top of page

By:

Rajendra Pandharpure

15 April 2025 at 7:55:54 pm

Pune’s Dissent Test for the BJP

From the fight over DJ noise to questions over a midnight arrest, two controversies have exposed an uncomfortable gap between the BJP’s rhetoric on citizens’ rights and the conduct of its local establishment The BJP in Pune is facing mounting criticism over two separate but politically resonant episodes — the assault on citizen activist Vidyanand Bapat, who had campaigned against loud DJ systems, and the arrest of YouTuber Santosh Pandit, a familiar civic commentator who has repeatedly...

Pune’s Dissent Test for the BJP

From the fight over DJ noise to questions over a midnight arrest, two controversies have exposed an uncomfortable gap between the BJP’s rhetoric on citizens’ rights and the conduct of its local establishment The BJP in Pune is facing mounting criticism over two separate but politically resonant episodes — the assault on citizen activist Vidyanand Bapat, who had campaigned against loud DJ systems, and the arrest of YouTuber Santosh Pandit, a familiar civic commentator who has repeatedly trained his sights on the city’s development works. What makes both cases particularly awkward for the party is that neither controversy fits neatly into a political binary. The DJ issue has divided the BJP itself, while the Pandit episode has raised questions about whether criticism of public works is being treated as an offence rather than as part of the democratic process. The divisions within the BJP over the use of DJs during festivals have been conspicuous. MP Medha Kulkarni has opposed their use, while city BJP president Dheeraj Ghate has argued against excessive restrictions on festivals. A BJP corporator, meanwhile, has taken an even harder line, saying that if restrictions were imposed, the procession itself would not be held. The conflicting positions have left the party without a coherent line on an issue that has become increasingly contentious in Pune. Social organisations have also criticised Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis for not taking a sufficiently clear position during his visit to the city. The police, for their part, have prohibited specific sound systems, including ‘Pressure Horns’ and ‘Plasma Sound’, while permitting configurations described as ‘four bass and four top’ speakers. In effect, therefore, there is no blanket prohibition on DJs. That distinction, however, has done little to settle the larger argument over noise pollution. Bapat’s Battle Bapat’s campaign struck a chord because it went beyond the question of DJs. He argued that noise-polluting loudspeakers should not be permitted in public spaces and called for regulation of the number of Dhol-Tasha troupes. He also suggested shifting festivals and immersion processions outside the city and ending the month-long Dhol-Tasha practice sessions held along the Mutha river before the festival season. For residents of areas such as Narayan Peth, the issue is hardly abstract. The prolonged practice sessions, followed by processions featuring DJs and amplified sound, have become a recurring source of noise-related grievances. Bapat’s campaign consequently acquired a momentum that its organisers may not initially have anticipated. Rallies and meetings were held, and a substantial section of citizens rallied behind his demand for a ban on DJs. It was against this backdrop that Bapat was slapped in broad daylight by an activist associated with a Ganpati mandal. The assault transformed what had been a debate over noise pollution into a much larger question about the space available for dissent in Pune. The incident reverberated across Maharashtra and for some, the episode evoked memories of the daylight killing of Narendra Dabholkar, another Pune-based campaigner who had challenged entrenched beliefs and practices. Fadnavis has assured Bapat of full protection. Yet the political response from the city’s Mayor and corporators representing central Pune remained conspicuously muted. Some groups chose to mock Bapat, dubbing him ‘Mr. Bean’. He nevertheless continued with his campaign. The episode has therefore left the BJP confronting an uncomfortable question: when a citizen challenges a popular festival practice on grounds of public health and noise pollution, does the political establishment defend his right to dissent even when it disagrees with his position? The Pandit Question The arrest of Santosh Pandit has created another, and potentially more politically troublesome, controversy. Pandit, who has built a following in Pune by highlighting civic problems, was booked following a complaint by a BJP corporator alleging that he had made derogatory and shameful remarks. Police detained him around midnight and formally registered the case at approximately 2.30 am. The police have maintained that the case was registered after completing the requisite legal procedures. But that explanation has failed to convince many citizens. The question being asked is simpler: was a midnight detention necessary in a case that did not involve a serious violent offence? The controversy quickly spilled onto the streets, with citizens holding meetings and rallies in Pandit’s support. The political context surrounding the case has also fuelled the criticism. An open gym in the Kothrud constituency, represented by Higher Education Minister Chandrakant Patil, had been put up at a stated cost of Rs. 9 lakh, according to its signboard. Pandit, citing information he had obtained, questioned whether the work should instead have cost around Rs. 4 lakh and asked where the additional Rs. 5 lakh had gone.
That was only one of several civic issues he had raised in recent months. Pandit had repeatedly highlighted alleged deficiencies in development works undertaken in wards represented by BJP leaders and corporators. He had also drawn attention to footage showing two BJP MLAs allegedly violating traffic rules. In both cases, the BJP’s local establishment finds itself under scrutiny over how it responds to citizens who challenge, criticise or embarrass those in positions of authority. The more fundamental question is whether citizens should be allowed to raise uncomfortable questions without intimidation, selective political outrage or disproportionate official action. The longer the political leadership remains divided or silent, the harder it becomes to argue that the controversies are merely local disputes rather than a test of the BJP’s political instincts in the city.

