Parbhani probe will show how genuine BJP is about Ambedkar

The handling of the Parbhani violence by the Devendra Fadnavis government raises concerns whether there will be a repeat of the way in which the Bhima Koregaon violence was investigated.

Is history repeating itself in Maharashtra?

Seven years back on this day, Maharashtra was shaken by the violence that broke out on the 200^th anniversary of the Bhima Koregaon battle, in which the British defeated the Peshwas with the help of Dalit soldiers. On January 1, 2018, Dalits were attacked while on their way to pay homage at the site of the battle. In the clashes that ensued, a Maratha youth was killed.

Devendra Fadnavis was then both the chief minister and home minister, as he is today. His statements in the Assembly on the violence were a mix of admission and cover up. He narrated the role of saffron-flag-holding mobs, but then gave a clean chit to the Hindutva leader named in the first FIR filed after the violence. Later, in a complete change of direction in the investigation, 16 intellectuals were arrested for the violence.

Fadnavis faces a similar situation today. Having just taken over as chief minister, he must tackle the aftermath of violence in Parbhani where a replica of the Constitution was desecrated on December 10, and one of those arrested for the unrest that followed, died in judicial custody. Somnath Suryavanshi, belonging to a Nomadic Tribe, spent two days in police custody before being sent to jail, from where he was brought to hospital and pronounced dead on December 15. The 35-year-old  worked as a labourer while studying law.

Once again, Fadnavis’ response in the Assembly to the Parbhani incidents was a mix of admission and cover up. He announced a judicial inquiry and the suspension of an inspector for using excessive force. At the same time, he described the desecration of the replica of the Constitution as an act of a mentally disturbed man, having nothing to do with caste enmity. He also gave his verdict about the cause of Suryavanshi’s death: “breathing problems”.

When he made this statement, the provisional post-mortem report was already out, which ascribed Suryavanshi’s death to ‘shock following multiple injuries’. However, Fadnavis said that when presented before the magistrate, Suryavanshi had not complained of police torture. Surely the second-time home minister knows that it requires rare courage for a detenu to complain of torture when produced by the police before a magistrate.

Compare this response with Fadnavis’ promises on the other death which has created a furore: that of a sarpanch who reportedly intervened in an extortion racket in Beed. Santosh Deshmukh was assaulted to death on December 9 by assailants allegedly linked to the NCP. Fadnavis announced a judicial inquiry, a Special Investigation Team, and the application of the stringent MCOCA on the accused.

The deaths of both Deshmukh and Suryavanshi caused a political furore, so what explains Fadnavis’ differing responses to them? Is it his natural inclination as home minister to shield the police, who are being blamed in the Suryavanshi case? Or, is it the different surnames of the victims? It is significant that the Maratha sarpanch’s family was visited not only by Opposition leaders but also by ministers including Ajit Pawar, who has expelled one accused from his party.

Fadnavis’ statement on Suryavanshi’s death came in the midst of the stormy fallout of Union home minister Amit Shah’s remarks on B R Ambedkar in the Rajya Sabha.  But even that didn’t make the chief minister respond more sympathetically, even if for appearances’ sake, to the unnatural death of a Scheduled Caste youth. Instead, after Congress leader Rahul Gandhi visited Suryavanshi’s family, Fadnavis blamed him for wanting to stir up a caste divide. Earlier, he linked Gandhi to ‘Urban Naxals’, who he alleged had conspired to destabilise BJP governments.

One must be particularly blind to blame others for the glaring caste differences in Maharashtra. No politician instigated the Dalit outburst in Parbhani after the desecration of the replica of the Constitution. The question that Fadnavis should answer is: did the police savagely beat even those protesters not involved in the violence, including women, one of whom was only recording the entry of the police into a Dalit locality? Nobody’s forgotten that just last year, Fadnavis, as home minister, had apologised for the police lathi-charge on Marathas demanding reservation under Manoj Jarange Patil’s leadership.

The way the Parbhani violence is being handled, one wonders if the Bhima Koregaon pattern will be repeated. While the Hindutva leaders named in the first FIR, Sambhaji Bhide and Milind Ekbote, roam free, seven of the 16 intellectuals arrested for the violence, described as ‘Urban Naxals’ by the police, remain behind bars. The oldest, Father Stan Swamy, died in custody in 2021.

Will Fadnavis ascribe the Parbhani violence to ‘Urban Naxals’? How he handles this case will reveal how genuine is the BJP’s repeated invocation of Ambedkar. 

(Jyoti Punwani is a senior journalist.)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.