Reflections on the Statements of Generals Upendra Dwivedi and M. M. Naravane
By Dr. Gurinder Singh Grewal
Abstract
India’s recent youth-led protests have raised questions about education, employment, electoral accountability, and dissent’s place in a democracy. Against this background, remarks by two former Indian Army chiefs—General Upendra Dwivedi and General Manoj Mukund Naravane—offer a useful starting point for discussing how institutions should respond to young citizens. General Dwivedi praised Generation Z for its adaptability, technological skills, and capacity to find solutions. General Naravane urged older generations to listen to young people and cautioned that a different way of thinking is not necessarily wrong. This article argues that these observations support a broader democratic principle: young citizens should be treated as participants in public life whose peaceful grievances deserve serious consideration. It also examines the Cockroach Janta Party protests and the constitutional protections for expression and peaceful assembly. The article distinguishes the generals’ reported remarks from the author’s interpretation of their relevance to the protests.
Keywords: Generation Z, India, youth protest, democratic dissent, Cockroach Janta Party, freedom of assembly, Upendra Dwivedi, M. M. Naravane
Introduction
A democracy depends not only on elections and institutions but also on citizens’ willingness to ask questions, express disagreement, and hold public authorities accountable. Young people play an essential role in this process. Their questions often arise from direct experience: the difficulty of finding employment, uncertainty about examinations, concern about public institutions, and anxiety about the future.
In India, the emergence of the youth-led Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) has brought many of these concerns into public view. The movement began as online satire and developed into a platform for protest over education and other issues. More recently, its supporters and other groups have challenged revisions to electoral rolls and called for greater accountability from election authorities.
The response to youth activism raises a wider question: Will institutions treat young people as citizens whose concerns deserve consideration, or primarily as a problem to be managed? Statements by Generals Upendra Dwivedi and M. M. Naravane offer a constructive framework for considering this question, even though they were made in different contexts.
General Dwivedi: Recognizing the Capabilities of a New Generation
In May 2026, General Upendra Dwivedi, then serving as India’s Chief of Army Staff, spoke positively about Generation Z during an interaction concerning the future of the armed forces. He described the younger generation as “at least 10 times better” than his own generation, emphasizing qualities such as adaptability, technological fluency, and the ability to approach complex problems in new ways. His remarks were made in the context of changing technology and the demands of modern military operations.
At a university convocation in October 2026, General Dwivedi again praised young people, saying that “Gen Z is ten times more capable than our generation.” He encouraged students to question established practices constructively while developing discipline and a sense of responsibility.
His “ten times” comparison should be understood as an expression of confidence in young people, rather than as a scientific measurement of intelligence. Its significance lies in his recognition that younger generations possess skills and perspectives that older institutions need.
This has broader implications for public life. If young people can contribute ideas to complex national challenges, their perspectives on education, employment, and governance also deserve careful attention. This is the author’s interpretation of the relevance of General Dwivedi’s remarks. Available reports do not show that he endorsed the CJP, supported all its demands, or condemned the government’s response to its protests.
General Naravane: The Importance of Dialogue
General M. M. Naravane offered a related message in October 2026 when asked about young people’s thinking amid controversy over youth-led protests. He observed that the younger generation has a different way of thinking, but that this difference does not mean young people are wrong. He called for dialogue and for a serious effort to understand their problems and difficulties.
Earlier, General Naravane said that young people believe their actions are meant to benefit the country. He encouraged older generations to understand what motivates them rather than simply scolding them.
This argument does not require agreement with every position a young activist takes. Listening is compatible with disagreement. Indeed, meaningful dialogue depends on citizens and public officials examining claims, offering evidence, and challenging one another without assuming disagreement is disloyalty.
General Naravane’s remarks were reported in the context of a debate in which political leaders had raised concerns about calls for “regime change.” In contrast, others maintained that their protests concerned constitutional and electoral issues. His appeal for understanding should therefore be read as a call for engagement, not as proof that he endorsed any particular organization or political program.
The Cockroach Janta Party and Youth Grievances
The CJP emerged after remarks by India’s Chief Justice comparing some unemployed young people to “cockroaches” drew public criticism. Young supporters adopted the term as a satirical identity. What began online subsequently became a vehicle for public demonstrations.
The movement initially drew attention to problems involving education and examinations. Reuters reported that participants also expressed frustration about unemployment, economic inequality, and restrictions on expression. Later demonstrations included demands concerning electoral rolls and the Chief Election Commissioner.
These issues should not be reduced to a single political motive. Participants may differ in their political beliefs, methods, and priorities. A student concerned about examination integrity, a job seeker concerned about recruitment, and a citizen worried about the accuracy of voter rolls may share a desire for accountability while disagreeing on other matters.
The allegations surrounding voter-roll revisions are contested. Protesters and opposition groups have claimed that eligible voters were removed and that the process benefits the ruling party. The Election Commission and the Bharatiya Janata Party have denied manipulation, saying that the revisions address ineligible entries and that eligible people can seek reenrollment. These competing claims require transparent examination; they should not be treated as settled merely because either side asserts them.
Protest, Detention, and Public Accountability
Reports of the October 2026 protests show the tension between authorities’ stated responsibility to maintain order and citizens’ freedom to demonstrate. Reuters reported that Delhi police said approximately 2,400 people were detained during protests on October 10, with most subsequently released. Protesters also alleged police assaults; Reuters stated that it could not independently verify those allegations.
