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.

Constitutional Overreach?

Updated: Oct 21, 2024

India’s Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar recently launched a scathing attack on Congress leader Rahul Gandhi over remarks the latter made in the United States, accusing Gandhi of undermining the Indian Constitution. Gandhi, no stranger to controversy, has often aimed his verbal salvos at the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) with his overseas speeches being thinly-veiled criticisms of India’s democratic fabric under the Modi administration. But the Vice-President’s public remarks has raised an important constitutional question: Should a figure occupying one of the highest apolitical offices in the land act as a de facto spokesperson for the ruling party?

Vice-presidents are meant to embody neutrality. According to the Constitution, India’s Vice-President, like its President, is expected to rise above partisan squabbles, representing the entire polity rather than a single faction. The office of the Vice-President holds a unique position—it is second only to the President, and also serves as the chair of the Rajya Sabha, or the upper house of Parliament. In this role, impartiality is critical to maintain the balance of power between the government and the opposition.

Yet Dhankhar’s outburst against Gandhi hints at a troubling erosion of this impartiality. While the Congress leader’s comments about India’s democracy and Constitution may warrant scrutiny, the Vice-President’s role is not to censure political figures but to uphold the dignity of his office and the constitutional values he is tasked with safeguarding. When a vice-president adopts the language of a party loyalist, it undermines not only the office he holds but the very essence of India’s democratic institutions.

This is not an isolated case. Indian politics has a long history of its vice-presidents showing leanings towards the ruling establishment. In the late 1970s, Vice-President B.D. Jatti, who briefly acted as President, was criticized for his perceived proximity to the ruling Congress party under Indira Gandhi, especially during the Emergency. Similarly, Gopal Swarup Pathak, Vice-President from 1969 to 1974, was accused of leaning towards Congress when he controversially withheld assent for a crucial bill, allegedly under pressure from the ruling party.

More recently, Hamid Ansari, who served as Vice-President from 2007 to 2017, was frequently targeted by the BJP for allegedly displaying a ‘pro-Muslim’ bias, though Ansari himself consistently maintained his commitment to the Constitution. To be sure, the criticisms Gandhi made abroad may well have crossed the line of diplomatic propriety, but such remarks should ideally be rebuffed by government ministers or party leaders—not the Vice-President. By involving himself in the day-to-day political fray, Dhankhar risks reducing his office to just another tool in the hands of the ruling establishment. Ultimately, the Vice-President is not a partisan warrior but a custodian of constitutional values. Regardless of whether Rahul Gandhi’s criticisms of the government deserve rebuke, it is not the Vice-President’s role to deliver it. When they act as political enforcers, they not only diminish their own role but also erode the public’s trust in India’s constitutional institutions.

Comments

bottom of page