The protest, which had continued for 12 days, was suspended on Sunday after the state government and the protesters stepped back from their respective positions to reach a settlement. The protesters’ primary demand was the resignation of MPSC chairman Vivek Bhimanwar. However, the state government said Bhimanwar would remain on leave until the investigation into the paper leak was completed, a decision that effectively addressed the immediate impasse without securing his resignation.
Rohit Pawar had led the agitation and spent 11 days alongside MPSC aspirants near S.M. Joshi Bridge, staying at the protest site even overnight. However, his decision to withdraw the agitation without obtaining Bhimanwar’s resignation drew criticism from Sushma Andhare, a deputy leader of the Uddhav Thackeray-led Shiv Sena faction.
Andhare expressed dissatisfaction with the outcome, saying it felt as though the protesters had won the battle but lost the peace negotiations. She maintained that the chairman’s resignation was the central demand and questioned what the agitation had ultimately achieved.
Her remarks prompted Pawar to hold a press conference on Monday, where he responded sharply to her criticism. Addressing Andhare and the public, he questioned the extent of her participation in the protest and challenged her to explain why she had not remained at the site alongside the students.
“You came to the MPSC protest, spoke aggressively from the stage and left. If you genuinely cared about the students, you should have sat there and stayed overnight. Your leaders should also have come there, stayed with the protesters and taken the demand forward,” Pawar said.
He added that making statements on television was different from experiencing the pressure faced by protesters at the site. According to Pawar, the situation involved the possibility of police action against a large number of students.
Pawar said action had already been taken against 15 people and that the police had informed them that they had the names of 800 people. He said further action was expected the following day and that another 1,200 students could potentially have faced action.
Explaining why he did not want the agitation to continue under those circumstances, Pawar said the protesters could have ended up in police vehicles, with photographs of their detention potentially generating political mileage. He acknowledged that such a situation might have allowed the leaders to gain political advantage, but argued that the consequences for the students would have been far more serious.
“But what about the damage that would have been caused to those students? Would we have sacrificed their future to serve our own political interests? We could have become heroes by taking a beating, but that is not acceptable to us,” Pawar said.
He stressed that those representing students’ interests during an agitation had to consider the potential consequences of their decisions. According to him, continuing the protest solely to secure a political victory could have exposed students to further police action and affected their future.
Pawar also argued that obtaining an official letter confirming acceptance of the demands, bearing the chief secretary’s signature, was not an easy task. Referring to previous agitations, he said securing such written confirmation of accepted demands was a significant part of the process.
The exchange has brought the disagreement over the MPSC protest’s outcome into sharper focus, with Andhare questioning the absence of a resignation and Pawar defending the decision on the grounds of protecting students from possible action. The immediate settlement has suspended the agitation, while the question of Bhimanwar’s resignation remains unresolved pending the investigation into the alleged paper leak.
About The Author
Comment List