In a separate episode, CJP leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka were detained following a demonstration at Jantar Mantar. An executive magistrate ordered their release on October 21 after they had spent seven days in custody. According to The Indian Express, their release followed written undertakings to maintain peace and calls for protest at the site. The report also described authorities’ allegations that the leaders had breached restrictions and barricades.
Amnesty International criticized the arrests and raised concerns about the space available for peaceful protest.
These events warrant scrutiny without assuming that every allegation has already been proven. Police actions, protesters’ conduct, detention decisions, and restrictions on assembly should be assessed on the facts and under applicable law. Where allegations of excessive force or unlawful detention arise, independent and credible investigation is necessary for public confidence.
The Constitutional Place of Peaceful Dissent
India’s Constitution protects citizens’ freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and their right to assemble peaceably and without arms under Article 19(1)(b). These rights are subject to constitutional restrictions. Article 19(3), for example, allows reasonable legal restrictions on assembly in the interests of India’s sovereignty and integrity or public order.
The power to regulate an assembly does not automatically justify every restriction. Public authorities must explain the legal basis for their actions and show that restrictions meet the constitutional requirement of reasonableness. Similarly, those exercising their right to protest have a responsibility to remain peaceful.
For a democracy, the practical challenge is to protect both public order and meaningful opportunities for dissent. If citizens can exercise their rights only when their message is comfortable for those in power, expression loses much of its value.
A Democratic Response to Young Citizens
The observations of Generals Dwivedi and Naravane point toward two complementary principles. First, young people bring abilities and perspectives institutions can learn from. Second, differences between generations should be approached through dialogue.
Applying these principles to current events would require more than praise for youth in speeches. It would mean creating channels through which students, job seekers, and other young citizens can present grievances and receive substantive responses. It would also mean providing credible information about contested policies, including examination procedures and electoral-roll revisions.
A constructive response could include:
- Open dialogue between public authorities and student and youth representatives.
- Transparent investigation of credible allegations involving examination irregularities, voter exclusion, or excessive police force.
- Accessible remedies for eligible voters who believe their names have been wrongly removed.
- Protection of peaceful assembly, consistent with constitutional requirements and lawful public-order measures.
- Respectful public debate that evaluates claims on evidence rather than dismissing young people because of their age or political views.
These proposals do not suggest that young protesters are always correct. They recognize that public institutions are strengthened when they answer legitimate questions and correct demonstrable failures.
Conclusion
Generals Upendra Dwivedi and M. M. Naravane have spoken in different settings, but both have challenged the tendency to underestimate younger generations. General Dwivedi emphasized their capabilities and adaptability. General Naravane emphasized the need to understand their perspectives and difficulties.
Their statements do not establish their support for every demand of the Cockroach Janta Party or any other protest movement. Nevertheless, they offer an opportunity to reflect on a larger democratic responsibility. Young citizens who organize peacefully, question institutions, and seek accountability should be heard seriously and with respect.
India’s youth are participants in the country’s democracy today. Their concerns about education, opportunity, fairness, and public institutions deserve an answer grounded in evidence, dialogue, and constitutional principle.
References
- Amnesty International. (2026, October 14). India: Release CJP leaders arrested after attempting peaceful protests at Jantar Mantar.https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2026/10/india-release-cjp-leaders-arrested-after-attempting-peaceful-protests-at-jantar-mantar/
- Asian News International. (2026, October 22). “We should understand them”: Ex-Army chief Naravane on Gen Z’s approach and thinking amidst recent protests. Webindia123.https://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/India/20261022/4513874.html
- Grover, V. (2021). Assessing India’s legal framework on the right to peaceful assembly. International Center for Not-for-Profit Law.https://www.icnl.org/wp-content/uploads/India-freedom-of-assembly-report-2021-final.pdf
- Hindustan Times. (2026, August 21). Gen Z thinks differently, but “that doesn’t make them wrong”: Ex-Army chief M. M. Naravane.https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/gen-z-thinks-differently-but-that-doesnt-make-them-wrong-ex-army-chief-mm-naravane-101787285958144-amp.html
- India Today. (2026, October 19). Wired, but tired: Gen Dwivedi urges students to step back from digital overload.https://www.indiatoday.in/amp/education-today/news/story/operation-sindoor-general-upendra-dwivedi-discipline-human-judgement-ai-3021019-2026-10-19
- The Indian Express. (2026, October 21). “Will not make calls for protest at Jantar Mantar”: CJP’s Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka released after written undertaking.https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/cjp-saurav-das-ashutosh-ranka-released-7-days-tihar-jail-magistrate-order-10931062/
- Moneycontrol. (2026, May 17). “Gen Z is 10 times better”: Army Chief Upendra Dwivedi says youngsters bring simple solutions to complex problems.https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/trends/gen-z-is-10-times-better-army-chief-upendra-dwivedi-says-youngsters-bring-simple-solutions-to-complex-problems-13921352.html
- Reuters. (2026, May 21). India’s “Cockroach” group goes viral, spotlights Gen Z worries.https://www.reuters.com/world/india/indias-cockroach-group-goes-viral-spotlights-gen-z-worries-2026-05-21/
-
Reuters. (2026, October 11). Protesters seeking India election chief’s ouster detained, as “cockroach” leaders released.
