Top Tweets for #comroachism

3 days ago

#CJPProtest #FCRA #Comroachism #VandeMataram Like the trending narrative suggests, if you truly believe that @BJPIndia simply succumbed to the #CockroachJanataParty, you are deluded. #CJP is merely a facade for a deep coalition of national and international forces conspiring for regime change in India, including: - Opposition parties (INC, AAP, SP, CPI, CPI(M), RJD, TMC, DMK, TVK, etc.) - Leftist, Marxist, Maoist, and Naxal networks - Radical religious and evangelical lobbies - Foreign-funded NGOs - Anti-national corporates - Illegal mafias and anti-social elements - Foreign agencies & state actors (US, China, Europe, Pakistan, Bangladesh) - many more... It is an entire global ecosystem attacking a Hindutva government that relies on a fragmented electorate—often lured by freebies, sidelined by voter apathy, or choosing vacation over voting. Make no mistake: this is David fighting a global Goliath. Under these circumstances, it’s not about "succumbing"—it is about treading carefully against a massive, coordinated tide.

Sankhya Sangam

@SankhyaSangam

3 days ago

#Comroaches #Comroachism #Comraids #CockroachJanataParty #CJPProtest #JantarMantar #GutterGeneration #KanganaRanaut "Once they grab power, the gun is the only language they speak. But to grab power, the gun is the first thing they ask you to drop". If you believe that the recent outrage surrounding the use of pellet guns is driven purely by "human rights" concerns, you are deluded. It is a calculated tactic to defang the police and defense forces. The attempt to delegitimize and restrict less-lethal police equipment—such as pellet guns, water cannons, or tear gas—is structurally identical to tactics used in Western movements like "Defund the Police". The primary objective is to neutralize or defang law enforcement’s crowd-control capacity. By removing non-lethal, intermediate options from the police force, authorities are left with a stark, impossible choice: either do nothing and let protests escalate, or use lethal force and face global condemnation. Under Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, this strategy relies primarily on three core principles: 1. Rule 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." How it applies: Agitators invoke democratic norms, human rights standards, and constitutional protections regarding freedom of assembly. By framing every standard law enforcement tool (like pellet guns or barricades) as an "authoritarian human rights violation," they force the state to restrict its own forces under public pressure. Alinsky noted that institutions "can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity," making this a highly effective trap. 2. Rule 10 / Rule 11 (Variant): "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside." The "Dilemma Action" Strategy: By stripping police of intermediate crowd-control tools, agitators force a win-win scenario for themselves where: If police retreat: The agitators gain total control of the street, overrun government infrastructure, and claim victory. If police respond aggressively: The state is filmed using heavier force, which instantly generates viral video content, international outrage, and fresh recruits for the movement. 3. Rule 13: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." How it applies: Instead of debating overall law and order, agitators single out specific weapons (e.g., "pellet guns"), police officials, or ministers. By hyper-focusing on a specific tactical tool, they shift the public conversation away from the violence or destruction committed by rioters and turn the spot-light entirely onto police response.

Sankhya Sangam

@SankhyaSangam

3 days ago

#Comroaches #Comroachism #Comraids #CockroachJanataParty #CJPProtest #JantarMantar #GutterGeneration #KanganaRanaut Guaranteed freedom for vandals, rioters, murderers, rapists, child molesters, and violent agitators? That’s the only "guarantee" @INCIndia actually delivers. From 1947 to 1984 to 1989 to 2026, the mindset hasn't changed a bit. Of course, birds of a feather always flock together.

Sankhya Sangam

@SankhyaSangam

3 days ago

#GutterGeneration #Comroaches #Comroachism #Comraids #CockroachJanataParty #CJPProtest #JantarMantar #KanganaRanaut Organic anger or calculated playbook? Despicable abuse aimed at PM Modi and his mother, obscene reels mocking traditional values, coordinated attacks on defense forces, and laser-focused targeting of ministers... If you think these are mere organic outbursts by "peaceful protesters", you are deluded. This is a textbook implementation of classic left-wing agitation tactics—perfectly outlined in Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. For example: - Rule 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." - There is no direct defense against public mockery, obscene reels, and gutter language. It is designed to infuriate the authority and force a hasty, over-the-top reaction. - Rule 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." - Framing rebellion as fun, trendy, or "Gen-Z culture" keeps agitators engaged and turns political hooliganism into social media content. - Rule 8: "Keep the pressure on." - Never let up. Constantly rotate tactics, spin fresh events, and exploit every local grievance to keep the government on the defensive. - Rule 9: "The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself." - Manufacturing mass panic, threatening widespread disruption, and weaponizing optics to force concessions. - Rule 11: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." - Don't attack an abstract system. Isolate specific individuals—first the Education Minister, then the Home Minister—to cut off their support networks and bypass institution-level facts. As Alinsky famously stated, the primary goal of the agitator is simple: bait the opponent into reacting. The opposition, properly goaded and guided into a misstep, becomes their greatest strength.

Sankhya Sangam

@SankhyaSangam

4 days ago

#Comroaches #Comroachism #Comraids #CockroachJanataParty #CJPProtest #JantarMantar The @Cockroachisback has accidentally confessed its biggest fear: "...But government can’t use this excuse to pursue FIRs so it can later target genuine protesters..." They know that once law enforcement investigate the lumpen elements, the trail will lead directly to the organizers. That isn't concern for "genuine protesters"—that's raw panic.

