top of page

By:

Abhijit Mulye

21 August 2024 at 11:29:11 am

The Unequal Cousins

Raj Thackeray’s ‘sacrifice’ saved Shiv Sena (UBT) but sank the MNS Mumbai: In the volatile theatre of Maharashtra politics, the long-awaited reunion of the Thackeray cousins on the campaign trail was supposed to be the masterstroke that reclaimed Mumbai. The results of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) elections, however, tell a story of tragic asymmetry. While the alliance has successfully helped the Shiv Sena (UBT) stem the saffron tide and regain lost ground, it has left Raj...

The Unequal Cousins

Raj Thackeray’s ‘sacrifice’ saved Shiv Sena (UBT) but sank the MNS Mumbai: In the volatile theatre of Maharashtra politics, the long-awaited reunion of the Thackeray cousins on the campaign trail was supposed to be the masterstroke that reclaimed Mumbai. The results of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) elections, however, tell a story of tragic asymmetry. While the alliance has successfully helped the Shiv Sena (UBT) stem the saffron tide and regain lost ground, it has left Raj Thackeray’s Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) staring at an existential crisis. The final tally reveals a brutal reality for the MNS - Raj Thackeray played the role of the savior for his cousin, but in the process, he may have become the sole loser of the 2026 mandate. The worse part is that the Shiv Sena (UBT) is reluctant to accept this and is blaming Raj for the poor performance of his party leading to the defeat. A granular analysis of the ward-wise voting patterns exposes the fundamental flaw in this tactical alliance. The vote transfer, the holy grail of any coalition, operated strictly on a one-way street. Data suggests that the traditional MNS voter—often young, aggressive, and driven by regional pride—heeded Raj Thackeray’s call and transferred their votes to Shiv Sena (UBT) candidates in wards where the MNS did not contest. This consolidation was critical in helping the UBT hold its fortresses against the BJP's "Infra Man" juggernaut. However, the favor was not returned. In seats allocated to the MNS, the traditional Shiv Sena (UBT) voter appeared hesitant to back the "Engine" (MNS symbol). Whether due to lingering historical bitterness or a lack of instructions from the local UBT leadership, the "Torch" (UBT symbol) voters did not gravitate toward Raj’s candidates. The result? The UBT survived, while the MNS candidates were left stranded. ‘Second Fiddle’ Perhaps the most poignant aspect of this election was the shift in the personal dynamic between the Thackeray brothers. Decades ago, they parted ways over a bitter dispute regarding who would control the party helm. Raj, refusing to work under Uddhav, formed the MNS to chart his own path. Yet, in 2026, the wheel seems to have come full circle. By agreeing to contest a considerably lower number of seats and focusing his energy on the broader alliance narrative, Raj Thackeray tacitly accepted the role of "second fiddle." It was a pragmatic gamble to save the "Thackeray" brand from total erasure by the BJP-Shinde combine. While the brand survived, it is Uddhav who holds the equity, while Raj has been left with the debt. Charisma as a Charity Throughout the campaign, Raj Thackeray’s rallies were, as always, electric. His fiery oratory and charismatic presence drew massive crowds, a sharp contrast to the more somber tone of the UBT leadership. Ironically, this charisma served as a force multiplier not for his own party, but for his cousin’s. Raj acted as the star campaigner who energised the anti-BJP vote bank. He successfully articulated the anger against the "Delhi-centric" politics he accuses the BJP of fostering. But when the dust settled, the seats were won by UBT candidates who rode the wave Raj helped create. The MNS chief provided the wind for the sails, but the ship that docked in the BMC was captained by Uddhav. ‘Marathi Asmita’ Stung by the results and the realisation of the unequal exchange, Raj Thackeray took to social media shortly after the counting concluded. In an emotive post, he avoided blaming the alliance partner but instead pivoted back to his ideological roots. Urging his followers to "stick to the issue of Marathi Manoos and Marathi Asmita (pride)," Raj signaled a retreat to the core identity politics that birthed the MNS. It was a somber appeal, stripped of the bravado of the campaign, hinting at a leader who knows he must now rebuild from the rubble. The 2026 BMC election will be remembered as the moment Raj Thackeray proved he could be a kingmaker, even if it meant crowning the rival he once despised. He provided the timely help that allowed the Shiv Sena (UBT) to live to fight another day. But in the ruthless arithmetic of democracy, where moral victories count for little, the MNS stands isolated—a party that gave everything to the alliance and received nothing in return. Ironically, there are people within the UBT who still don’t want to accept this and on the contrary blame Raj Thackeray for dismal performance of the MNS, which they argue, derailed the UBT arithmetic. They state that had the MNS performed any better, the results would have been much better for the UBT.

Cautious Reset

Donald Trump’s tariffs have jolted India into searching for strategic alternatives. Of these, Narendra Modi’s meeting with Xi Jinping in his first visit to China in seven years was the most eagerly anticipated balancing act. The meeting saw warm words spoken between the two world leaders in Beijing against a chill wind from Washington.


Both leaders spoke of being development partners and not rivals in a strikingly novel framing for two countries whose troops had only recently disengaged from a bitter Himalayan stand-off.


Modi’s insistence that the two countries be seen as partners was echoed in the Chinese statement almost word for word. Beijing, bruised by tensions with America, sees value in easing frictions with Delhi while India, wary of overdependence on the West, sees value in a less hostile China.


A major theme coursing through the meeting was that of strategic autonomy. India underlined that its ties with China should not be viewed through a “third country lens.” This was a pointed rebuke to Washington’s habit of casting Delhi as a counterweight to Beijing. The Chinese, in turn, credited Modi with affirming that bilateral ties would not be be influenced by third parties. In the shadow of Trump’s punitive tariffs, the clear subtext was that India has no wish to be anyone’s pawn.


Both Modi and Xi deemed it necessary to expand common ground on global challenges, from terrorism to fair trade. That formulation allowed Delhi to yoke together its complaints about Pakistan’s cross-border militancy with its grievances about American trade barriers. Beijing, eager to appear supportive, had already said it would back India against Washington’s tariffs. Each side, then, was signalling room for tactical alignment.


The smiles and symbolism were deliberate. Yet beneath them, mistrust lingers, and the task of translating rhetoric into reality remains daunting.


Foremost among them is the border. India stressed that peace and tranquillity there are the “insurance policy” for bilateral ties. It highlighted disengagement and reiterated the need for a fair and mutually acceptable resolution. China’s statement, by contrast, urged that the boundary not define the relationship, invoking Jawaharlal Nehru’s Panchsheel principles. The economic agenda was less contentious. India floated concrete steps in form of direct flights, greater trade and investment to narrow its yawning deficit. China emphasised win-win results and the stabilising role of both economies for world trade. If these pledges take shape, they could lend ballast to a relationship otherwise prone to turbulence.


The thaw is real but fragile. Talks of partnership, after all, cannot erase decades of mistrust or border clashes. For Modi, the broader point was global. A stable Sino-Indian relationship, he said, was essential not only for their 2.8 billion people but also for the emergence of a multipolar Asia and multipolar world. While New Delhi has long argued for such pluralism, Beijing has been reluctant to concede India equal billing. The fact that both invoked partnership at all, however, suggests some movement.

Comments

bottom of page