Just a short note; I don't know if I should post this underdeveloped thought or not. I'm going along with posting it for now.Very sarcastic, but not all rhetorical.
If you don't get what you want, if you want to express the grievances of the people you (claim to) represent, is it right to go about that by vandalising, burning and breaking other people's and the state's property? And is it right for the state to be afraid to arrest you because your followers will become even more aggressive if you get arrested? You are breaking the law. But since you're doing it for a supposedly "right" reason, are you immune to arrest? Wonderful precedent indeed.
One last question: Can you claim to be trustworthy and unbiased in saying that the marathi manoos has really suffered because of the "outsiders", when a few months ago you shielded some marathi boys of a molestation charge by saying that marathi people cannot be molestors1? (What, by definition?)
Is politics about what the people want or what they need?
1 I cannot find a news source for this, but I had read this, and a couple of articles quote the same.