Saurav Das

@SauravDassss

5 days ago

The Supreme Court cannot be politicised for government’s gains. Its orders cannot be weaponised to achieve those gains. A solemn guarantee was given before the nation. Those ought to be honoured. All FIRs ought to be withdrawn. If criminals roamed, police must apply for cancellation of bail in their old cases. Must also answer why they were roaming so freely in society. But government can’t use this excuse to pursue FIRs so it can later target genuine protesters. If given this leeway, the government will, of course, use it. The youth will NOT accept this at any cost! We will stand with each and every protester who stood up for each other’s future! @Cockroachisback

12K

370

Sankhya Sangam

@SankhyaSangam

5 days ago

#Comroaches #Comroachism #Comraids #CockroachJanataParty #CJPProtest #JantarMantar The #Comroaches are celebrating, convinced they've taken the nation for a ride—while the government, for reasons unknown, seems content to play along with them. It appears that the government does not have unilateral or absolute power to unilaterally cancel FIRs or drop criminal cases, especially in cases involving violence and property damage. Under India’s criminal procedure framework—now governed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)—the executive branch cannot simply wipe away cases at will. 1. Statutory Provision: Section 360 of BNSS (Formerly Section 321 of the CrPC) Under Section 360 of the BNSS, the authority to move for withdrawal lies with the Public Prosecutor, not directly with politicians or government ministers. For a case or FIR to be withdrawn, three strict conditions must be met: - Independent Mind of Prosecutor: The Public Prosecutor cannot act merely as a rubber stamp for executive orders. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the prosecutor must independently satisfy themselves that withdrawal serves the broader interest of public justice, peace, or law and order. - Mandatory Court Approval: The Public Prosecutor must file an application before the trial court presiding over the case. The Court is not bound to accept the government's request and will reject it if it finds the withdrawal is being done arbitrarily, for political expediency, or to shield violent offenders. - Victim's Right to be Heard (Key BNSS Change): Under Section 360 of the BNSS, a crucial new safeguard was introduced: the court cannot grant permission for withdrawal without giving the victim an opportunity to be heard. If police personnel, public servants, or citizens were injured during violent protests, their objections carry significant weight in court. 2. Legal Precedents on Violent Offences The Supreme Court of India (State of Kerala v. K. Ajith & Ors., 2021) laid down clear guidelines regarding state governments trying to drop protest-related charges: - No Free Pass for Destruction or Violence: Cases involving destruction of public property, arson, rioting, or violence against police officers cannot be casually withdrawn under the guise of "public policy" or "peaceful political compromise". - Judicial Review: Courts routinely strike down executive directions attempting to drop cases against political cadres or violent agitators if the offences involved non-compoundable, grave crimes. Therefore, while a state or central government can instruct its Public Prosecutor to apply for the withdrawal of protest-related cases in the interest of social harmony, it is ultimately up to the judicial court to grant or deny that permission. In cases involving violent riotous acts, destruction of public property, or assault on law enforcement, courts rarely allow blanket withdrawals.

SankhyaSangam's tweet photo. #Comroaches #Comroachism #Comraids #CockroachJanataParty #CJPProtest #JantarMantar

The #Comroaches are celebrating, convinced they've taken the nation for a ride—while the government, for reasons unknown, seems content to play along with them.

It appears that the government does not have unilateral or absolute power to unilaterally cancel FIRs or drop criminal cases, especially in cases involving violence and property damage.

Under India’s criminal procedure framework—now governed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)—the executive branch cannot simply wipe away cases at will.

1. Statutory Provision: Section 360 of BNSS (Formerly Section 321 of the CrPC)

Under Section 360 of the BNSS, the authority to move for withdrawal lies with the Public Prosecutor, not directly with politicians or government ministers.

For a case or FIR to be withdrawn, three strict conditions must be met:

- Independent Mind of Prosecutor: The Public Prosecutor cannot act merely as a rubber stamp for executive orders. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the prosecutor must independently satisfy themselves that withdrawal serves the broader interest of public justice, peace, or law and order.

- Mandatory Court Approval: The Public Prosecutor must file an application before the trial court presiding over the case. The Court is not bound to accept the government's request and will reject it if it finds the withdrawal is being done arbitrarily, for political expediency, or to shield violent offenders.

- Victim's Right to be Heard (Key BNSS Change): Under Section 360 of the BNSS, a crucial new safeguard was introduced: the court cannot grant permission for withdrawal without giving the victim an opportunity to be heard. If police personnel, public servants, or citizens were injured during violent protests, their objections carry significant weight in court.

2. Legal Precedents on Violent Offences

The Supreme Court of India (State of Kerala v. K. Ajith & Ors., 2021) laid down clear guidelines regarding state governments trying to drop protest-related charges:

- No Free Pass for Destruction or Violence: Cases involving destruction of public property, arson, rioting, or violence against police officers cannot be casually withdrawn under the guise of "public policy" or "peaceful political compromise".

- Judicial Review: Courts routinely strike down executive directions attempting to drop cases against political cadres or violent agitators if the offences involved non-compoundable, grave crimes.

Therefore, while a state or central government can instruct its Public Prosecutor to apply for the withdrawal of protest-related cases in the interest of social harmony, it is ultimately up to the judicial court to grant or deny that permission. In cases involving violent riotous acts, destruction of public property, or assault on law enforcement, courts rarely allow blanket withdrawals.

106

Top Tweets for #comroachism

Last Seen Hashtags on Sotwe

Trends for you

Most Popular Users