top of page

By:

Quaid Najmi

4 January 2025 at 3:26:24 pm

Seventy-six mayors ruled BMC since 1931

After four years, Mumbai to salute its first citizen Kishori Pednekar Vishwanath Mahadeshwar Snehal Ambekar Sunil Prabhu Mumbai: As the date for appointing Mumbai’s First Citizen looms closer, various political parties have adopted tough posturing to foist their own person for the coveted post of Mayor – the ‘face’ of the country’s commercial capital. Ruling Mahayuti allies Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Shiv Sena have vowed that the city...

Seventy-six mayors ruled BMC since 1931

After four years, Mumbai to salute its first citizen Kishori Pednekar Vishwanath Mahadeshwar Snehal Ambekar Sunil Prabhu Mumbai: As the date for appointing Mumbai’s First Citizen looms closer, various political parties have adopted tough posturing to foist their own person for the coveted post of Mayor – the ‘face’ of the country’s commercial capital. Ruling Mahayuti allies Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Shiv Sena have vowed that the city will get a ‘Hindu Marathi’ person to head India’s richest civic body, while the Opposition Shiv Sena (UBT)-Maharashtra Navnirman Sena also harbour fond hopes of a miracle that could ensure their own person for the post. The Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi (MVA) optimism stems from expectations of possible political permutations-combinations that could develop with a realignment of forces as the Supreme Court is hearing the cases involving the Shiv Sena-Nationalist Congress Party this week. Catapulted as the largest single party, the BJP hopes to install a first ever party-man as Mayor, but that may not create history. Way back in 1982-1983, a BJP leader Dr. Prabhakar Pai had served in the top post in Mumbai (then Bombay). Incidentally, Dr. Pai hailed from Udupi district of Karnataka, and his appointment came barely a couple of years after the BJP was formed (1980), capping a distinguished career as a city father, said experts. Originally a Congressman, Dr. Pai later shifted to the Bharatiya Janata Party, then back to Congress briefly, founded the Janata Seva Sangh before immersing himself in social activities. Second Administrator The 2026 Mayoral elections have evoked huge interest not only among Mumbaikars but across the country as it comes after nearly four years since the BMC was governed by an Administrator. This was only the second time in the BMC history that an Administrator was named after April 1984-May 1985. On both occasions, there were election-related issues, the first time the elections got delayed for certain reasons and the second time the polling was put off owing to Ward delimitations and OBC quotas as the matter was pending in the courts. From 1931 till 2022, Mumbai has been lorded over by 76 Mayors, men and women, hailing from various regions, backgrounds, castes and communities. They included Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Parsis, Sikhs, even a Jew, etc., truly reflecting the cosmopolitan personality of the coastal city and India’s financial powerhouse. In 1931-1932, the Mayor was a Parsi, J. B. Boman Behram, and others from his community followed like Khurshed Framji Nariman (after whom Nariman Point is named), E. A. Bandukwala, Minoo Masani, B. N. Karanjia and other bigwigs. There were Muslims like Hoosenally Rahimtoola, Sultan M. Chinoy, the legendary Yusuf Meherally, Dr. A. U. Memon and others. The Christian community got a fair share of Mayors with Joseph A. D’Souza – who was Member of Constituent Assembly representing Bombay Province for writing-approving the Constitution of India, M. U. Mascarenhas, P. A. Dias, Simon C. Fernandes, J. Leon D’Souza, et al. A Jew Elijah Moses (1937-1938) and a Sikh M. H. Bedi (1983-1984), served as Mayors, but post-1985, for the past 40 years, nobody from any minority community occupied the august post. During the silver jubilee year of the post, Sulochana M. Modi became the first woman Mayor of Mumbai (1956), and later with tweaks in the rules, many women ruled in this post – Nirmala Samant-Prabhavalkar (1994-1995), Vishakha Raut (997-1998), Dr. Shubha Raul (March 2007-Nov. 2009), Shraddha Jadhav (Dec. 2009-March 2012), Snehal Ambedkar (Sep. 2014-March 2017). The last incumbent (before the Administrator) was a government nurse, Kishori Pednekar (Nov. 2019-March 2022) - who earned the sobriquet of ‘Florence Nightingale’ of Mumbai - as she flitted around in her full white uniform at the height of the Covid-19 Pandemic, earning the admiration of the citizens. Mumbai Mayor – high-profile post The Mumbai Mayor’s post is considered a crucial step in the political ladder and many went on to become MLAs, MPs, state-central ministers, a Lok Sabha Speaker, Chief Ministers and union ministers. The formidable S. K. Patil was Mayor (1949-1952) and later served in the union cabinets of PMs Jawaharlal Nehru, Lah Bahadur Shastri and Indira Gandhi; Dahyabhai V. Patel (1954-1955) was the son of India’s first Home Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel; Manohar Joshi (1976-1977) became the CM of Maharashtra, later union minister and Speaker of Lok Sabha; Chhagan Bhujbal (1985-1986 – 1990-1991) became a Deputy CM.