India’s Central Asian Gambit

As the contest for influence across Eurasia intensifies, Uzbekistan could become the anchor of New Delhi’s strategy to overcome its geographical handicap.

Central Asia has always occupied an unusual position in India’s foreign policy, being strategically important and economically promising, yet thwarted by geographically. Separated from the region by Pakistan and Afghanistan, India has often struggled to translate its historical and cultural connections with Central Asia into sustained economic and strategic engagement. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent visit to Uzbekistan, however, signals a renewed attempt to change that equation.


Vital Anchor

As India and Uzbekistan deepen cooperation across trade, connectivity, energy, defence and technology, Tashkent is emerging as more than just another partner in Central Asia. As the region’s most populous country and a growing economic and political centre, Uzbekistan could become an important anchor for India’s broader engagement with the region. The question now is whether New Delhi can convert renewed diplomatic momentum into a long-term strategic presence in a part of the world where geography, great-power competition and connectivity continue to define the limits of its influence.


Uzbekistan occupies a particularly important position in India’s engagement with Central Asia. The region’s most populous country, it sits at its heart and shares borders with all the other Central Asian republics, giving it considerable geopolitical and economic weight. Its growing economy, young population and increasingly active role in regional diplomacy have made Tashkent an important player in shaping Central Asia’s future.


For India, Uzbekistan offers opportunities that extend well beyond bilateral trade. The country is an important potential partner in energy, pharmaceuticals, information technology, defence and education. Its natural-resource base, including uranium reserves, also carries strategic significance for India’s long-term energy requirements. Stronger economic ties with Tashkent could, at the same time, give Indian businesses a gateway to wider markets across Central Asia.


Yet Uzbekistan’s importance is inseparable from geography. India’s biggest challenge in engaging with Central Asia has always been connectivity. With direct land access blocked by Pakistan and traditional routes through Afghanistan complicated by political instability, New Delhi has had to look for alternative corridors. Partnerships with countries such as Uzbekistan are therefore central to India’s efforts to build new trade and connectivity networks linking South Asia with Central Asia and beyond.


For all its strategic interest in Central Asia, India faces a fundamental obstacle: geography. Unlike China and Russia, it has no direct access to the region. Pakistan’s refusal to provide overland transit, combined with instability in Afghanistan, has made traditional routes difficult to use.


This has pushed India towards alternatives such as the International North-South Transport Corridor and Iran’s Chabahar Port. Both are central to New Delhi’s effort to overcome its geographic disadvantage and improve access to Central Asian markets.


But connectivity remains the gap between India’s strategic ambitions and its actual presence in the region. Diplomatic ties can open doors, but influence ultimately requires roads, railways, ports and functioning trade routes. India’s long-term position in Central Asia will therefore depend on whether it can turn proposed corridors into reliable commercial networks. Modi’s visit to Uzbekistan must be viewed against this larger effort to overcome the geography that has long constrained India’s engagement with the region.


New Great-Game

India’s renewed interest in Central Asia is unfolding in a region where geopolitical influence is increasingly contested. Russia has traditionally been the dominant security and political power, while China has rapidly expanded its economic presence through infrastructure investment, trade and the Belt and Road Initiative. Together, their influence has shaped much of Central Asia’s strategic landscape.


For India, the objective is unlikely to be direct competition with either power. Instead, New Delhi appears to be seeking a distinctive role built around economic partnerships, development cooperation, digital connectivity, education and capacity-building. Such an approach allows India to expand its presence without turning its engagement into another zero-sum contest between great powers.


Uzbekistan is particularly important in this equation. Tashkent has pursued a more active and diversified foreign policy, seeking partnerships with multiple powers rather than becoming overly dependent on any one of them. That creates room for India to deepen its engagement and establish itself as a long-term economic and strategic partner.


Modi’s visit, therefore, represents more than another bilateral diplomatic engagement. It reflects India’s recognition that Central Asia is acquiring greater importance in the geopolitical competition reshaping Eurasia. The challenge for New Delhi will be to ensure that renewed diplomatic attention is followed by sustained economic engagement and concrete projects capable of giving its Central Asia policy greater depth.


Prime Minister Modi’s visit to Uzbekistan matters not simply because it strengthens bilateral relations, but because it reflects India’s broader recognition of Central Asia’s strategic importance. As geopolitical competition reshapes Eurasia and new connectivity corridors redraw economic relationships, the region can no longer remain on the margins of India’s foreign policy.


Uzbekistan offers India an important opportunity to deepen its presence in Central Asia. But diplomatic momentum alone will not be enough. The real test will be translating agreements and strategic partnerships into stronger trade, functioning connectivity routes and sustained economic cooperation.


India’s Central Asia strategy has long been constrained by geography. Its success in the years ahead will depend on how effectively New Delhi can overcome it.


Modi’s visit to Tashkent may therefore prove to be more than another diplomatic engagement. It could mark a significant step in India’s attempt to move Central Asia from the periphery of its foreign policy towards the centre of its wider Eurasian strategy.


(The writer is an economics postgraduate from Jawaharlal Nehru University with research interests in economic policy, trade and global governance. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page