The CJP narrative surrounding women’s safety has come under scrutiny after founder Abhijeet Dipke made contrasting comments about incidents in Assam and Punjab. His remarks followed two separate developments involving serious allegations concerning women’s safety: a rape and murder case in Guwahati and unrest at Lovely Professional University (LPU) in Punjab following an alleged rape and suicide case involving a female student. The comparison has prompted discussion over how political actors frame responsibility for crimes depending on the circumstances and the government in question.
In Assam, Dipke criticised the state authorities after the killing of a Hindu woman in Guwahati. Speaking alongside CJP spokesperson Ashutosh Ranka, he questioned the response of the police and the government and argued that those in power should be held accountable when women face serious crimes. The remarks placed responsibility squarely on state institutions, particularly the police and administration responsible for maintaining law and order.
The CJP narrative took a different form when Dipke addressed the situation at LPU in Phagwara, Punjab. The campus had witnessed protests and violence after an alleged case involving the rape and suicide of a girl student. During the unrest, reports emerged of vandalised police vehicles, damaged buildings and explosions on campus. LPU subsequently suspended regular classes for 10 days and postponed mid-term examinations, while students were advised to remain inside hostels or residences.
Dipke shared a purported video in which a female student alleged that boys had entered a girls’ hostel with knives and that students had been instructed to remain inside their rooms because security had become limited. Hindustan Times reported that it could not independently verify the authenticity of the video. Dipke nevertheless described the reported situation as a serious problem and said women should not have to protest or fight for basic safety in 2026. His comments focused primarily on the wider responsibility of society to ensure that women feel secure.
The CJP narrative has therefore become a point of discussion because of the difference in emphasis between the two cases. In his comments concerning Assam, Dipke explicitly questioned the police and government, while his Punjab remarks stressed social responsibility and the need for people to take ownership before turning to the police or government. The contrast has been highlighted by critics who argue that accountability should be applied consistently irrespective of which political administration governs a state.
The circumstances surrounding the Punjab incident, however, remain subject to investigation and verification. Reports indicate that protests at LPU escalated into significant violence, while the university introduced temporary academic restrictions and issued safety instructions. The university said students remaining on campus should stay inside their hostels or places of residence and avoid unnecessary movement. Students interviewed by news organisations described damage to university buildings following the unrest.
The CJP narrative also needs to be considered against Dipke’s political background. He is the founder of the Cockroach Janata Party and has previously been associated with the Aam Aadmi Party. His public interventions frequently address political and social controversies through social-media posts and videos. India Today has separately reported on CJP activities in Assam, where party members and leaders were detained ahead of a planned regional volunteers’ meeting. The party alleged that Assam authorities obstructed access to the venue, while the police action became another subject of political dispute.
The CJP narrative around women’s safety ultimately illustrates how the same broad issue can generate different political arguments depending on the circumstances. The Assam case involved demands for governmental accountability following a criminal incident, while the Punjab controversy unfolded amid campus protests, allegations of violence and competing claims about security. Determining whether the two situations are directly comparable requires careful attention to the facts, the investigations underway and the responsibilities of the relevant authorities.
For students and families affected by the LPU unrest, the immediate concern remains safety and restoration of normal academic life. For authorities, the priority is to establish what happened, investigate allegations of criminal conduct and ensure that students are protected. Political commentary can shape public discussion, but the factual record ultimately depends on police investigations, verified evidence and official findings.
The debate surrounding the CJP narrative is therefore likely to continue as more information emerges from both Assam and Punjab. The two incidents demonstrate the sensitivity of women’s safety as a political and social issue, while also underscoring the importance of applying consistent standards when examining the responsibilities of governments, institutions, police forces and society. As investigations and official responses develop, verified facts will be essential to separating documented events from competing political interpretations.
