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.

Bold Stand

The Oxford Union, synonymous with intellectual freedom and robust debate, has long prided itself on tackling some of the world’s most contentious issues. Yet, this storied institution’s commitment to provocative discourse has led it into the minefield of insensitivity, blurring the line between intellectual exploration and political provocation. This tension came to the fore last week when a debate titled ‘This House Believes in the Independent State of Kashmir’ ignited a fervent response from the Indian diaspora in the UK.


A bold and vocal challenge was mounted by INSIGHT UK, a movement representing British Hindus and Indians. Their protest outside the Oxford Union decried the event’s featured speakers - Muzzammil Ayyub Thakur, president of the World Kashmir Freedom Movement, and Zafar Khan, chairman of JKLF – and their associations with extremist organizations.


The protest also reflected a bold assertion of India’s right to sovereignty and the diaspora’s growing influence in challenging narratives that have long been seen as the preserve of Western academia. The Indian diaspora organisations in the UK are directly confronting what they perceive as biased, outdated and provocative discourse in institutions like Oxford.


The protest highlighted that the debate on Kashmir transcends the technicalities of international law or historical disputes. It touches on deeply emotional issues: the safeguarding of sovereignty, the protection of minority rights and acknowledgment of historical injustices. INSIGHT UK’s letter to the Oxford Union articulated this sentiment which said that staging such a debate questioned the very essence of India’s territorial and moral integrity. The forced exodus of over 500,000 Kashmiri Hindus during the 1990s due to Islamic militancy remains a searing wound.


This episode serves as a wake-up call to institutions like the Oxford Union. The landscape of intellectual debate is shifting as global voices demand that discussions grounded in historical and contemporary conflicts acknowledge their real-world implications. The rise of the Indian diaspora’s assertiveness marks a new chapter where the echo of nationalist pride resonates beyond borders, challenging established narratives and insisting on greater sensitivity in discourse.


The question, then, is why the Union continues to offer a platform for speakers whose views are often not just controversial but actively harmful or divisive? The Union’s penchant for controversial topics may well continue, but it must now reckon with the fact that India’s voice, often muted or misrepresented in Western fora, is being amplified by a new generation of advocates who are not content to let their country’s narrative be shaped by external forces. This is a moment of transformation as the Indian diaspora demands that India’s sovereignty be recognised and respected on the global stage. The new India, emboldened by a new sense of unity and purpose, is not merely content to defend its territorial integrity but is now actively challenging the narratives that have long sought to undermine it.

Comments

bottom of page