India’s Independence struggle was marked by popular participation from every stratum of society and people representing various linguistic regions and all provinces of our far-flung nation. In our Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav celebrations, the government did extremely well in focusing on unsung heroes, mainly from tribal communities. There were many unique features of India’s Independence struggle, but inclusivity was the most significant distinguishing factor.
Although Gujarat, Mahatma Gandhi’s home state, undoubtedly played a key role in our Independence struggle, four major provinces emerged as nerve centres of the movement. They were Tamil Nadu in the south, Maharashtra in the west, Punjab in the north and Bengal in the east. All these four states provided iconic leaders like Subramania Bharati, Lokmanya Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal, Netaji Subhas Bose, Lala Lajpat Rai, Bhagat Singh and many others. These four provinces also had regional and linguistic identities of their own. Still, their leadership during the Independence struggle underscored the innate nationalistic spirit manifested in myriad ways.
Today, these four states present a different picture. Most provinces seem to have served as laboratories of linguistic-regional politics being exploited to pure partisan ends. Many parties here have done a great disservice to development politics. Dynastic politics has been a common connection between major provincial players in the politics of Tamil Nadu (DMK), Maharashtra (Shiv Sena and NCP), Punjab (Akalis) and West Bengal (TMC). While the Akalis in Punjab are struggling for existence, in West Bengal and Tamil Nadu, a kind of extremist regionalism is staring at the challenge posed by the nationalistic spirit represented by the BJP. Maharashtra presents a different scenario where Uddhav Thackeray’s Shiv Sena has lost credibility and, consequentially, the larger narrative as well.
Shiv Sena came into existence ostensibly for the cause of Marathi manoos. It was true that Mumbaikars found themselves in the grip of a metropolitan-ism with non-Marathi-speaking people from other states cornering all major entrepreneurial opportunities and, in certain sectors, jobs as well. Historically, the traditional mindsets of the locals, as well as their obsolete complexes about entering into the service sectors, have always paved the way for demographic changes. This has happened in Assam, West Bengal and in Delhi too. Shiv Sena rode on a partly real, partly manufactured sense of insecurity and caught the imagination of Marathi manoos. However, except for making a strong political point and presenting itself as a party of Marathi manoos, Shiv Sena could do precious little to alter the ground realities.
All this happened for obvious reasons. While Bal Thackeray’s charisma and the deterrence—at times bordering terror—created by the shakha pramukhs in nearby vicinities did play well, Shiv Sena had no credible solutions to the questions that its leadership had raised from the rooftops. Even in Mumbai, it couldn’t prevent depletion of job opportunities for Marathi manoos or alarming demographic changes. Thanks to the complexities of the issues fanned by its rank and file, Shiv Sena under Balasaheb Thackeray decided to ride the Hindutva wave in the late eighties. The ‘Kamalabai’—the nickname for BJP of late revived by Uddhav Thackeray’s Sena—helped the latter by providing a larger and more inclusive issue in the form of Hindutva. Quietly, the narrative around Marathi manoos was pushed to the back burner.
In this journey, Shiv Sena cadres lost their motivation and became cynical, converting the once ‘Mission Party’ into a ‘Machine Party’. Sycophancy served as a ladder for upward mobility. While loudmouth leaders close to the ruling dynast gained prominence, organisations like the Sthaniya Lokadhikar Samiti were pushed to the periphery.
During 1995–2009, the BJP ungrudgingly accepted that the Shiv Sena was their senior partner in the state and the latter too recognised the BJP as its senior partner at the national level. In fact, in the 1996
elections, the BJP sacrificed its Thane Lok Sabha seat after recognising the growing clout of the Shiv Sena. Prof Ram Kapse, a senior BJP leader, relinquished his well-cultivated constituency.
However, post-2010 and particularly after the demise of Bal Thackeray, things changed. The next-gen leadership refused to accept that post-May 2014, with Narendra Modi as PM and the most popular leader, the BJP had an obvious upper hand. A recalcitrant Uddhav Thackeray ended the alliance only to be revived through a power-sharing arrangement later. And then came 2019, when Shiv Sena stealthily joined hands with traditional rivals and created the Maha Vikas Aghadi, a political experiment based on an unnatural alliance between the Congress, the Shiv Sena and the NCP. Disregarding the desires of the Shiv Sena cadres, a government was thrust on the people of Maharashtra. What happened after that was nothing but a political miracle. In the absence of regular dialogues with party cadres, including MLAs and ministers, Uddhav Thackeray single-mindedly went ahead, accepted all the conditions of Sharad Pawar, and stitched an alliance that had neither any coherence nor any credibility. Known for always keeping his ears to the ground, Eknath Shinde revolted with the backing of almost the entire legislature party and rode to power with the support of the BJP.
While the legal battle is still undecided, it is educative to analyse what Eknath Shinde can probably achieve other than the obvious. Firstly, his revolt sounds like a bugle against the dynastic control of a cadre-based party. Secondly, the latest comments by Eknath Shinde that a cadre-based party like Shiv Sena cannot and must not be run like a private limited company has a clear message for many like the Akali Dal, the DMK and even the Trinamool Congress, provided they read the message. Thirdly, even in the face of a tempting inference that the days of ideology-based parties are over, people, especially in a state like Maharashtra, just cannot accept crass political opportunism in total disregard of ideological disparities.
The message is loud and clear. An ideology-driven cadre may refuse to fall in line and not do business at the grassroots level with their once diehard enemies of over several decades. Dynasties can rule but cannot take cadres for granted.
President, ICCR and senior BJP leader