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.