top of page

By:

Rajendra Joshi

3 December 2024 at 9:20:26 am

Rajesh Kshirsagar walks into a political trap

The Shiv Sena MLA has chosen confrontation over the Shaktipeeth Expressway risking political isolation Kolhapur: Shiv Sena MLA Rajesh Kshirsagar’s aggressive support to the proposed Shaktipeeth Expressway has brought him face-to-face with former MP Raju Shetti. But the political fallout has not stopped there. In quick succession, he has taken on Congress leader Satej Patil, questioned the position of fellow Mahayuti legislator Chandradip Narake and criticised his own party colleague, Public...

Rajesh Kshirsagar walks into a political trap

The Shiv Sena MLA has chosen confrontation over the Shaktipeeth Expressway risking political isolation Kolhapur: Shiv Sena MLA Rajesh Kshirsagar’s aggressive support to the proposed Shaktipeeth Expressway has brought him face-to-face with former MP Raju Shetti. But the political fallout has not stopped there. In quick succession, he has taken on Congress leader Satej Patil, questioned the position of fellow Mahayuti legislator Chandradip Narake and criticised his own party colleague, Public Health Minister and Kolhapur Guardian Minister Prakash Abitkar. That is a lot of political fronts for one MLA to manage simultaneously. The immediate question, therefore, is not whether Kshirsagar has the courage to fight. He clearly does. The more important question is whether he has calculated the political cost of fighting everyone at once. The Shaktipeeth Expressway has become one of the most contentious political issues in Kolhapur district. Raju Shetti has turned the proposed acquisition of agricultural land into a farmers’ rights issue and has built a sustained campaign around it. His politics has always thrived on confrontation. His rise from the sugarcane farmers’ movement to the Assembly and then the Lok Sabha was built on his ability to convert farmers’ grievances into political mobilisation. Kshirsagar has now chosen to meet that politics head-on. His controversial warning against Shetti, in response to the latter’s aggressive rhetoric on land acquisition, transformed a policy disagreement into a personal political duel. Supporters of both sides have since taken the confrontation to the streets. This is precisely where political calculation becomes important. Supporting a flagship project backed by the Chief Minister can certainly send a message to the leadership in Mumbai. Kshirsagar is willing to stand by the government when the going gets difficult. But the same position can create political liabilities at home, particularly when the project affects constituencies where local MLAs are under pressure from farmers. Different Question Kshirsagar’s decision to attack Satej Patil raises a different question. Patil remains one of the most influential political figures in Kolhapur. Suggesting that he may struggle to win the next Assembly election is not routine political criticism. It is an open challenge. That challenge may energise Kshirsagar’s supporters. It may also consolidate his position among those within the ruling establishment who see Patil as a principal political adversary. But there is a danger in confusing political visibility with political strength. Every additional opponent creates another front that has to be managed during an election. And Kshirsagar has already opened several. The most politically revealing part of Kshirsagar’s criticism of Chandradip Narake and Prakash Abitkar. Narake represents a constituency through which the Shaktipeeth project passes. His opposition, therefore, has an obvious electoral logic: he has to respond to the concerns of his voters. Kshirsagar’s criticism of Narake puts him in a difficult position. He is effectively asking another ruling-party MLA to subordinate constituency politics to the government’s larger project. Then came the attack on Abitkar. To publicly accuse the party’s Kolhapur Guardian Minister of failing to strengthen the organisation amounts to washing the party’s dirty linen in public. Ministerial Ambition There is another possible explanation for Kshirsagar’s increasingly combative posture: the unresolved question of ministerial ambition. A three-time MLA would naturally expect that electoral experience and political seniority might eventually translate into a Cabinet berth. Instead, when the opportunity came, Eknath Shinde chose Prakash Abitkar and gave him an important Cabinet portfolio. Kshirsagar was left outside the ministry. His present position on the State Planning Board gives him a role, but it is not the same political currency as a Cabinet berth. It would be simplistic to suggest that every recent statement is merely an expression of that disappointment. But it would be equally naïve to ignore the possibility that political frustration has influenced his increasingly assertive posture. The Shaktipeeth issue may simply have provided the trigger. Kshirsagar should also be looking closely at the arithmetic of Kolhapur North. The constituency has a history of surprising political outcomes. Its old-city peth culture is blunt, politically conscious and capable of producing results that defy conventional calculations. The last Assembly election demonstrated this dramatically. Madhurimaraje Chhatrapati’s withdrawal as the Congress candidate left the Opposition scrambling just weeks before polling. Satej Patil then backed municipal corporator Rajesh Latkar, who entered the contest with barely 15 days to campaign. Yet Latkar secured nearly 81,000 votes. Kshirsagar won by around 23,000 votes, but the number that should concern his camp is not merely his winning margin.

