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.

Bridge Snub

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin’s conspicuous absence during Prime Minister Narendra Modi inauguration of the new Pamban Sea bridge in Rameswaram was a calculated snub, and a clumsy one at that.


The Pamban bridge, which connects Rameswaram island to the mainland, is a marvel of modern engineering and a symbol of national investment in the region. Stalin’s refusal to attend its unveiling sent a signal of parochialism when the moment called for unity. After all, the bridge is not a BJP project but a national asset, decades in the making and financed by taxpayers across India. Its inauguration was not just Modi’s moment, but Tamil Nadu’s too.


While Stalin cited prior commitments, the boycott coincided with his public demand that the Prime Minister offer assurances on the proposed delimitation exercise, specifically that Tamil Nadu’s share of parliamentary seats would not be reduced in favour of states with higher population growth.


By skipping the event, Stalin squandered an opportunity to project Tamil Nadu not as a periphery, but as a partner in India’s infrastructure renaissance. The message he sent was one of narrow-minded provincialism—more akin to the rhetoric of a perpetual opposition leader than the statesmanship expected of a sitting chief minister. It was a moment to rise above political friction; instead, Stalin chose to sulk in the shadows.


To be sure, Stalin’s concern over the delimitation exercise is not without merit. Southern states like Tamil Nadu, which have successfully implemented family planning policies and brought down population growth rates, fear being punished for their good behaviour.


But the way to make that argument is through deliberation and diplomacy, not petulance. Stalin could have stood beside the Prime Minister at the ceremony, welcomed the bridge as a win for Tamil Nadu, and used the occasion to reiterate his call for fair and equitable representation.


Instead, he handed the Prime Minister the optics of national benevolence meeting regional small-mindedness. And in a place like Rameswaram, the birthplace of A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, who oversaw the earlier restoration of the old Pamban bridge during his presidency, such symbolism matters. Kalam belonged to both Tamil Nadu and India. Stalin, instead, chose to stand apart.


Such slights are not forgotten easily by Modi, whose political memory is long and strategic. A man with a finely tuned sense of symbolism, Modi is known to return every political cold shoulder with calibrated force. Stalin’s absence will not go unanswered; Tamil Nadu may find itself edged out of future high-visibility projects or economic largesse. The BJP does not yet hold sway in Tamil Nadu, but it has been making steady inroads. What better fuel for its rise than the optics of a petulant regional satrap refusing to share a stage with the elected leader of 1.4 billion people? India’s federalism is strongest when its leaders can disagree without disengaging. The Pamban bridge was built to connect; Stalin’s absence turned it into a metaphorical divide.

Comments

bottom of page