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.

Ceasefire Duplicity and the Challenge of Military Diplomacy

India and Pakistan have agreed to a ceasefire along the Line of Control (LoC). However, the reality on the ground tells a different story – marked by continued cross-border shelling, terror attacks, and propaganda warfare. The recent terror strike in Pahalgam and Pakistan's immediate violation of the ceasefire agreement raise serious concerns about the credibility of Islamabad's commitments and the sustainability of peace in South Asia.


Parallel to its military posturing, Pakistan has unleashed an aggressive information warfare campaign, spreading fake news, fabricated videos, and social media propaganda aimed at discrediting the Indian Armed Forces and destabilizing India internally. From misrepresenting conflict zones to amplifying communal narratives, Pakistan’s digital tactics are designed to tarnish India’s global image.


Moral struggle

Across India, public sentiment has reached a tipping point. The collective mood is one of resolve and clarity, with citizens demanding a firm and lasting solution to crossborder terrorism and internal radicalization. The repeated provocations have also sparked a broader reflection on national unity, as people from diverse backgrounds call for greater vigilance against divisive narratives and misinformation – whether they originate externally or from within.


Defining aspect

India’s fight against terrorism is now a defining aspect of its global identity, and the events unfolding now will serve as a milestone in the country’s evolving stance: zero tolerance for terror, unwavering pursuit of national security, and a clear moral compass in the face of persistent threats.


In my view, agreeing to a ceasefire at this stage may have been premature, especially considering the strategic advantages India had already gained. The momentum was clearly in our favor, and sustained pressure might have compelled Pakistan to concede more comprehensively.


There was an opportunity to send a strong and lasting message that any aggression against India would be met with decisive and overwhelming force. Leadership in such moments, as seen in other global contexts, often involves resisting external pressures to ensure long-term national security objectives are achieved.


Familiar Pattern

On paper, Pakistan agreed to a so-called ceasefire, rearming the 2003 agreement with India. However, in less than 10 hours, Pakistani forces violated the ceasefire, launching unprovoked shelling on Indian territory.


This pattern of duplicity is neither new nor surprising. Over the past two decades, Pakistan has routinely broken ceasefire agreements soon after signing them – more than 5,000 ceasefire violations were recorded in 2020 alone.


This time, their ceasefire plea came only after facing increasing military pressure and internal instability. Reports indicate that a call was made from the Pakistani Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) to his Indian counterpart, seeking immediate de-escalation after Pakistan realized the consequences of further escalation. But can such a plea be taken seriously, especially when it's followed by another violation?


A Moment of Strategic Strength for India India’s current position of military and moral strength has sent a powerful message across the region and beyond. The ability to swiftly neutralize threats, counter aggression with precision, and maintain strategic restraint despite provocation demonstrates India's evolving doctrine in the face of cross-border terrorism.


Many believe that had the ceasefire not been agreed upon, Pakistan – facing operational setbacks and international isolation – would have found itself with little choice but to deescalate or surrender. The limited tactical support Pakistan reportedly received from foreign allies failed to bolster its standing, further underlining India’s superior strategic posture.


Terrorism as State Policy

Despite international pressure and FATF scrutiny, Pakistan continues to harbor UNdesignated terrorists and provide sanctuary to organizations such as Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, and others. These groups not only plan and launch attacks on Indian soil but also serve Pakistan’s objective of creating unrest and undermining Indian sovereignty, particularly in Jammu & Kashmir.


India has repeatedly presented dossiers and intelligence to international bodies, detailing Pakistan’s involvement in state-sponsored terrorism, yet tangible punitive action has been limited.


Strategic Resolve

India has shifted its posture from one of strategic restraint to one of deterrence and assertive diplomacy. From the 2016 surgical strikes to the 2019 Balakot airstrikes, New Delhi has demonstrated it will not tolerate cross-border terrorism. At the same time, India has chosen to pursue military diplomacy to avoid unnecessary escalation, engaging DGMOs, maintaining hotline communications, and leveraging multilateral pressure.


The new Indian war doctrine, reportedly accepted by key global players including the U.S., defines any terror attack as an act of war—a stark warning to those who underestimate India’s resolve.


(The author is a resident of Mumbai. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page