Mumbai BJP president and senior BJP leader Ashish Shelar spoke exclusively to Sudhir Suryawanshi in the run-up to the Maharashtra Assembly elections. While emphasising that the Mahayuti will get a clear majority, he also urged voters to give a clear mandate because an unclear mandate would not be good for the development of the state. Shelar confirmed that the Chief Minister pick will be decided after the election following consultations with the top leadership of the BJP in the event of their alliance winning the elections.
Excerpts:
As the Mumbai BJP president and a senior BJP leader, are you satisfied with the seat sharing with your alliance partners in the Mahayuti?
We have shown that one can get seat sharing right by bringing all leaders on the same page. Rather than airing any differences in public, all three top leaders of Mahayuti resolved the seat-sharing issues in an amicable way. In contrast, the Maha Vikas Agahdi not only struggled with seat sharing, but also washed their dirty linen in public.
But what about the Mahim state assembly constituency where MNS chief Raj Thackeray's son Amit Thackeray is contesting the assembly elections but the Shiv Sena MLA refused to concede the seat despite the BJP’s insistence?
There was no dispute over the Mahim state assembly seat at all. The seat belonged to the Shiv Sena and they took the decision. Our request was on a personal level to concede it for Amit Thackeray as he is the son of Raj Thackeray, who had unconditionally extended support to the Mahayuti in the recent Lok Sabha elections. Now, the issue is over.
Many leaders of the BJP have rebelled against the party this time and are contesting the election as independents. The BJP has also expelled some of them. Such rebellions never took place during the 2014 and 2019 state polls, but this time it has happened in large numbers. Why?
If you want to do a comparison, this time there are fewer rebels and rebellions in the BJP when compared to other political parties in Maharashtra. But that does not mean that we are justifying the rebellions. In fact, we did not want to come to a situation where BJP leaders had to be expelled, but we have done that. I personally feel that in the state, there have been no major elections for a long time to local bodies such as Zilla Parishad, municipal corporations and Panchayat samitis etc. Therefore, there was a scarcity of opportunity. If someone has done work for a particular constituency, then he or she feels that they are capable of contesting and can win the elections as well.
Is there any strategic decision to expel some and protect others, so that if they win, they can join the BJP later on to increase the total MLA numbers of the BJP?
Let me be frank, the BJP is not in the mood and never was in the mood to extend support to rebels. Our central leadership from day one, even before the election started, were very clear after discussion with our core committee that we are going to contest the election as Mahayuti and win the election as Mahayuti only. There should not be the game of defeating each other's candidates that Uddhav Thackeray is an expert in.
But what holds you back in declaring the incumbent Chief Minister Eknath Shinde as the CM face of the Mahayuti if you are contesting the election as the Mahayuti?
We are not like the MVA where the Shiv Sena has come out in public and asked its alliances to declare Uddhav Thackeray as the CM face. All three parties of the Mahayuti have come to a consensus that the election will be fought under the leadership of CM Eknath Shinde. But after the elections, all three parties will sit together and reach a consensus over the CM face and if required, we will consult the central leadership. This is a clear understanding among the alliance partners of Mahayuti.
In the 2014 state polls, the BJP got 122 seats while in 2019, the number went down to 105. Do you think the BJP is sliding in Maharashtra? Is it in power only with the support of two regional forces?
Let me be clear, the BJP was never riding on the shoulders of the Shiv Sena. The Shiv Sena as a party came much later than the BJP. The BJP, then known as the Jan Sangh, was part of the Sharad Pawar-led progressive democratic alliance in 1978. There was no Shiv Sena party at that time. It is a fallacy that because of the Shiv Sena, the BJP is there in Maharashtra. It's the other way round because the Shiv Sena's first election was fought on the BJP’s symbol. Since then, it is growing and we are happy for their growth story as well under the leadership of late Balasaheb Thackeray.
The BJP's space is not at all shrinking. In the 2014 state polls, we contested 280 seats and won 122 seats in the 288-member state assembly, while in 2019, we contested the election in an alliance across 160-odd seats and won 105 seats. So, there is no question of losing space to regional parties in the state. We have friends and alliances and want to grow with them.
What will be the X factor in this election that will turn out to be a game changer?
Our agenda is only the development and progress of the state. We are focusing on inclusive growth. Therefore we started welfare schemes for each caste and community such as Ladli Bahena, Shravan Bal, financial aid to senior citizens scheme and skill development. We are focusing on building a growth story with a human face.
But what about Uttar Pradesh CM Yogi Adityanath's controversial statement 'Batenge toh Katenge' that your alliance partner Ajit Pawar opposed?
What Ajit Pawar and his party says is his personal choice, but 'Batenge toh Katenge' is a reality. If the community gets divided, then it is not a healthy sign not just for the community, but the society and nation as well. If all nationalists do not come together, then it is not good for the nation too. The urban naxal wants to divide the society on various binaries like North versus South, Arya Pursa versus local Purus, Hindi versus non-Hindi. However, the answer to all divisive politics is 'Batenge to Katenge'.
In the Lok Sabha elections, the Mahayuti faced a vote transfer issue, with the RSS and some BJP leaders saying that due to Ajit Pawar, they lost many seats in Maharashtra. Your view?
Anyone including the RSS has the freedom to speak and air their views on any subject. But the BJP has a different opinion. We got help from Ajit Pawar and now in the state polls, he will get great help from us.
How do you see the Opposition campaign that most of the development projects meant for Maharashtra were shifted to Gujarat?
Let them prove it. Foreign investment is coming to Maharashtra. The rating of Maharashtra, among all states, is number one. It's strange that the Shiv Sena (UBT) is asking this question. They opposed the development of Vadhavan port, Metro-3, Dharavi redevelopment, Nanar (bauxite) project, airport project and they are now talking about development and projects, which is contradictory. These people are anti-development.
The Prime Minister's economic advisory council submitted its report that revealed that Maharashtra's per capita income and GDP growth has slowed down in the last decade under BJP rule. Your view?
Maharashtra is much ahead of Gujarat in population, intellectual power, industry, human resources and natural resources. Forget Gujarat, no other state has taken over Maharashtra in healthy completion as Maharashtra is ready to take anyone head on in the race of growth. The Shiv Sena (UBT) should not be a speed breaker and stumbling block in development and oppose people who want to invest dollars in the state. Those who invest should be given a sense of security. Local issues and regional identity can be raised and sons of the soil should also get priority in jobs in the state. But do not stop development as that will not be good for the state.
What is your assessment of the post-poll scenario in Maharashtra?
Compared to the Lok Sabha elections, the ball game has changed in the state polls in Maharashtra. I am confident that the Mahayuti is marching towards a fabulous victory and a clear majority. But to give a hypothetical general answer, I will urge the people of Maharashtra to give a clear mandate because an unclear mandate is not good for any state and its development and progress.
