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.

Why is Mamata Seeing Ghost of Bangladesh?

Updated: Oct 21, 2024

Why is Mamata Seeing Ghost of Bangladesh?

Mamata is seeing a ghost of Bangladesh behind the massive outrage and waves of protest over rape and murder of the trainee doctor. And the reasons are many.

It’s been over a fortnight. Yet with each passing day the voice of protest is getting louder and stronger. From the streets of Kolkata it’s pouring into roads of hinterland. The cry for justice for a rape victim has consolidated into a wail of demands to set a lot of wrongdoings right. Here in lies the fear and trepidation. Wasn’t the issue that brought the youth of Bangladesh out on the thoroughfares a simple, innocent one of quota reform?

The chief minister of Bengal, known for understanding the pulse of people better than many, was quick to read the signages floating in the political horizon.

The most obvious reason for her to be tensed is that both the regime change in Bangladesh and the mass protest in Bengal, were student-driven to begin with. The two incidents---end of 15 year old Sheikh Hasina government and turbulence in West Bengal, over the heinous crime, falling back to back, the first on August 5th and the latter from August 9th onwards, give natural scope for comparisons. More so, because in both the cases the movement strayed beyond an affected constituency to include aggrieved people at large, cutting across socio-economic demography. If the quota reform protest started by students in Bangladesh became a mass uprising against an autocratic regime, the campaign demanding justice for the rape victim and overall safety and security of women in Mamata Banerjee’s Bengal soon snowballed into a movement of no-confidence against the government. Slogans--”Mamata must resign” also got floated in social media much in line with the call for ouster of Sheikh Hasina. In fact “Resignation of Hasina” became the single point agenda into which all other fringe demands coalesced.

Incidentally, even before people started drawing parallels, that there could be a thread of commonality in the way the upheaval in Bangladesh and Bengal played out, Mamata was quick to point out that the Opposition were trying to pull off a Bangladesh by politicizing the tragic incident: “A coordinated approach has been executed by the BJP and the CPIM with support from the Centre to defame Bengal and exploit the situation....They want to make a Bangladesh here. They are taking cues from student unrest in Bangladesh and are attempting to capture similarly. I have no longing for the chair. I came here to serve people.”

Not only Mamata, her political lieutenants are consistently equating the turmoil in Bengal with the mayhem in Bangladesh. Cabinet minister for North Bengal development Udayan Guha threatened to take stern action against those, who would be trying to exploit the situation by emulating a Bangladesh like movement. “ Even after the hospital was vandalised, the police did not open fire on anyone. The police will not allow a Bangladesh type situation. We will not allow Bengal to turn into Bangladesh, Guha thundered.

Is the government’s fear unfounded?

Apart from the similarities on ground zero, as to how and where the future course of events are heading to, there are ample reasons for Bengal to mull on-- as to what led to a Bangladesh like boiling point. To begin with, it’ll be appropriate to talk of Bangladesh and the prevailing situation, that made the students’ protest become big in magnitude. The students were out on the streets because of a high reservation in public jobs. Unemployment and stagnant job market in private sector coupled with a high rate of inflation drove the educated youth to rebel against the government.

But soon the students found enormous number of sympathisers, who were equally at the receiving end. According to Bangladesh citizens, the last two terms of the Sheikh Hasina government were a mockery of democracy. Even elections would be compromised. As Hasina grew from strength to strength, she politicized institutions. The rank and file of police owed allegiance to the ruling dispensation. Extortion, harrassment and raids by police and people in power became rampant. An atmosphere of fear and repression reigned and people got restless to overthrow the government.

Politicization of institutions has been happening in Mamata government too. Allegations are quite strong that police in Bengal functions at the beck and call of political bosses. The lapses and alleged loopholes on the part of police in handling the rape and murder of the young doctor have yet again revealed a sense of confused or misplaced loyalty.

But above everything else both Hasina and Mamata governments allegedly seem to have twined in accepting corruption as a way of life. In Bangladesh jobs of primary and secondary teachers got sold at premium, Rs 10-12 lakh in the Hasina regime. Even police had to pay up for prized postings and transfers. In Bengal busting of the teacher’s recruitment scam has revealed how unsuccessful and ineligible candidates got government jobs in schools in exchange of bribes.

Similarities are multiple and inescapable. Mamata has good reasons to be apprehensive. It’s not only she, who can see and connect the dots. People, out on the streets, clamoring for justice, can see a providential pattern somewhere in the unfolding of future events in these two places-- Bangladesh and Bengal. True, they share more than 2,217 odd km of border. They share the same umbilical cord, other than language, culture, ethos, icons. Even emotions are the same. So she cannot take any risk.

(The writer is a senior jounalist based in Kolkata. Views personal)

Comments

bottom of page