Ambedkar, omission, and the rise of ideological vigilantism by on-duty officials: How the Nashik incident exposes a dangerous shift in Constitutional discourse

The disruption of Maharashtra minister Girish Mahajan’s Republic Day speech in Nashik by a serving Forest Department official is not a minor episode of emotional overreach, nor is it merely a debate about reverence for Dr B. R. Ambedkar. It is a disturbing marker of deeper institutional decay, in which state functionaries increasingly see themselves not as neutral executors of constitutional authority, but as ideological enforcers empowered to confront elected representatives publicly while on duty.

At the heart of the Nashik incident lies a simple fact: Girish Mahajan, while delivering an official Republic Day address after unfurling the national flag, did not mention Dr Ambedkar’s name. This omission, whether intentional or not, was seized upon by Madhvi Jadhav, a Forest Department staffer, who interrupted the speech mid-event to demand an explanation. Police intervened, she was briefly detained, and the matter quickly snowballed into a full-fledged political controversy.

Mahajan later clarified that the omission was unintentional and apologised. He stated that he regularly invokes Ambedkar in his speeches and had no motive to disrespect him. Under normal democratic and civic standards, the episode should have ended there.

Instead, it escalated into a manufactured outrage, replete with allegations of “erasing Ambedkar’s identity,” calls for FIRs, and political leaders demanding the minister’s removal.

Madhavi went a step further, declaring that the so-called “sin” committed by Girish Mahajan was so grave that it was beyond forgiveness, so severe, she claimed, that even a holy dip at the upcoming Maha Kumbh would fail to wash it away.

This escalation is telling. Not only does it reveal a brazen contempt for Hindu rituals of taking a dip at Maha Kumbh, but it also shows how omission has now been weaponised as insult, and how sections of the political ecosystem have transformed Ambedkar into a figure whose invocation is no longer symbolic or reverential, but compulsory.

This is perhaps the first time in India’s recorded history that a leader has been accused of “insult” not for what he said, but for what he did not say.

That shift is dangerous.

There is no constitutional provision, legal mandate, or civic convention that requires every Republic Day speech to name Dr Ambedkar. Speeches are not affidavits. They reflect emphasis, context, and thematic focus. A minister may speak about nationalism, federalism, Shivaji Maharaj, or contemporary governance without enumerating every historical contributor to India’s constitutional journey. The Constituent Assembly itself was a collective body. Ambedkar was undoubtedly its most prominent intellectual force, but he was not its sole contributor.

If the standard of “insult” is reduced to non-mention, then no speech is safe. Every address can be interrupted. Every minister can be accused. Every omission can be reframed as malice.

That path leads not to constitutional reverence, but to perpetual disruption.

Political activism dressed up as personal grievance

What makes the Nashik incident especially troubling is not merely the outrage, but who initiated it. Madhvi Jadhav was not a private citizen exercising dissent. She was a government employee on duty at a constitutional function. Service rules, administrative discipline, and the basic architecture of the Indian state require bureaucrats and uniformed personnel to remain politically neutral while discharging official responsibilities.

Her conduct was not an act of democratic protest; it was indiscipline.

The fact that she later demanded an FIR against the minister, despite his apology, only reinforces the suspicion that the confrontation was less about constitutional values and more about political posturing and self-justification following an emotional outburst.

More alarming still is the reaction that followed. A section of the political ecosystem was quick to appropriate and celebrate Madhavi’s stunt as an ‘act of defiance’, hiding their dishonesty in hailing what has been a serious act of indiscipline and dereliction of duty.

Instead of condemning the breach of protocol, several opposition leaders and ideological commentators rushed to glorify the official. Mumbai Congress MP Varsha Gaikwad framed the interruption as the “voice of every self-respecting Marathi citizen.”

Congress leader Shama Mohamed went further, calling the forest official “brave” and demanding Mahajan’s immediate sacking for allegedly insulting the “architect of the Constitution.”

A few serving policewomen of the Maharashtra Police have alleged that Maharashtra minister Girish Mahajan omitted the name of B R Ambedkar from his Republic Day speech.

If this is true, the minister must be sacked immediately for insulting the architect of our Constitution. LoP… pic.twitter.com/lLovo0jl4d

— Dr. Shama Mohamed (@drshamamohd) January 26, 2026

Pro-Congress social media handles hailed Jadhav with slogans and salutes.

A grand salute to Madhavi Jadhav for boldly teaching a lesson to the minister who dared to omit Dr. Ambedkar’s name from his Republic Day speech. Jai Bhim Read More