The Boy Who Audited CBSE

A Class 12 student from Ranchi has done what few journalists, bureaucrats or politicians thought to do. Whereas most Indian teenagers spend their final year of school navigating the familiar maze of examinations and career anxieties, Sarthak Sidhant, a Class 12 student from Ranchi, Jharkhand, forensically examined the Central Board of Secondary Education’s (CBSE) On-Screen Marking (OSM) system.


Sidhant’s expose of the CBSE marking system has turned him into an overnight and unlikely public figure, with his X posts gaining millions of views. His story began with a personal grievance when, like other students, Sidhant requested scanned copies of his answer sheets after the declaration of results.


However, what he received were blurred and incomplete scans that raised questions about the evaluation process. While many students would have beaten their heads against a wall in frustration, the doughty Sarthak did something radically different.


In a remarkable exercise in citizen-led investigation, Sidhant claims to have reviewed all 576 CBSE tenders available in the public domain. He compared procurement records, examined successive rounds of bidding documents and scrutinised technical specifications linked to the CBSE’s digital evaluation system.


He put his painstaking detective work in a lengthy blog post that alleged significant changes in eligibility and technical requirements across multiple tender rounds. Sarthak’s blog quickly escaped the confines of education forums and student groups and took social media by storm, attracting the attention of journalists and policy observers, and eventually entered the political arena.


Opposition leaders seized upon the findings to target the Central government. The controversy has snowballed enough to draw scrutiny from Parliament itself. For a teenager, it was an extraordinary trajectory.


What makes Sidhant's intervention notable is not just the allegations that he raised but the method he employed. In an age dominated by outrage and viral claims, Sarthak’s approach was stubbornly old-fashioned, worthy of the best investigative journalism out there.


His blog is dense with technical aspects like procurement clauses, certification requirements and contract provisions. His findings focused on a series of changes in CBSE’s tendering process, pointing to alterations in performance-related clauses, financial qualification requirements and technical certifications.


Sidhant alleged that some safeguards present in earlier versions of the tender documents were diluted or removed in later iterations. The questions that he has raised have proved difficult to ignore.


What is perhaps most striking is the contrast between Sidhant and the institution that he has challenged. India’s examination system is among the largest administrative exercises in the world. Every year, millions of students entrust their futures to boards and testing agencies.


Sidhant’s intervention comes at a moment when confidence in India’s examination system is under unprecedented strain, particularly following the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak scam that exposed a massive racket and led to the eventual cancellation of the examination for more than 22 lakh aspirants.


The CBSE fiasco, which followed the NEET scandal, has deepened public scepticism about the ability of educational authorities to conduct fair and transparent assessments.


Against this backdrop, Sidhant’s investigation struck a nerve. Students and parents have grown accustomed to seeing examination boards and testing agencies as distant bureaucracies whose decisions are rarely challenged.


Now, Sarthak’s inquiry has demonstrated that transparency can be achieved not just through official audits but through determined public inquiry as well. His investigation also reflects the emergence of a new kind of civic participant, who is technologically savvy and highly capable of sifting and making sense of the abundant and public records that are increasingly accessible.


Sidhant’s collaboration with ethical hacker Nisarg Adhikari resembled a miniature investigative newsroom. His appearance before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Education marks an extraordinary moment. For it is not every day that a school student finds himself presenting findings on procurement processes and examination systems before lawmakers.


In another era, Sarthak’s observations might have remained confined (and later buried or forgotten) to a letter to a school principal or senior authorities. But today’s students inhabit a different world whose digital dynamic has altered the relationship between the state and its citizens. Today’s students can access records, compare documents and publish their findings before institutions have even formulated a response to any gaffe on their part.


India’s examination authorities administer the futures of millions of students each year. They have an equally big obligation to be transparent to them. Sarthak Sidhant’s story suggests that when institutions fail to explain themselves adequately, students may begin investigating them instead.

Comments

bottom of page