Yogi Encounters, Himanta Acts, Fadnavis Does Paperwork: Is He BJP’s Weakest Chief Minister on Law and Order?
Maharashtra has long prided itself on being one of India’s most progressive and economically powerful states. Home to Mumbai, the country’s financial capital, the state has traditionally projected itself as a model of governance, administration, and policing. Its police force once enjoyed a reputation for professionalism and toughness. During the height of Mumbai’s gang wars and underworld era, Maharashtra Police was often seen as one of the most feared law enforcement agencies in the country. Criminals knew the state was watching, and the state ensured they knew it.
Yet recent events have triggered a growing sense of unease. A series of heinous crimes against women and children, including shocking child rape cases, have reignited public anger and raised uncomfortable questions about the state’s law-and-order machinery. Every such incident is followed by familiar scenes: political statements, promises of investigations, administrative reviews, and assurances that justice will be delivered. What increasingly appears to be missing, however, is the sense of urgency and deterrence that citizens see in some other BJP-governed states.
This perception has become impossible to ignore in the age of social media. Comparisons that were once confined to political circles are now being made openly by ordinary citizens. Uttar Pradesh under Yogi Adityanath has built an image of swift and uncompromising action against criminals. Assam under Himanta Biswa Sarma projects a similarly aggressive stance on crime and law enforcement. Whether one agrees with their methods or not, both leaders have successfully cultivated an image that the state will respond decisively when public safety is threatened.
That naturally raises a politically inconvenient question for Maharashtra’s leadership. Why does the BJP’s toughest law-and-order brand seem strongest outside Maharashtra? And more specifically, why is Devendra Fadnavis increasingly being compared unfavourably to his counterparts in other BJP-ruled states?
The Crime That Sparked the Question
Public outrage over crimes against children is not unique to Maharashtra. Such incidents generate anger across India. However, what often determines the political fallout is not merely the crime itself but how the government responds.
In recent months, several disturbing incidents have triggered widespread outrage across Maharashtra. Citizens have demanded not only justice but visible accountability. Social media conversations have increasingly shifted from discussing the crimes themselves to questioning the state’s response.
Many citizens now ask why every shocking incident seems to produce the same cycle of statements, investigations, and assurances. They want to know where the urgency is. They want to know where the fear of the state is. Most importantly, they want to know why criminals do not appear to fear consequences in the same way they seemingly do in some other states.
BJP Built Its Political Brand on Tough Law and Order
For more than a decade, the BJP has carefully cultivated an image of being tougher on law and order than its political rivals. This image did not emerge by accident. It was deliberately built through strong messaging and highly visible actions.
Yogi Adityanath transformed law and order into a central pillar of his political identity. Encounters, anti-mafia drives, property demolitions, and repeated public messaging created a perception that criminals were constantly under pressure.
Similarly, Himanta Biswa Sarma has projected himself as a leader willing to take swift action against crime and disorder. His administration frequently communicates police action directly to the public, reinforcing the perception that the government is actively in control.
Whether critics describe these approaches as excessive or supporters view them as necessary, both leaders have succeeded in creating something every government desires: public belief that the state is serious about enforcing the law.
The Maharashtra Exception
This is where Maharashtra increasingly stands apart.
The state is not lacking in resources. It is not lacking in administrative experience. It is not lacking in political power. Yet the perception persists that Maharashtra responds differently to major crimes.
Instead of projecting decisive action, the government often appears focused on procedural responses. Press conferences replace deterrence. Committees replace urgency. Administrative reviews replace visible enforcement.
This perception may not always be fair. Yet in politics, perception often becomes reality.
The issue is not whether Maharashtra’s police officers work hard. The issue is whether citizens feel reassured by the government’s response. Increasingly, many do not.
Maharashtra Once Had a Reputation for Tough Policing
Perhaps the criticism stings because expectations are so high.
There was a time when Maharashtra was considered the benchmark for effective policing. Mumbai’s battle against organised crime became the subject of books, films, and television documentaries. Gangsters feared the state. Criminal networks knew they were under constant pressure.
The police force developed a reputation for intelligence gathering, operational capability, and aggressive action against organised crime syndicates.
Today, however, the public conversation has changed dramatically. Instead of discussing Maharashtra as a model, citizens increasingly compare it with Uttar Pradesh and Assam.
That shift alone should concern policymakers.
