selective intervention – Bharat Pulse News

Two different court orders, two sections of the same religious community, and two strikingly different responses from Maharashtra’s Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis — the last few weeks have revealed a troubling undercurrent in the state’s governance. At stake is not just animal welfare or public health, but the principle of fairness in political responsiveness. In Kolhapur, the relocation of an ailing temple elephant named Mahadevi (often referred to as Madhuri) to Gujarat’s Vantara sanctuary, as per the Bombay High Court's ruling and later upheld by the Supreme Court, sparked emotional reactions from the local Marathi Jain community. Fadnavis promised to “look into it,” met with religious authorities, and issued public statements of concern — but ultimately did not, and arguably could not, interfere with what was a final and reasoned judicial mandate based on expert medical assessments and animal rights. Contrast this with the sudden shutdown of the Kabutarkhana (pigeon feeding shelter) in Mumbai’s Dadar, also ordered by the Bombay High Court given serious public health concerns. Here, Fadnavis stepped in visibly and vocally. He criticized the BMC’s overzealous execution, called for a reassessment, advocated for regulated feeding hours, commissioned a health study, and even hinted at approaching the judiciary to soften the order. Why was the state's chief executive willing to push back in one case and not the other, when both involved deeply held religious customs of the Jain community? The answer lies in uncomfortable political arithmetic. Mumbai’s Jain population — largely of Marwari and Gujarati origin — forms a wealthy, vocal, and electorally consequential vote bank, especially in the city’s civic elections due in a few months. Their influence extends not just to the polls, but into financing and urban development spheres. Dadar, a symbolic heart of Mumbai, is electoral gold. On the other hand, the Marathi Jain community in Kolhapur, though religiously and culturally significant, does not wield comparable political weight on the state level. Protests there were passionate but regional. The votes — and the media coverage — are in Mumbai. This is not just a case of geography. It’s a case study in prioritization. In Dadar, the pigeons are seen through religious sentiment. In Kolhapur, the elephant was too. But only in one case did the sentiment align with votes, visibility, and capital. Only in one case did it spark real, sustained political intervention. In the other, it was, at best, a ceremonial acknowledgment followed by a shrug. This editorial does not dispute the legality of either verdict. On the contrary, it seeks to affirm that ultimate governance must submit to the rule of law — impartial and consistent. But it does shine a light on how political leaders selectively amplify or downplay issues depending on the electoral yield. There is a deep irony here: Fadnavis’s advocacy for pigeons comes at the potential cost of public health, backed by medical reports of respiratory illnesses caused by prolonged exposure to pigeon droppings. Meanwhile, the elephant Mahadevi, whose documented suffering was validated by veterinarians, was denied stronger political backing on grounds of legal helplessness — a helplessness selectively bypassed mere days later in a more electorally sensitive zone. India’s secular democratic framework doesn’t prohibit leaders from respecting faith. But it demands uniformity in action and intent. Appeasement — that dirty word of Indian politics — isn't just about religious favoritism. It’s also about which religious factions get heard, and when. What we witnessed was not just religious politics. It was elite religious politics. The real casualty, then, isn’t just an elephant or a bird — it’s trust in equal justice. When the system responds to certain voices more quickly and forcefully than others, it widens a dangerous gulf between faith and fairness, heritage and health, empathy and equity. Fadnavis and his administration should remember: governance is not measured by noise levels or donation potential, but by the state's ability to uphold constitutional values equally for all. Upholding ritualistic sentiment should never come at the cost of public interest or legal consistency — especially not on the eve of elections. Public respect is not earned by picking sides. It is earned by standing firm when political winds beckon selective outrage.

Selective Outrage and Vote Bank Politics: The Truth Behind Fadnavis’s Response to Jain Community Demands

Latest News

Nepal’s Gen Z Government Risks Turning Crisis Into Isolation

Tarique Rahman India Visit Still Under Discussion

FSSAI Chief Backs Tukaram Mundhe’s FDA Crackdown

Vijay Orders Withdrawal of Farmer, Teacher Cases

US Arrests 2,197 in New York Immigration Sweep

Gyirong’s Missing: What If No Bodies Are Found?

Join Us