At last, Shiv Sena and BJP ties have broken, ending a nearly 30-year-old alliance, after the lone Sena minister in Narendra Modi government, Arvind Sawant, resigned yesterday.
The breakup was the outcome of the bickering between the two alliance partners over rotational chief ministership.
This is not the first time that the two parties have parted ways, ever since they came together in 1984.
After Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari invited Sena to form government by proving their majority in state assembly, NCP's supremo Sharad Pawar laid a condition to Thackeray that he would agree to come together if the latter cuts ties with BJP by quitting NDA.
In fact, the Sena-BJP alliance had a rickety relationship in the past, but both managed to keep it intact. Sena's breakup with BJP is largely aimed at disallowing the saffron party from playing a dominant role in Maharashtra politics by pitching for Aaditya Thackeray's chief ministership, despite the fact that the Sena had just grabbed 56 seats as against BJP's 101 seats in the 228-member assembly.
Though the pre-poll alliance won a clear majority, Sena decided to get the plum post for Aaditya as per a 50-50 formula of rotational chief minister, which it claimed was agreed upon ahead of the Lok Sabha election 2019.
However, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis refuted any such deal between Uddhav and BJP President Amit Shah.
The Wavering Relationship Between Sena And BJP
In January 2018, Sena had declared that it was severing its ties with BJP and fight 2019 Lok Sabha and assembly elections, on its own. However, they buried their differences and fought the elections together, which saw BJP returning to power at the centre with a bigger mandate.
Sena was offered four more seats than 20 given to it in he previous election.
In 2014 too, BJP and Sena contested state polls on their own. The saffron party formed the government on the basis of being the single largest party with 122 seats. Sena had won 63 seats, but joined the government a month later.
This election, both fought elections together, but when the time came for forming the government, the Sena backstabbed.
The Sena-Congress Relationship
It could be a surprise for readers to know that this is not the first time that the Sena found support from Congress. In 1966, Balasaheb Thackeray had no political resources, and hence found support from the ruling Congress, which was fighting the communists and trade unions.
Those days, Sena was derisively called "Vasant Sena", because two Congress chief ministers Vasantrao Naik and Vasantdada Patil, played a stellar role in its formation.
Balasaheb also supported Congress when he welcomed the imposition of 1975 Emergency in his Marathi magazine "Marmik" and heaped praise over Indira Gandhi's son Sanjay Gandhi.
By the beginning of 1980s, however, Balasaheb reinvented Sena into Hindutva party, as Congress had all, but hijacked its Marathi identity issues, and communism was on the wane in Maharashtra, thus snatching away two of his major political issues.
With the rise of BJP in 1980s and early 90s, Balasaheb quickly forged an alliance for playing Hindutva politics, which had a wider appeal than anti-communism or regionalism.
Is Sena Hindutvawadi or Marathiwadi party?
For those who feel Balasaheb stood up for Hindus forget that when he formed his party he targeted Gujratis, South Indians, and in recent years, North Indians, who were Hindus.
He had built his chauvinistic politics around the emotive cause of Marathi Asmita and never missed an opportunity to play this card whenever an occasion arose.
Sena, which was an important member of the Opposition NDA in 2007, supported UPA candidate Pratibha Patil in the Presidential election, which poured water on BJP's dreams to see its candidate Vice President Bhairon Singh Shekhawat becoming the President.
Shekhawat was an independent candidate. Balasaheb also had delivered a blow to BJP led NDA by supporting UPA candidate Pranab Mukherjee in 2012.
Why Sena is joining hands with Congress, NCP?
Clearly, Sena is an opportunistic regional party which is wearing the robe of saffron, which it wants to shed for few reasons.
Firstly, Sena knows very well the growing dominance of the BJP in Maharashtra, which is evident in the resounding victory achieved by it, winning 122 seats, almost twice of Sena's 63, on its own in 2014 Maharashtra elections.
The saffron party even passed the floor test in the assembly through voice vote and Devendra Fadnavis was elected chief minister.
However, as BJP was short of the numbers to form the government, after some tantrums Sena joined hands with BJP to form the government with 186 MLAs together.
Not only this, BJP broke Sena's bastion, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation. Fighting all alone in the dirtiests of BMC election campaigns in 2017, BJP won 82 seats and Sena 84.
Knowing well the shrinking image of Sena to be a kingmaker party, Uddhav Thackeray decided to field his son Aaditya Thackeray in the election fray, so that he can control not only the party, but also senior leaders and regional satraps like Manohar Joshi, by sitting in the government.
Secondly, Uddhav knows the drawback of two parties touting the same Hindutva ideology, as voters normally vote for a bigger party with a larger footprint.
He also is aware of his cousin Raj Thackeray hijacking the Marathi Asmita slogan from Sena's jargon. Though Raj has not found traction in Maharashtra, he has caused damage to the Sena's poll prospects with the division of Marathi votes.
Thirdly, Uddhav feels that by supporting Congress and Pawar, who is facing charges of corruption and having close relationship with international terrorist Dawood Ibrahim, Sena can stop BJP's growth in Maharashtra.
This is a real misconception. Uddhav forgets two things - He is no Balasaheb and Amit Shah is no Pramod Mahajan.
Shah, who is called modern Chanakya, in all earnest will be waiting for making a kill, given the internal contradictions of Congress, NCP and Sena.
Unlike BS Yediyurappa who was desperate to form BJP government in Karnataka, Fadnavis should at least sit in the opposition for at least a year or two, and wait for the possible coaliton to crumble on its own.
And surely it would. Ask HD Kumaraswamy. Period.
No comments:
Post a Comment