Is Fadnavis Governing Like a Bureaucrat Instead of a Political Leader?
Devendra Fadnavis is widely regarded as one of the BJP’s most capable administrators. Even his critics acknowledge his grasp of governance and policy matters.
However, law and order is not merely an administrative issue. It is also a political issue.
Yogi Adityanath understands the importance of political messaging. Himanta Biswa Sarma understands the value of public communication. Both leaders ensure citizens see the state acting.
Fadnavis, by contrast, often appears more comfortable operating through official channels, departmental reviews, and administrative mechanisms.
That approach may satisfy bureaucrats. It may satisfy policy experts. But it does not necessarily satisfy citizens who want visible evidence that the government is responding forcefully to crime.
Politics rewards visibility. Law-and-order politics rewards it even more.
The Home Portfolio Makes the Question Personal
The scrutiny on Fadnavis is intensified by one crucial fact.
He is not merely the Chief Minister. He also controls the Home Department.
That means law and order ultimately falls under his direct supervision. Successes belong to him. Failures belong to him as well.
When public confidence in policing declines, there is no convenient layer of separation. There is no other minister to absorb criticism. Accountability flows directly to the Chief Minister’s office.
This makes every major law-and-order incident not merely a policing issue but a leadership issue.
The Missing Fear Factor
At the heart of this debate lies one simple concept: deterrence.
The purpose of law enforcement is not only to punish criminals after a crime occurs. It is also to discourage crimes from happening in the first place.
Deterrence depends heavily on perception. Criminals must believe that consequences will be swift, severe, and unavoidable.
When citizens repeatedly witness shocking crimes followed by lengthy legal processes and endless procedural discussions, questions naturally arise about whether deterrence is actually working.
The concern is not that due process exists. Due process is essential in a democracy.
The concern is whether the balance has shifted so heavily toward procedure that the fear of consequences has diminished.
BJP Supporters Themselves Are Asking the Question
What makes this debate particularly significant is that much of the criticism is not coming exclusively from the opposition.
Many BJP supporters openly praise Yogi Adityanath’s governance model. Many celebrate Himanta Biswa Sarma’s tough approach to law enforcement.
The same supporters increasingly question why Maharashtra does not project a similar image.
This creates a political contradiction. The BJP cannot simultaneously market itself nationally as the party of uncompromising law enforcement while defending perceptions of weakness in one of its most important states.
Eventually, voters begin comparing leaders within the same party.
That comparison is precisely what Fadnavis now faces.
Law and Order Is More Than Crime Statistics
Governments frequently respond to criticism by citing data. Crime rates, conviction rates, arrest figures, and prosecution numbers all have value.
However, citizens rarely experience governance through spreadsheets.
They experience it through confidence.
Do parents feel safe sending their children to school? Do women feel secure travelling at night? Do citizens believe criminals fear the law? Do victims trust the system?
These questions often shape public opinion far more than statistical reports.
A government may have respectable numbers on paper and still struggle with public confidence.
Maharashtra at a Crossroads
Maharashtra now faces an important choice.
It can continue relying primarily on administrative responses and procedural mechanisms. Or it can recognise that public confidence requires more than investigations and statements.
The state does not need to copy every tactic employed elsewhere. Nor should it abandon due process in pursuit of political theatre.
However, it must find a way to restore the perception that criminals fear the consequences of their actions and that the government responds with urgency when citizens are threatened.
Failure to do so risks further erosion of public confidence.
Conclusion
For years, the BJP has argued that strong governance begins with strong law enforcement. In states like Uttar Pradesh and Assam, that message has been reinforced through highly visible action and relentless political communication.
Maharashtra presents a different picture. Here, citizens often see investigations, reviews, reports, and procedures. They see paperwork. They see process. What many increasingly claim they do not see is urgency.
Perhaps that perception is unfair. Perhaps Maharashtra’s system is more restrained, more institutional, and more legally cautious than its counterparts elsewhere.
But politics rarely rewards nuance. Politics rewards confidence. Politics rewards leadership that appears decisive.
That is why Devendra Fadnavis faces a question that is becoming harder to dismiss. If law and order is one of the BJP’s greatest political strengths, why does Maharashtra increasingly look like the exception? And if voters continue asking that question, the Chief Minister may find himself confronting a comparison that no leader wants attached to his legacy: not whether he is competent, but whether he is the weakest BJP chief minister when it comes to law and order.
