Former Maharashtra minister and leader of the Prahar organisation, Bachchu Kadu, has once again stirred intense controversy with his latest remarks directed at distressed farmers. Recently convicted for assaulting a public servant, Kadu has now drawn national attention for statements that many have condemned as highly irresponsible and inflammatory. Speaking to a group of farmers in Paturda village in Maharashtra’s Buldhana district, he suggested that instead of taking their own lives due to financial despair, farmers should take violent or humiliating actions against legislators to express their anger.
During his speech, Kadu posed a provocative question to the farmers, asking, “If cotton gets a price of Rs 3,000, what will you do? You’ll say you’ll commit suicide. Instead of committing suicide, kill someone, slash a legislator, then there will be no need to think about suicide.” His words, perceived by many as both reckless and dangerous, appeared to encourage violence against elected representatives. He further escalated his rhetoric by suggesting that if farmers were determined to protest, they should resort to acts of public humiliation rather than ending their lives. He stated, “Rather than committing suicide, it’s better to go to a legislator’s house, take off all your clothes and sit there, and urinate in front of the house; that’s better than dying.”
These remarks triggered widespread outrage across political and social circles, with critics condemning his comments as deeply irresponsible, particularly given his position as a public figure. This is not the first time Kadu has been embroiled in controversy. Just a few months earlier, in August, he had been convicted in a seven-year-old case involving the assault of a public servant. The case stemmed from an incident in which Kadu was accused of threatening an IAS officer during an official disagreement.
The Maharashtra court hearing the case sentenced the former MLA to three months of imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹10,000. The judgment underscored that holding an elected position does not entitle a person to behave violently or use intimidation against government officials. However, his sentence was suspended to allow him to appeal to a higher court, and he was granted bail soon after. The court clarified that although Kadu had not physically attacked the officer and had only made a threatening gesture using an iPad, the act itself was serious enough to create a sense of fear and apprehension of possible violence.
In its detailed ruling, the court observed that public officers engaged in policy implementation and governance must be able to perform their duties without fear of personal harm or intimidation. It emphasized that such individuals should be protected by the legal system to ensure that administrative work continues without interference or pressure. The court convicted Kadu under Sections 353 (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of duty) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, though he was acquitted under Section 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace).
While the court acknowledged that Kadu’s actions may have stemmed from a genuine grievance or frustration, it firmly concluded that his conduct was “inherently improper.” It stated that no matter how legitimate one’s concerns may be, a public servant cannot be threatened or intimidated in the course of duty. The judgment also served as a reminder that elected representatives are expected to uphold a higher standard of behavior and must address public grievances within the bounds of the law, not through aggression or threats.
Kadu’s recent remarks, combined with his prior conviction, have reignited debates about accountability among politicians and the growing use of provocative rhetoric in public life. Many civil society members and political observers have argued that such statements can further alienate struggling farmers, who already face immense financial and emotional hardships, and that leaders should focus on real policy solutions rather than inflammatory speech.
