Do the results of Maharashtra Assembly elections show that Shinde Sena has captured the local politics of Hindutva and the legacy of Bal Thackeray? There is no easy answer to this, but it is clear that Uddhav Sena’s hold on regional Hindutva has weakened. Uddhav did a good job by carrying forward the legacy of his/her grandfather Prabodhankar’s non-Brahmin movement. he/she tried to show his/her Hindutva as different from the Brahminical Hindutva of BJP. But, it seems that he/she failed to convey his/her Hindutva to the people. The distance from the party workers and their way of working was harmful for him/her.
At the same time, Shinde has shown that he/she is a strong contender for regional Hindutva. Although he/she also depends on BJP’s Hindutva, but he/she is considered the most accessible leader. MNS’s Raj Thackeray has less appeal, but his/her politics also depends on carrying forward Balasaheb’s Hindutva legacy. Not holding back, BJP also claims to carry forward Balasaheb’s legacy. As the politics of Shinde, Uddhav and Raj revolve around Balasaheb’s legacy, the struggle for regional Hindutva is expected to continue.
Mahayuti’s spectacular victory has surprised many experts. BJP has emerged as the largest party and its allies, Shinde Sena and Ajit Pawar’s NCP, have also performed very well. This is completely contrary to the results of the Lok Sabha elections. Particularly, the thing to note is that Shinde Sena performed much better than Uddhav Sena. It is now clear that what had given the MVA a big victory during the Lok Sabha elections did not work in the Assembly elections.
The same factors that worked for the UBT and its allies in the Lok Sabha elections backfired in many cases as the Mahayuti used them to strengthen its vote bank. The unity of Muslims in favor of MVA was used by Mahayuti to consolidate Hindu voters. In particular, Uddhav was accused of patronizing Muslims and called ‘Muslim Hriday Samrat’ to refute his/her claim on Hindutva agenda. Uddhav and his/her party failed to counter this campaign. For example, Uddhav could argue that he/she also has the support of Hindu and neo-Buddhist voters.
In contrast, Shinde effectively countered the charge of treason by claiming that members of his/her army were rebels and genuine followers of Balasaheb Thackeray’s Hindutva legacy. UBT has now lost faith in the traitorous campaign against Shinde. Meanwhile, BJP openly used slogans like ‘Katenge to batenge’ and ‘Ek hai to safe hai’. Cleverly, Shinde Sena sometimes distanced itself from such comments but remained on Hindutva agenda.
Also, the issue of Manoj Jarange Patil, which had helped the Uddhav Sena and MVA in the Lok Sabha elections, also lost its influence among Maratha voters. More importantly, it helped Mahayuti strengthen the OBC vote bank. Although the UBT benefited from neo-Buddhist votes, the community’s lack of representation in the assembly elections meant that they moved towards other political parties.
After the Lok Sabha elections, Mahayuti knew that it would not be able to win the assembly elections by merely pursuing the Hindutva agenda. It hastily and aggressively implemented populist schemes like the ‘Ladki Beti Yojana’. UBT, along with its alliance partners, raised questions over the long-term sustainability of these schemes. But, inclusion of similar schemes in the MVA manifesto only legitimized Mahayuti’s populist policies. Moreover, the UBT and its allies did not offer any new hope to their voters.
Also, the latest election results clearly show that Uddhav and Shinde Sena together are still a major force in Maharashtra politics. The BJP, now a major ally, and despite its control over finance and other machinery, will always have to form an alliance with a party that can lay claim to the regional Hindutva ideology.
We are again in the same strange situation where there is a Shinde led army in the government and a weak Uddhav led army in the opposition. Will both adopt a similar approach to show their strength by taking to the streets and through a war of words? They will have to be quite creative to oppose each other and at the same time claim Balasaheb’s legacy.
The author is a professor of labor sociology.
