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.

Katchatheevu and the Ghosts of Forgotten Treaties

Ahead of his Sri Lanka visit, Prime Minister Modi finds his stance on Katchatheevu echoed by an unlikely ‘ally’ - Tamil Nadu’s Chief Minister M.K. Stalin.

As Narendra Modi steps onto Sri Lankan soil, the spectre of Katchatheevu looms large in this state visit. For beneath the surface of diplomatic niceties, an old ghost has stirred. Katchatheevu, a tiny islet in the Palk Strait that India ceded to Sri Lanka in 1974, has once again entered the bloodstream of Indian politics.


Last year, prior to the Lok Sabha polls, Modi, whilst campaigning in Tamil Nadu, had spoken about the need to revisit this historical error, dubbing it a blunder of the Congress era. Now, ahead of his visit to Sri Lanka, Tamil Nadu’s Chief Minister, M.K. Stalin - leader of the DravidaMunnetraKazhagam (DMK) and a fierce critic of Modi - has passed a resolution in the Tamil Nadu Assembly urging the Union government to retrieve Katchatheevu. In doing so, Stalin is unwittingly toeing Modi’s line.


Katchatheevu’s history, much like the larger Indo-Lankan relationship, has been shaped by colonial borders and the ghosts of forgotten treaties. The island, a rocky outcrop between Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka’s Jaffna Peninsula, was once the domain of warring kingdoms, claimed at various points by the Jaffna kings, the Pandyas of Tamil Nadu, and later, the Portuguese, Dutch, and British. By the early 20th century, the British, who ruled both India and Ceylon, found little need to resolve the island’s ambiguous sovereignty—until, of course, the empire dissolved and two new nations emerged.


In the 1920s and 1930s, British administrators in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) argued that Katchatheevu fell under Ceylonese control, citing old revenue records. Indian officials in the Madras Presidency disagreed but saw little urgency in pressing the issue. The ambiguity persisted until the 1970s, when the governments of Indira Gandhi and Sirimavo Bandaranaike sought to settle lingering territorial disputes as part of a broader effort to cement post-colonial ties.


In 1974, after years of deliberation, the Indira-Sirimavo Accord was signed. India formally ceded any claim over Katchatheevu, recognizing Sri Lanka’s sovereignty over the island. The deal was supposedly meant to resolve maritime disputes amicably, but in hindsight, it appears to have been one of the gravest strategic miscalculations of independent India.


At the time, the decision stirred outrage in Tamil Nadu, where fishermen had traditionally used Katchatheevu as a resting point. Tamil Nadu’s then Chief Minister, M. Karunanidhi, railed against the deal, calling it a betrayal of Tamil interests. But the Congress dismissed Tamil Nadu’s opposition as regional dissent. The island had been used for centuries by Tamil Nadu’s fishermen, but Delhi’s bureaucratic calculus deemed it expendable.


In 1976, Indira Gandhi’s government compounded the mistake by signing a supplementary agreement that stripped Indian fishermen of their rights in Katchatheevu’s waters. Successive Sri Lankan governments then treated the area as their exclusive domain, routinely arresting Tamil Nadu’s fishermen who ventured too close.


Over the decades, Tamil Nadu’s leaders from Karunanidhi to Jayalalithaa have demanded that Delhi reclaim Katchatheevu. But it was Modi, during his 2014 and 2019 election campaigns, who gave the issue national prominence. He accused Congress of gifting away Indian territory without parliamentary approval and vowed to correct the historical wrong.


Now, ahead of the 2025 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections, Stalin is reviving the issue out of political necessity. With the BJP making inroads in Tamil Nadu, the DMK cannot afford to be seen as weaker on Tamil rights than Modi himself.


By raising Katchatheevu just before Modi’s visit, Stalin is reinforcing an issue that Modi himself had championed. More importantly, he is signalling that the DMK is not willing to cede the Tamil nationalist vote to the BJP.


For Modi, this is an unexpected advantage. If even a DMK-led Tamil Nadu government believes that Katchatheevu must be retrieved, then Modi’s long-standing position is validated. Stalin’s move strengthens India’s bargaining hand. If New Delhi decides to reopen the discussion with Colombo, it can do so with the claim that there is cross-party consensus on the issue.


For decades, the BJP has struggled to gain political traction in Tamil Nadu. The state’s Dravidian political culture has resisted the party’s Hindutva narrative, and it has remained an electoral outlier. But in the past few years, the BJP has been making steady inroads, leveraging issues like Katchatheevu to gain support among Tamil Nadu’s disaffected fishing communities. If the DMK is forced to echo Modi’s stance, it only reinforces the BJP’s argument that Congress-era blunders continue to haunt Tamil Nadu.


Beyond the political gains, the Katchatheevu issue is also an opportunity for Modi to assert India’s regional influence. Sri Lanka, still recovering from its economic crisis, is heavily dependent on Indian assistance. By bringing up Katchatheevu in some form, Modi can remind Sri Lanka that India is not a passive observer in regional politics.


Sri Lanka, predictably, will resist any discussion of sovereignty. President Anura Kumara Dissanayake cannot afford to be seen conceding territory. However, Modi’s visit presents a moment for diplomatic pressure, if not for outright territorial negotiations, then for significant concessions on fishing rights.


If Modi can push for stronger protections for Tamil fishermen, or even force Sri Lanka to acknowledge the illegitimacy of the 1976 agreement, he will have achieved something no Indian leader has managed in 50 years.

Comments

bottom of page