities. Dipke responded by questioning the involvement of foreign nationals in India’s domestic political debate. “Why is Modi seeking the support of Americans to discredit his own countrymen?” he asked, challenging the premise of Millben’s intervention.
He added: “Who gave foreign nationals the right to interfere in India’s internal affairs? We are more than capable of dealing with our own issues. We don’t need outsiders interfering in our country’s affairs.” Millben’s response escalated the exchange. Addressing Dipke directly, she warned that his alleged US donors “will drop you like a hot cake when you don’t succeed”, adding that “lawlessness never wins”.
She urged him to use his US education and talent differently and suggested that he “sit down with PM Modi and be a positive voice to advance India”. In her most widely reported remark, she wrote: “And the PM doesn’t need American support.”
Millben further claimed that Modi had the support of “1.5 billion beautiful Indian citizens” and predicted that he would win again in 2029. These statements reflect Millben’s political position and predictions, rather than independently verified assessments of public opinion or the outcome of a future election.
Beyond The Allegations
The dispute cannot be understood without examining the movement at its centre. CJP originated as an online satirical initiative led by Dipke, whose post, “What if all cockroaches come together?”, gained traction after a Supreme Court remark likened unemployed youth to cockroaches.
The slogan became a rallying point for young Indians frustrated by unemployment, education-related concerns and questions of government accountability. The movement subsequently expanded beyond social media, organising protests in Delhi and other cities.
More recently, CJP and opposition groups have focused on the SIR of electoral rolls, demanding Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation over alleged irregularities and the removal of voters from electoral lists. Critics have raised concerns about the scale of deletions, while the Election Commission has maintained that voters who are wrongly excluded can seek re-enrolment.
The controversy has also brought questions about the handling of demonstrations and restrictions on protest into the public debate. Dipke and other CJP leaders were detained in Delhi on October 10 amid planned protests and were subsequently released by a court. The movement has continued to mobilise supporters, with Dipke announcing a Tricolour march in Connaught Place for October 16.
Against this backdrop, Millben’s allegations introduce a separate issue: whether foreign donors are financing the movement. The reports reviewed do not establish the identities of the alleged donors or provide verifiable financial evidence proving the claim. Dipke’s US education, by itself, is not evidence of foreign funding. Nor does the allegation settle the underlying questions about electoral-roll revisions. Each issue requires independent scrutiny and evidence.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
In a democracy, political disagreements and criticism of public institutions are part of public discourse. Allegations of foreign funding, concerns about electoral processes and claims of attempts to disrupt governance, however, must be examined on the basis of verifiable evidence rather than assumptions or political rhetoric.
Mary Millben is entitled to express her views on Indian politics, just as Abhijeet Dipke and the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) are entitled to raise concerns about electoral processes and public accountability, subject to the law. Neither an allegation nor a rebuttal, by itself, establishes the facts.
If credible evidence of unlawful foreign funding exists, the relevant authorities should investigate the matter in accordance with the law and make their findings public, where appropriate. Similarly, concerns regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls warrant clear explanations from the authorities, transparent procedures and accessible mechanisms for addressing grievances.
At the same time, allegations of foreign influence should not be treated as established facts without supporting evidence. Equally, concerns raised by a protest movement should be assessed on their merits rather than dismissed solely because of the identity or political position of those raising them. Both claims and counterclaims require scrutiny.
Public trust depends on transparent institutions, evidence-based public discourse and the ability of citizens to question decisions peacefully within the framework of the law. The focus, therefore, should remain on establishing the facts, ensuring accountability and upholding citizens’ rights, rather than allowing unverified claims to deepen political divisions.
Also Read: SIR Row: Supreme Court Seeks Response From Gyanesh Kumar on Rahul Gandhi-Led Plea
