Maharashtra is no stranger to the twin forces of dissent and disruption. From the caste-fuelled Bhima-Koregaon riots in 2018 to the ideological battlefields of the 2015 FTII protests, the state’s urban centres have often served as flashpoints for unrest. Now, the Maharashtra government led by Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has introduced the Maharashtra Special Public Security Act (MSPSC), 2024 to counter the insidious threat of ‘Urban Naxalism’ creeping into cities through covert ‘front organisations.’ Predictably, the bill that has sparked both support and sharp criticism. While the legislation purports to strengthen the state’s response to urban threats, its detractors claim that such sweeping powers risk tipping the scales away from liberty and towards authoritarianism.
The government’s case for the bill is grounded in pressing realities. The Bhima-Koregaon riots of 2018 exposed how incendiary rhetoric and ideological proxies could fan the flames of caste conflict. Similarly, the FTII protests underscored the extent to which urban centres have become battlegrounds for ideological warfare. According to the state, Naxal-affiliated ‘front organisations’ allegedly provide logistical support and ideological cover to armed cadres, enabling them to infiltrate urban spaces. Existing laws, such as the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), have proven slow and cumbersome in addressing this threat.
The MSPSC aims to fill this gap. Its provisions empower the government to declare organisations unlawful and prosecute individuals engaging in activities deemed dangerous to public order. Penalties range from two to seven years’ imprisonment, with fines reaching Rs.5 lakh. Unlike the UAPA, the new law allows local authorities, district magistrates or police commissioners, to grant prosecutorial sanctions, cutting through bureaucratic red tape.
By empowering district magistrates and police commissioners to grant prosecution sanctions, the legislation promises swifter action against unlawful activities. Moreover, it targets not just armed insurgents but also their urban logistical networks, potentially disrupting a critical support system for Naxal operations. The act’s provisions, modelled after similar laws in states like Chhattisgarh and Andhra Pradesh, reflect a coordinated effort to tackle a national menace. If implemented judiciously, the law could enhance public safety.
Yet Maharashtra is not rural Bastar. Its urban fabric is more complex, its population more diverse, and its civil society more vocal. Heavy-handed policing in the name of public security could alienate communities and stoke the very unrest the law seeks to quell. The state’s social fabric is increasingly strained by rapid urbanisation, economic disparities and political polarisation. Detractors of the bill say that addressing these issues will require dialogue, inclusivity and reforms that strengthen governance rather than draconian laws. Whatever the case, when the MSPSC returns to the Assembly following deliberation on the bill, legislators must ensure that it strikes a firm balance between liberty and security. Maharashtra must uphold its proud tradition of democratic debate, yet it cannot allow itself to become a haven for unchecked extremism or the misuse of democratic liberties.
Kommentare