top of page

By:

Abhijit Mulye

21 August 2024 at 11:29:11 am

Victory in the streets, vacuum in the office

State BJP without official body since over 8 months Mumbai: Despite a crushing wave of victories across Maharashtra’s urban and rural landscape, the state unit of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) finds itself in a peculiar state of organizational paralysis. More than eight months after Ravindra Chavan officially took the reins as State President from Chandrashekhar Bawankule in July 2025, the party has failed to constitute its state executive body, exposing deep-seated internal friction and a...

Victory in the streets, vacuum in the office

State BJP without official body since over 8 months Mumbai: Despite a crushing wave of victories across Maharashtra’s urban and rural landscape, the state unit of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) finds itself in a peculiar state of organizational paralysis. More than eight months after Ravindra Chavan officially took the reins as State President from Chandrashekhar Bawankule in July 2025, the party has failed to constitute its state executive body, exposing deep-seated internal friction and a deadlock with the central leadership in Delhi. Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis visited Delhi twice this week. On Friday he also called on the newly elected national party president Nitin Nabin. Though it is being speculated that the meeting might lead to political realignment in the state, real question is whether it will bring to the tracks the derailed organizational appointments of the state party unit. The primary catalyst for this administrative limbo is said to be a strict directive from the BJP high command. In a bid to ensure that elected representatives remain laser-focused on their constituencies ahead of the 2029 cycle, the party leadership has mandated that no sitting MLA should be appointed as an organizational office bearer. While logically sound, this "one person, one post" enforcement has drained the pool of seasoned leaders available for the state body. State President Ravindra Chavan, himself an MLA from Dombivli, is reportedly struggling to balance the requirement for experienced "organizational engines" with the demand for fresh, non-legislative faces. The friction has reportedly peaked over the appointment of a specific former minister who lost his seat during the 2024 Lok Sabha debacle. Sources indicate this leader, who feels sidelined after being denied a cabinet berth in the Devendra Fadnavis-led government, is lobbying aggressively for the powerful post of State General Secretary. However, the Delhi high command remains unimpressed. Citing his recent electoral loss and a "cloud of controversy" surrounding his previous tenure, the central leadership has twice rejected the list of office bearers submitted by the state unit. This tug-of-war has effectively stalled the entire process, as the state unit is hesitant to move forward without accommodating senior loyalists. The irony of the situation is not lost on political observers. The organizational delay comes at a time when the BJP’s "election machine" is performing at its peak. While demonstrating its civic dominance, in the January 2026 municipal elections, the BJP swept 1,425 out of 2,869 seats across 29 corporations, including a historic victory in the BMC. It also demonstrated its rural surge in the recently concluded Zilla Parishad polls, where the party emerged as the single largest entity, winning 225 of 731 seats. "The party is winning on the strength of the 'Fadnavis-Chavan' duo and the Mahayuti's momentum, but the skeletal structure of the organization is missing. We have generals and soldiers, but no mid-level commanders," noted a senior party strategist on the condition of anonymity. When questioned about the delay, Ravindra Chavan’s office has maintained a disciplined silence. Staffers decline to provide a timeline, merely stating that "consultations are ongoing." This lack of a formal state body means that key wings of the party—including the Youth, Women, and Kisan Morchas—are operating without a full set of sanctioned leaders. While the BJP continues to win elections through centralized command, the simmering discontent among senior leaders who feel "abandoned" by the high command's new rules could pose a challenge to long-term internal harmony.

Lingua Pragmatica

Updated: Mar 20, 2025

As Southern leaders like M.K. Stalin rage against Hindi, Andhra Pradesh’s Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu offers a model of pragmatism over parochialism.

Chandrababu Naidu
Andhra Pradesh

Amid the cacophony of opposition in southern states to Hindi, Andhra Pradesh CM N. Chandrababu Naidu has taken a markedly pragmatic stance by remarking recently in the state Assembly that there was no harm in learning other languages. Hindi, Naidu noted, was useful for communication across India, particularly in political and commercial hubs like Delhi. His remarks, though avoiding explicit mention of the NEP, were widely seen as an endorsement of multilingualism and a rebuke to the linguistic chauvinism that has gripped parts of the South.


Few issues in India stir political passions quite like language. It is not merely a means of communication but a marker of identity, a relic of colonial resistance, and a source of political mobilization. In the southern states, where anti-Hindi sentiment has long been entrenched, the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and its three-language formula have reignited old tensions. No state embodies this defiance more than Tamil Nadu, where the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) led by M.K. Stalin has framed the policy as an assault on its linguistic autonomy.


Naidu’s words, welcomed by his ally and Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan, mark a sharp contrast with the DMK’s position. Tamil Nadu’s hostility towards Hindi dates back to the 1930s, when C. Rajagopalachari’s attempt to introduce it in schools met with fierce resistance. The anti-Hindi agitations of the 1960s cemented the DMK’s ideological stance, with its first Chief Minister, C.N. Annadurai, famously warning that Hindi imposition could push Tamil Nadu towards secession.


The question, however, is whether this rigid opposition serves Tamil Nadu’s interests. While Stalin, with an eye to the upcoming Tamil Nadu Assembly polls, has been relentlessly portraying Hindi as a threat to his state’s regional identity, Naidu, a partner of the BJP-led Centre, is framing it as a tool for economic mobility. His argument is not that Hindi should replace Telugu or English but that it offers a competitive advantage.


The economic case for multilingualism is compelling. Indians who speak multiple languages tend to have better job prospects, higher earnings and greater geographic mobility. Andhra Pradesh’s Telugu-speaking diaspora is a case in point. Telugus make up a significant proportion of Indian-origin professionals in the United States, the Gulf, and Southeast Asia as Naidu pointed out, hinting that this success story was built not on linguistic rigidity but on adaptability.


In a country where inter-state migration is rising and where Hindi remains the most widely spoken language, refusing to learn it amounts to self-imposed isolation. Tamil Nadu’s approach, by contrast, risks limiting its youth. The DMK government has refused to implement the three-language policy, keeping schools strictly bilingual with Tamil and English. Its justification that Hindi is not necessary for global success could be true in a narrow sense but ignores the domestic context. If Tamil filmmakers can dub their movies into Hindi to expand their audience, why should Tamil students be denied access to the language that could open more doors for them within India?


The DMK has accused successive central governments, particularly under the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), of pushing Hindi at the expense of regional languages. Yet, rejecting Hindi outright is an overcorrection. The reality is that Hindi is an important language in India’s economic and political landscape. Naidu’s position, one of accommodation rather than confrontation, offers a middle ground that other Southern leaders would do well to consider.


Some states already recognize this. Karnataka, despite its own history of linguistic pride, has allowed Hindi to be taught as an optional language. Kerala, whose migrants work in Hindi-speaking regions and the Gulf, has been less hostile to Hindi education. Naidu’s model, balancing regional identity with practical necessity, offers a way forward. Languages should be embraced, not politicized. Southern leaders would do well to listen to him.

Comments

bottom of page