A Democratic Betrayal

Updated: Mar 12, 2025


Brussels
Calin Georgescu

Few things are more dangerous than unelected bureaucrats who claim moral superiority while trampling on democratic principles. That is precisely what is happening in Romania where Calin Georgescu, a nationalist and staunch critic of Brussels, has been barred from running in May’s presidential election. The decision by the country’s central election authority and backed by European Union elites has exposed European liberalism which celebrates democracy only when the results are convenient.


At the heart of this crisis is the annulment of Romania’s December 6 election, a move so brazenly anti-democratic that it would have been condemned had it taken place in Hungary or Poland. Georgescu, a pro-sovereignty candidate, had been leading the race when, just two days before the final round, Romania’s highest court scrapped the entire process. The official reason? Allegations of Russian interference - allegations that remain unproven and which Moscow has denied.


This decision alone was troubling. But the outright ban on Georgescu’s candidacy reveals the real agenda at play. The election authority argues that “it is inadmissible” for a previously disqualified candidate to run again. But who made this rule? Romania’s Constitution does not explicitly prevent disqualified candidates from standing in re-run elections. The ban reeks of political calculation rather than legal necessity.


The response from Romania’s electorate has been telling. Protests erupted outside the election bureau as furious supporters of Georgescu, many of them ordinary Romanians disillusioned with Brussels, clashed with security forces. The anger is not simply about a single election but about the broader feeling that their country is being treated as a vassal state of the European Union, its sovereignty undermined by foreign elites who have no stake in the daily struggles of Romanian citizens.


The EU’s condescending attitude towards Romania has been evident for years. Since its accession to the bloc in 2007, Romania has been treated as an inferior member state, constantly scolded for its governance while Brussels extracts cheap labour and resources. Romanians have grown weary of lectures from Germany and France about the rule of law when those same countries ignore their own democratic failings.


The reason Georgescu gained such a strong following in the first place is that Romanians are rejecting the EU’s empty promises. Two decades of membership were supposed to bring prosperity, yet wages remain low, young people are fleeing to Western Europe for work, and local industries have been hollowed out by foreign corporations. Romania now finds itself reduced to a periphery state in the European economic hierarchy, useful only as a cheap manufacturing hub and buffer against Russia.


The growing Euroscepticism in Romania is part of a broader trend across Eastern Europe. From Hungary’s Viktor Orbán to Slovakia’s Robert Fico, nationalist leaders are winning because they speak for voters who feel abandoned by the European project. Brussels brands them as ‘populists’ and ‘authoritarians,’ but the truth is simpler: they are responding to the democratic will of their people.


The same European elites who lecture Eastern Europeans about democracy had no issue overturning Brexit votes in the UK Parliament, ignoring Dutch and French referendums on the EU Constitution, or interfering in Italy’s elections when Giorgia Meloni’s government came to power.


Georgescu’s exclusion from Romania’s presidential race is yet another example of this double standard. European diplomats, including those from Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Spain, have rushed to defend Romania’s courts, claiming that the ban is necessary to safeguard democracy. But what democracy are they referring to? A democracy where ‘Russian interference’ is selectively invoked to silence critics of the EU while pro-Brussels candidates are given a free pass?


For all its talk of democratic values, the European Union has shown once again that it prefers control over consent. If democracy is to mean anything, it must include the right of people to make their own choices - however inconvenient they may be to the ruling elites in Brussels.

Comments


bottom of page