Pune: Vidyanand Bapat, who was assaulted after speaking out against excessive DJ noise, on Friday defended his position and called for a rational debate on the issue.
Addressing a press conference in Pune, Bapat said the discussion should focus on the argument he has made rather than his personal background or whether he is a native of Pune.
“I am not important. The issue I have raised is important. If my argument is wrong, challenge it logically and prove it wrong. I will withdraw my position if it is shown to be incorrect,” he said.
He described attempts to question his identity instead of addressing his argument as an 'ad hominem' approach. “Instead of attacking me personally, people should challenge the position I have taken,” Bapat said.
Bapat clarified that his opposition was not directed at Hindu festivals or celebrations of any particular religion. His concern, he said, was the noise pollution, traffic disruption and public nuisance associated with some celebrations.
“I am not opposed to Hindu festivals or festivals of any religion. My objection is to creating a public nuisance and causing inconvenience to citizens in the name of celebrations,” he said.
Bapat argued that excessively loud DJ music should be treated as a noise pollution issue rather than a religious one. Responding to claims that his comments had hurt religious sentiments, he said, “If an argument cannot be countered logically, the issue of hurt sentiments is brought into the discussion.”
Bapat said festivals and processions must evolve according to changing social and environmental circumstances. Referring to reports of some organisations in Solapur cancelling processions over noise pollution concerns, he said a long-standing tradition does not necessarily have to remain unchanged.
“A tradition may be 132 years old, but it still has to change with the times,” he said.
He suggested that organisers could reconsider processions where noise pollution could not be controlled. If processions are held, he said, they could be shifted to large roads outside densely populated areas and restricted to one lane to reduce inconvenience to residents.
Bapat criticised what he described as aggressive behaviour carried out in the name of festivals and referred to it as a 'Lashkar-e-Utsav' mentality. He alleged that those who attacked him were more interested in publicity than engaging with the substance of his argument. “They do not want to debate the issue. They want publicity,” he said.
He also referred to the Sanskrit saying “Ghataṁ bhindyāt, paṭaṁ chindhyāt...” to describe people who resort to disruptive acts to attract attention. Bapat said such behaviour reflects a desire for publicity rather than meaningful debate.
Following the assault, Bapat said the police had provided him with protection and expressed confidence in the role of law-enforcement agencies. “In a constitutional democracy, the police and law-enforcement agencies are responsible for protecting citizens,” he said.
Bapat added that the police had not restricted his freedom of expression but had advised him to avoid open public programmes and interactions for security reasons. He also said citizens have a responsibility to ensure that security agencies are not placed under unnecessary pressure.
Bapat said his campaign against excessive DJ noise would continue and indicated that efforts were underway to give the citizens’ movement an organisational structure. “The campaign against DJs will continue. Giving the citizens’ movement an organisational structure is in the pipeline. We will make an announcement at the appropriate time,” he said.
He also said he may participate in the proposed Sunday march from Goodluck Chowk to the Pune Municipal Corporation if his health and the situation permit. “If the situation is favourable and I am in a position to go, I will participate in the march and take this movement forward,” Bapat said.
Referring to the assassination of rationalist Narendra Dabholkar, he added that it was impossible to predict what might happen in the future.
Bapat also raised the issue of self-defence and said citizens should have greater rights to possess weapons for protection, drawing a comparison with the United States.
“There is a major difference between possessing a weapon for self-defence and openly displaying sickles or other weapons in public,” he said, adding that treating the two situations as equivalent would be a 'false equivalence'.
Responding to allegations that he was opposed to Ganeshotsav, Bapat said the debate should instead focus on existing legal and environmental guidelines concerning noise pollution.
“If you believe that I am opposing Ganeshotsav, then challenge the Supreme Court’s guidelines on noise pollution rather than attacking me,” he said.
Bapat maintained that festivals, noise pollution and river pollution are separate issues and should be discussed independently. He also cited the move from plaster of Paris idols to clay idols as an example of how traditional practices can change in response to environmental concerns.
Bapat said Ganesh idols continue to be installed at his home according to family tradition, although he identifies as an atheist.
“My atheism developed with age. A person’s beliefs can change over time,” he said, referring to thinkers such as Richard Dawkins and Dan Barker, who had religious backgrounds before adopting different philosophical positions.