New Delhi: When American singer Mary Millben made an explosive claim about the Delhi protests, alleging that the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) was being funded by ‘select US donors’, it did not come entirely as a surprise to those who had already been questioning the source of money behind the protests.
Questions have been raised for some time about the funding of these activities. The scale of the arrangements at some protests has also drawn attention. From frequent air travel and expensive cars to food, ice cream, cakes and drinks being served in abundance during the July Jantar Mantar protest, the expenditure appeared substantial. At one point, the crowds being served numbered in the hundreds. There have also been reports of parties at expensive hotels.
All this raises a basic question: who is paying for these activities, and where is the money coming from?
The CJP maintains that it is self-funded by its founding team and does not accept political donations. Its founder, Abhijeet Dipke, has faced questions about the funding. At a press meet in Mumbai on October 1, he dismissed the relevance of such queries, asking what disclosing the funding would have to do with alleged irregularities in the Election Commission.
He also declared that he wore shoes worth Rs 30,000 and was not ashamed of it because he could afford them.
There is nothing wrong with wearing expensive shoes if one can afford them. But that is not the point. Personal spending and financing an organisation are two different matters. The question is not about the price of Dipke’s shoes, but about the money being spent on organising protests and running political campaigns.
If the funding is transparent, a clear explanation should help settle the matter. An aggressive response or a counter-question does not answer it. Questions about money should not automatically be seen as an attempt to silence dissent.
Millben’s remarks have added another dimension to this debate. She is not an elected politician, but an American singer and actor who has performed for five US presidents — George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump during his first term, Joe Biden, and Trump during his second term.
In a video message addressed to young Indians, she named billionaire George Soros, alleging that he and his network were funding protests across the world, particularly in countries led by conservative leaders.
“It’s the same person or same group of people, certainly coming from America, that’s funding a lot of these protests across the world, particularly when you have a conservative leader at the top of the ticket or running the government. The name is George Soros, and that whole machine of people is constantly funding a lot of these protests and chaos that’s breaking out across the world,” she said.
Millben, however, has not provided evidence to substantiate this allegation. In an earlier post on X, she described what she believed was a pattern followed by certain US-based donors: targeting conservative leaders, identifying educated people from those countries, radicalising them and funding activities that create chaos.
The CJP was quick to hit back. But the larger question remains. Are protest movements receiving money from sources that are not being disclosed? If so, is that funding lawful, and are the relevant rules being followed?
Senior advocate and former Solicitor General of India Harish Salve has also raised concerns about foreign funding and external interference. In an interview with IANS, he alleged that some foreign countries, particularly the United States, were unhappy with India and suggested that developments in Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh pointed to a pattern of external interference.
“I believe that foreign funding is being provided for these efforts and that they are being instigated from abroad. This is my allegation. Some foreign countries, particularly the United States, are not happy with India,” Salve said.
He also questioned the funding of protest activities, referring to YouTubers, Dipke, Saurav Das and people living overseas. Organising protests, he argued, required money, and the source of that money needed to be examined.
These are serious allegations. They should neither be accepted as facts nor dismissed without examination. If there is evidence of unlawful foreign funding or external interference, the government must investigate it.
The protests are taking place at a difficult time for India. The US-Israel attack on Iran and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz have created major economic and strategic challenges. The government has had to deal with the international fallout while attempting to protect the country from its economic consequences. Despite the uncertainties created by US President Donald Trump’s unpredictable policies, India has continued to pursue economic partnerships with other countries and protect its strategic interests.
At such a time, a battle is being fought with the government through social media narratives, protests and confrontations with the police. A few reels of protesters shouting slogans, clashing with police personnel or using abusive language against the Prime Minister may attract millions of views. But online attention is not the same as public support.
India has an electoral system in which governments can be challenged and changed through votes. That is the test which political parties and movements ultimately have to face. Opposing the government is a basic democratic right. Peaceful protests are an essential part of democracy. But the right to protest does not place any organisation beyond questions about its finances. The CJP and other groups should answer legitimate questions about their funding.
Attempts to build narratives and generate chaos may grab headlines and attract attention on social media, but they cannot by themselves bring about regime change in India. More than those who may be operating from foreign countries to influence opinion here, it is those who take the money and carry out such activities who must answer questions.
If any wrongdoing is established, those responsible should be held accountable. Dissent is a democratic right, but it cannot become a licence to mislead. (IANS)
Also Read: Zubeen Garg death case: Government to challenge bail of 2 accused in Supreme Court