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.

‘Deep State’ and Donald Trump

Updated: Nov 7, 2024

Donald Trump

If Donald Trump wins a second term as U.S. President, his primary target will likely be what he describes as “the Deep State” in America. According to him, the Deep State comprises the Justice Department, the CIA, and the FBI. Last week, American magazine ‘Politico’ noted that “regaining control of the Justice Department is most vital to his [Trump’s] agenda, both political and personal.”


The U.S. Justice Department has a unique history, as it can be considered even older than the fully ratified U.S. Constitution. Although the Constitution was initially signed by 39 of the 55 delegates on September 17, 1787, it took an additional two years and seven months for all states to ratify it, with the final ratification occurring on May 29, 1790. Meanwhile, Congress passed the Judiciary Act on September 24, 1789, recognizing the importance of establishing a judicial system for peace and security. This was technically possible as the Confederation Congress, established on March 9, 1789, marked the start of the Constitution’s operation.


The final clause of the Judiciary Act addressed the appointment of the Attorney General, stating that they “shall prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and give advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the President of the United States.”

Following the Civil War (1861–1865), the need for a full-fledged department became apparent. In 1870, the Department of Justice (DOJ) was established, with the Attorney General designated as the Federal Government’s chief law enforcement officer.


The Attorney General serves a dual role, acting as the legal representative of the executive branch to the Supreme Court and advising the President and heads of executive departments.


Over time, more powers have been delegated to the Attorney General. Under the Independent Counsel Act, the Attorney General is responsible for conducting preliminary inquiries whenever they receive sufficient information to justify investigating potential federal law violations, including those involving the President and Vice President.


This was the process that led to President Bill Clinton’s impeachment in 1994. Janet Reno, whom President Clinton appointed as Attorney General in 1993, selected Robert Fiske as an independent counsel in January 1994 to investigate the Whitewater controversy, which scrutinized Bill and Hillary Clinton’s real estate investments. Fiske was later replaced by Ken Starr.


This suggests that Trump, even if re-elected, would face limitations in reshaping the Justice Department to serve his personal needs. While he may have the power to dismiss the current Attorney General and appoint new personnel, Senate approval would be required for certain key positions. Furthermore, any new appointees would find it challenging to alter existing evidence, as the DOJ operates under rigorous judicial and Congressional oversight.


The next two entities within Trump’s ‘Deep State’ are the FBI and CIA. Established in 1908 under Title 28 U.S. Code 533, the FBI, like the Attorney General, is supervised by the DOJ and other federal law enforcement agencies, operating independently of any president’s personal preferences. While the President requires Senate concurrence for high-level appointments such as the Attorney General and FBI Director, other appointments are within presidential purview. However, all must operate within the law and remain accountable to the courts.


The CIA, created under the Central Intelligence Act of 1949, also requires Senate confirmation for its Director. With a Democratic majority currently in the Senate, Trump may encounter challenges in appointing his preferred candidate if this composition remains unchanged.


Historically, presidents attempting to install their own choice of CIA Director to “teach a lesson” to the agency have often met with limited success. Despite Senate approval, these directors have found it challenging to implement reforms inconsistent with the agency’s statutory mandates under Congressional Intelligence Committee oversight. A New York Times report dated December 22, 1974, noted that James R. Schlesinger, brought in by President Richard Nixon, struggled to enact reforms within the CIA and served only six months.


Conversely, Admiral Stansfield Turner, whom President Jimmy Carter appointed to “sanitize” the CIA, fired 820 agents from the CIA’s Clandestine Service in the so-called “Halloween Massacre.” Reflecting in 2005, Turner admitted he might have overreached in taking such a drastic step.


In fact, Turner’s actions inadvertently fostered cooperation between the CIA and Chinese intelligence services against the Soviet Union, which, as French investigative journalist Roger Falligot detailed in ‘Chinese Spies,’ opened opportunities for Chinese penetration into the Western world—a story I reviewed for Indian readers in 2019.


For the American electorate, the upcoming election will not just be a referendum on Trump’s leadership but a pivotal moment in defining the nation’s commitment to democratic norms and the independence of its institutions. In a time of escalating division, the resilience of these pillars of democracy may be the most crucial battleground of all.

(The writer is a former Special Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat. Views are personal)

Comments

bottom of page