top of page

By:

Abhijit Mulye

21 August 2024 at 11:29:11 am

Deepening BJP-Sena rift exposed

Mumbai: Corridors of power in Maharashtra are witnessing a growing sense of unease. Stern and quick disciplinary actions against senior bureaucrats are rare in state administration. The recent suspension of a senior IAS officer for failing to brief a minister during an ongoing assembly session has sent shockwaves through the bureaucracy. It has also laid bare the intense power struggle between ruling alliance partners, the BJP and the Shiv Sena. The controversy erupted when presiding officer...

Deepening BJP-Sena rift exposed

Mumbai: Corridors of power in Maharashtra are witnessing a growing sense of unease. Stern and quick disciplinary actions against senior bureaucrats are rare in state administration. The recent suspension of a senior IAS officer for failing to brief a minister during an ongoing assembly session has sent shockwaves through the bureaucracy. It has also laid bare the intense power struggle between ruling alliance partners, the BJP and the Shiv Sena. The controversy erupted when presiding officer Dilip Lande ordered immediate suspension of Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) Member Secretary M. Devendar Singh and Joint Director Satish Padwal. It is an unwritten parliamentary convention that presiding officers refrain from directing such severe administrative actions directly from the chair. However, the environment department acted with unprecedented speed. Sources indicate that the file implementing these suspension orders has already reached Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis’ office. Babus Baffled This swift administrative compliance has caused a significant flutter among top officials. Many bureaucrats feel the Fadnavis administration is setting a dangerous precedent. Others quietly admit that the officers simply became collateral damage in a fierce political crossfire. The root of this administrative crisis lies in the fraught relationship between two key political figures. The environment department is headed by BJP Minister Pankaja Munde. Meanwhile, the MPCB is chaired by Shiv Sena leader Siddhesh Kadam. The two leaders reportedly do not see eye to eye. M. Devendar Singh, the suspended IAS officer, is widely considered to be close to senior Shiv Sena minister Sanjay Rathod. During his earlier tenure as the district collector of Ratnagiri, Singh also developed close ties with powerful Sena minister Uday Samant. Bureaucratic circles suggest that Singh was appointed as the MPCB member secretary last year primarily due to strong recommendations from Samant and Sanjay Rathod. Against this backdrop, the political rivalry between Munde and Kadam reached a boiling point. According to an MPCB insider, Kadam allegedly issued oral instructions to board officials ordering them not to share any information with minister Munde or her office without his prior consent. Caught between a hostile chairman and an inquiring minister, officers naturally shied away from providing crucial briefings. Sensing this deliberate blockade of information, frustrated Munde spilled the beans on the floor of the House. She admitted her inability to answer legislators’ questions due to non-cooperative officials. The issue quickly escalated, likely beyond the minister’s own imagination. The presiding officer intervened, and the bureaucrats ultimately bore the brunt of the political dysfunction. Top officials now privately acknowledge that this entire episode is a direct outcome of the shifting power dynamics between the BJP and the Shiv Sena. This incident is not an isolated case of administrative cracking of the whip. Recently, the government initiated strict disciplinary action against an assistant charity commissioner in Gondia simply for participating in a lucky draw without prior permission from her superiors. Together, these incidents are sending a chilling message down the administrative spine. While the government attempts to project an image of strict discipline and accountability, the bureaucracy is increasingly feeling the heat of coalition politics. Officials are now acutely aware that navigating the fragile egos of alliance partners is just as critical as their administrative duties.

Sacred Attire

Updated: Jan 30, 2025

The Siddhivinayak Temple Trust’s recent decision to implement a dress code prohibiting short skirts, torn jeans and other revealing attire is a necessary move to uphold the sanctity of religious spaces. Temples are spiritual spaces where devotees seek solace, offer prayers, and connect with the divine. Temples are not mere tourist attractions but sacred sanctuaries. The least that visitors can do is dress accordingly.


The Jagannath temple in Puri, Odisha, and the Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan have already implemented similar rules, reflecting a growing recognition that religious spaces require a modicum of decorum. In the case of Siddhivinayak, the temple attracts thousands of devotees daily, many of whom have expressed discomfort over attire that they feel clashes with the temple’s spiritual ambience.


Few would question the need for decorum in a courtroom, a government office, or even an upscale restaurant. Yet, when religious institutions enforce dress codes to preserve their sanctity, a chorus of indignation often rises in the name of personal freedom, with such ‘critics’ arguing that such rules reflect moral policing or an imposition of traditionalist values.

But this argument confuses religious sanctity with public space liberalism. No one is being compelled to enter the temple, and those who do should respect the customs that govern it. Even in non-Hindu religious spaces, dress codes are the norm. One does not enter a gurdwara without covering their head, nor a mosque or church dressed in attire deemed unsuitable for prayer. The sanctity of a religious institution should not be sacrificed at the altar of modern whims.


To dismiss this as an encroachment on personal liberties is to misunderstand the nature of such spaces. Religious sites operate under different expectations than public thoroughfares or commercial hubs. They are designed for reflection, devotion, and ritual. While Indian society has rightly evolved towards greater personal freedom in many spheres, faith-based institutions must be allowed to maintain traditions that are integral to their identity. The temple trust has made it clear that its goal is not to impose regressive restrictions but to ensure that all visitors feel comfortable and that the sanctity of the temple is upheld.


Moreover, the argument that religious sites must remain entirely open-ended in their dress codes simply does not hold water. Many of the people who object to these restrictions would scarcely question the need for appropriate attire at a formal event or while meeting a dignitary. The principle is the same -respect for the setting dictates the mode of dress. Those who seek to frame this as a battle between liberalism and conservatism fail to grasp that such measures are about propriety, not repression.


In an era where the lines between cultural expression and decorum are increasingly blurred, it is worth remembering that not every rule is an infringement on liberty. If people can abide by dress codes in secular spaces, they should extend the same courtesy to places of worship.

Comments


bottom of page