top of page

By:

Abhijit Mulye

21 August 2024 at 11:29:11 am

Shinde dilutes demand

Likely to be content with Deputy Mayor’s post in Mumbai Mumbai: In a decisive shift that redraws the power dynamics of Maharashtra’s urban politics, the standoff over the prestigious Mumbai Mayor’s post has ended with a strategic compromise. Following days of resort politics and intense backroom negotiations, the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena has reportedly diluted its demand for the top job in the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), settling instead for the Deputy Mayor’s post. This...

Shinde dilutes demand

Likely to be content with Deputy Mayor’s post in Mumbai Mumbai: In a decisive shift that redraws the power dynamics of Maharashtra’s urban politics, the standoff over the prestigious Mumbai Mayor’s post has ended with a strategic compromise. Following days of resort politics and intense backroom negotiations, the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena has reportedly diluted its demand for the top job in the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), settling instead for the Deputy Mayor’s post. This development, confirmed by high-ranking party insiders, follows the realization that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) effectively ceded its claims on the Kalyan-Dombivali Municipal Corporation (KDMC) to protect the alliance, facilitating a “Mumbai for BJP, Kalyan for Shinde” power-sharing formula. The compromise marks a complete role reversal between the BJP and the Shiv Sena. Both the political parties were in alliance with each other for over 25 years before 2017 civic polls. Back then the BJP used to get the post of Deputy Mayor while the Shiv Sena always enjoyed the mayor’s position. In 2017 a surging BJP (82 seats) had paused its aggression to support the undivided Shiv Sena (84 seats), preferring to be out of power in the Corporation to keep the saffron alliance intact. Today, the numbers dictate a different reality. In the recently concluded elections BJP emerged as the single largest party in Mumbai with 89 seats, while the Shinde faction secured 29. Although the Shinde faction acted as the “kingmaker”—pushing the alliance past the majority mark of 114—the sheer numerical gap made their claim to the mayor’s post untenable in the long run. KDMC Factor The catalyst for this truce lies 40 kilometers north of Mumbai in Kalyan-Dombivali, a region considered the impregnable fortress of Eknath Shinde and his son, MP Shrikant Shinde. While the BJP performed exceptionally well in KDMC, winning 50 seats compared to the Shinde faction’s 53, the lotter for the reservation of mayor’s post in KDMC turned the tables decisively in favor of Shiv Sena there. In the lottery, the KDMC mayor’ post went to be reserved for the Scheduled Tribe candidate. The BJP doesn’t have any such candidate among elected corporatros in KDMC. This cleared the way for Shiv Sena. Also, the Shiv Sena tied hands with the MNS in the corporation effectively weakening the Shiv Sena (UBT)’s alliance with them. Party insiders suggest that once it became clear the BJP would not pursue the KDMC Mayor’s chair—effectively acknowledging it as Shinde’s fiefdom—he agreed to scale down his demands in the capital. “We have practically no hope of installing a BJP Mayor in Kalyan-Dombivali without shattering the alliance locally,” a Mumbai BJP secretary admitted and added, “Letting the KDMC become Shinde’s home turf is the price for securing the Mumbai Mayor’s bungalow for a BJP corporator for the first time in history.” The formal elections for the Mayoral posts are scheduled for later this month. While the opposition Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi (MVA)—led by the Shiv Sena (UBT)—has vowed to field candidates, the arithmetic heavily favors the ruling alliance. For Eknath Shinde, accepting the Deputy Mayor’s post in Mumbai is a tactical retreat. It allows him to consolidate his power in the MMR belt (Thane and Kalyan) while remaining a partner in Mumbai’s governance. For the BJP, this is a crowning moment; after playing second fiddle in the BMC for decades, they are poised to finally install their own “First Citizen” of Mumbai.

A Step Backwards?

The SC ruling upholding the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, marks a victory for religious education - but at what cost to India’s progress? While the judgment emphasizes the state’s responsibility to ensure that madrassa students receive an education that prepares them for contemporary life, the ruling also perpetuates an insular approach to learning that fails to equip students with essential skills for a modern economy.


At the heart of the Court’s decision is a noble ambition: to enable madrassas to blend religious study with secular subjects, thereby meeting basic educational standards. The court viewed this hybrid model as a bridge between tradition and modernity, helping madrassas equip their students to compete in a world increasingly defined by technological and scientific proficiency. However, this assumes that madrassas will embrace a broader curriculum when in fact the reality paints a more regressive picture.


Last year, the Darul Uloom Deoband, one of the most influential Islamic seminaries, had issued a fatwa banning the teaching of English and other languages besides Urdu and Arabic. This move, accompanied by strict mandates discouraging students from engaging with subjects beyond classical Islamic texts, epitomizes a mindset resistant to reform. Such edicts directly contradict the Court’s call for educational inclusivity.


A monolithic religious education, when devoid of critical engagement with diverse worldviews, lays the potential groundwork for insularity and even radicalization. With the SC’s endorsement, these madrassas will continue to operate under a framework that promotes limited secular content. The consequences of this are far-reaching. While madrassa education may instil a deep understanding of Islamic culture and philosophy, its isolation from mainstream educational disciplines denies students access to knowledge that is vital for socio-economic advancement. Without grounding in subjects like science, mathematics, and modern languages, students remain at a disadvantage in job market.


Furthermore, this approach raises questions about the adherence to Article 21A, which guarantees the right to free and compulsory education for children aged six to fourteen. A well-rounded education is essential for social mobility, and in its absence, madrassa graduates risk being marginalized, lacking the necessary skills for careers beyond religious vocations.


While the Supreme Court’s decision appears to champion educational diversity, it also sends a message that religious schooling need not conform to the same standards as public education. This verdict, though legally sound, is ultimately a regressive step for Indian society. Rather than drawing madrassa students into the mainstream, it risks leaving them on the margins of progress, confined to an educational model that is both narrow and insular—and, in some cases, vulnerable to extremist ideologies. For India to thrive, every child needs a broad, balanced education - an aspiration this judgment regrettably does little to fulfil.

Comments

bottom of page