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.

Selective Outrage

India’s left-liberal media has long prided itself on being the torchbearer of secularism, dissent and moral rectitude. In the aftermath of ‘Operation Sindoor,’ the precision military strike launched by the Modi government against Pakistan-based terror camps, it has revealed its not a principled commitment to peace or truth, but a disturbing penchant for ideological prejudice, performative sanctimony and selective outrage.


The operation itself was a textbook display of calibrated force and geopolitical prudence. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, often caricatured as ‘authoritarian’ by the ‘liberal’ English-language commentariat, chose patience over provocation. He consulted opposition leaders, held detailed discussions with defence chiefs and took key international stakeholders, notably the United States and Russia, into confidence before authorising limited military action. The symbolism of ‘Operation Sindoor’ was also carefully crafted: a pointed reminder that the attack’s real victims were Hindu women widowed by Pakistan-sponsored militants in Kashmir. The government’s briefings were also strategic and symbolic as two ranking female officers, one of them Muslim, were made the public face of the mission, underlining a new Indian confidence that blends military muscle with democratic pluralism.


But this was unacceptable for India’s entrenched ‘left-liberal’ press, steeped in academic jargon, Western validation and a knee-jerk hostility to anything remotely ‘Hindutva.’ That a Muslim officer briefed the nation on ‘Operation Sindoor’ was branded ‘tokenism’ by such commentators. Others crudely alleged that the April 22 Pahalgam massacre was the logical culmination of reported atrocities against Muslims since Modi came to power in 2014.


The semantic nitpicking over ‘Operation Sindoor’ was maddening. An editor of a prominent magazine dubbed the operation’s name as ‘patriarchal’ and coded in Hindutva tropes. In a bizarre case of moral inversion, sindoor was likened to symbols of ‘honour killings’ and gender oppression, ignoring both its cultural resonance and the cruel reality that these women had lost their husbands in cold blood. For years, India’s ‘secular’ commentariat nurtured a preordained binary: the Congress may be flawed but was at least ‘secular’ while the BJP was an inveterate ‘fascist.’ Thus, the 2002 Gujarat riots are always focused upon but the Congress-backed pogrom of the Sikhs in 1984 is either downplayed or rationalised. Terrorism in Kashmir is tragic, but state retaliation is ‘jingoism.’ A strong Muslim voice in government is ‘tokenism’ but its absence is ‘exclusion.’ Even journalistic rigour is selectively applied. When Pakistan claimed to have downed Indian jets, some Indian outlets rushed to amplify the story before verification, inadvertently echoing enemy propaganda.


Dissent is vital in any democracy. But when its becomes indistinguishable from disdain, when editorial choices are dictated by ideological conformity, then the press becomes a caricature of itself. Ironically, many of these journalists enjoy robust free speech and loudly lament India’s supposed slide into ‘fascism’ from the safety of their X handles. Yet they turn a blind eye to Putin’s repression, Erdogan’s purges or Xi Jinping’s camps. In their eyes, Modi remains the greatest threat to democracy even as they broadcast their outrage freely, without fear of censorship or reprisal. ‘Operation Sindoor’ was a statement of cultural self-confidence. That confidence has rattled those who have spent their careers gatekeeping Indian discourse. Today, their monopoly is over. The people are watching and they no longer believe that the emperor has clothes.

Comments

bottom of page