top of page

By:

Quaid Najmi

4 January 2025 at 3:26:24 pm

Mumbai cops refuse Rohit Pawar's demand for FIR

Mumbai: In a high-octane showdown on Wednesday, Mumbai Police refused NCP (SP) MLA Rohit Pawar’s demand to lodge an FIR against the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and VSR Ventures Pvt Ltd (VSRVPL) over the January 28 Baramati plane crash that killed former deputy CM Ajit Pawar. Rohit Pawar went to Marine Drive police station with party MLC Amol Mitkari and others to file the complaint. What followed was a full-fledged confrontation, as the police officers refused to file an FIR....

Mumbai cops refuse Rohit Pawar's demand for FIR

Mumbai: In a high-octane showdown on Wednesday, Mumbai Police refused NCP (SP) MLA Rohit Pawar’s demand to lodge an FIR against the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and VSR Ventures Pvt Ltd (VSRVPL) over the January 28 Baramati plane crash that killed former deputy CM Ajit Pawar. Rohit Pawar went to Marine Drive police station with party MLC Amol Mitkari and others to file the complaint. What followed was a full-fledged confrontation, as the police officers refused to file an FIR. ‘Pressure from above’ A bitter Rohit Pawar, political heavyweight from the state’s powerful political clan, later told reporters that the police flatly refused to file the complaint following a verbal duel between him and Deputy Commissioner of Police Pravin Munde. Pawar accused the police of succumbing to ‘pressure from above’ as they denied him the right to lodge an FIR. “Yesterday, the DGCA issued a notice saying action has been taken against VSRVPL. But the move has been aimed at only five of the 25-aircraft fleet. This is a cognisable offence under the new BNS Act. Everyone has the right to file an FIR,” said a livid Rohit Pawar. Recounting the drama preceding the refusal, Rohit Pawar said that a junior police officer initially claimed an FIR could not be filed, but when the MLA’s legal team, led by Advocate Pranjal A, explained the relevant provisions, a laptop was brought in and the police started recording the statement. Midway through the process, a senior officer intervened and halted it, angering Rohit Pawar. “The DCP said, ‘Do whatever you want, go wherever you want, speak to whoever you want… we will not file an FIR.’ Whose call did he receive?” demanded Rohit Pawar, hinting at external interference. “It is our constitutional right to register an FIR. Who has snatched it away? If (the late) deputy CM of the state does not get justice, what should the common man expect?” said Pawar. Alleging ‘selective justice’, the NCP leader said that when a Congress worker removes his shirt at a New Delhi event, an FIR is filed, then why can’t the same be done in a case concerning Ajit Pawar’s death. Rohit Pawar declared that on the morning of February 26, he would approach the Baramati Police to lodge a complaint and an FIR, but if they don’t cooperate, then he would approach the local court. Ground VSRVPL fleet entirely: Rohit Pawar Rohit Pawar, leader of the Nationalist Congress Party (Sharad Pawar), sharpened his offensive on Wednesday and demanded that the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) ground the full fleet of VSR Ventures Pvt Ltd. The company owned the plane that crashed and killed former deputy CM Ajit Pawar on January 28. Calling the DGCA’s decision on Tuesday ‘grossly inadequate’ and ‘deeply suspicious’, Pawar wondered why the aviation watchdog chose to ground just four aircraft for non-compliance and maintenance gaps while the others remained in service. “The action is surprising. If there are such irregularities in the procedures, then why ground only four aircraft… What about the remaining 20-plus planes?” Rohit Pawar asked. Besides the Bombardier Learjet 40-45 series, the VSRVPL fleet comprises Beechcraft, Pilatus and Embraer Legacy aircraft, and Rohit Pawar termed the DGCA decision an ‘eyewash’, demanding that all these flying machines must be grounded forthwith as ‘safety cannot be selective’. “Nobody can prevent us from probing whether the Baramati crash was an accident or sabotage,” said Rohit Pawar.

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