Maharashtra govt's narrow moves: Why doesn't Sachin Tendulkar speak against them?

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has come to power in a number of states in India besides the Centre in the recent time. But the party's government in Maharashtra where it formed its first ever government last October has perhaps outshone everybody else in implementing narrow principles.

Asserting Hindutva & Marathi identities

The government of Devendra Fadnavis, the young chief minister of the state, is making the headlines almost everyday because of some reasons that are not universally appreciated.

Either there is some ban in play (of beef and may be more in the future) or some narrow display of sub-nationalism (Marathi films should be shown during peak business hours) or murder of left leader like Govind Pansare.

A worrying trend in state which had shown leadership during freedom struggle & issues of social justice

In a state like Maharashtra which had given leadership during the independence movement and in issues like social justice, this sort of thinking is indeed a worrying trend.

It will be more practical today if Tendulkar speaks against ban and not Chappell

Earlier, corruption was more a point of concern in Maharashtra politics but after their big victory in the 2014 assembly polls, the right-wing elements have not only taken control of the state's politics but even trying to intervene in private domains by influencing people's choice.

Is BJP trying to hijack space of the Senas?

The BJP, one feels, is even trying to hijack the space of outfits like Shiv Sena and Maharashtra Navnirman Sena in that state by executing measures that woo majority sentiments.

But how much successful can the BJP's combined agenda of Hindutva and Marathi sub-regionalism be in a state like Maharashtra and cosmopolitan cities like Mumbai?

Why not figures like Sachin Tendulkar speaking against these moves?

Speaking about this debate, why isn't a person of the stature of Sachin Tendulkar speaking on this? Why isn't the Bollywood vocal against such narrow thinking of Maharashtra authorities either?

We know it is difficult to challenge the powerful but does remaining silent on an unhealthy trend make it any better?

Tendulkar united the country during his playing days

Tendulkar is perhaps India's biggest non-government factor to facilitate India's ‘nation-building' sentiments. During his playing days, the ace batsman had united every Indian irrespective of divisive factors like caste, religion or region. One good shot on the ground by the maestro used to make the entire country happy.

Isn't it the icon's duty to unite the country after retirement too?

Isn't it the duty of the iconic sportsman, who became an MP three years ago, to speak in favour of unity and not artificial division that the government of Maharashtra is trying to create among the people by ways of influencing their personal choice?

That is what the country wants to see from people like Tendulkar, who are known for their commitment on the field.

Tendulkar was never seen as a Marathi during his cricketing days. Shouldn't he bother to see that his own state doesn't earn a bad name now?

Tendulkar was never treated as a Marathi but an Indian during his playing days. But now the government of the state from where he belongs is ready to assert majoritarian identities like Hindu and Marathi. Who apart from role models can address such negative action?

In 2009, Tendulkar had drawn the ire of late Shiv Sena patriarch Bal Thackeray by saying that Mumbai was for all and that he was an Indian first despite being a proud Maharashtrian. Isn't it time for him to reiterate the same?

The 41-year-old cricketer-turned-politician recently wrote to CM Fadnavis to tackle the toll menace in the state. A welcome move, but needs to continue.

Indian celebrities' convenience conscience?

A Tendulkar or an Amitabh Bachchan, the megastar who also happens to be a resident of Mumbai, don't really need a political platform to speak against unjustified action. But in India, we don't generally see celebrities and icons engaging themselves much in issues that will take them against the flow.

A convenient conscience?