top of page

By:

Abhijit Mulye

21 August 2024 at 11:29:11 am

BJP’s zilla parishad surge leaves Shinde Sena sidelined

Mumbai: The political friction within Maharashtra’s ruling alliance has moved from hushed corridors to a public power struggle following Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde’s recent high-profile dash to the national capital. While Shinde spent his Delhi visit in closed-door deliberations with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah—purportedly to protest being marginalised in regional power-sharing—the state BJP responded on Wednesday with a series of aggressive...

BJP’s zilla parishad surge leaves Shinde Sena sidelined

Mumbai: The political friction within Maharashtra’s ruling alliance has moved from hushed corridors to a public power struggle following Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde’s recent high-profile dash to the national capital. While Shinde spent his Delhi visit in closed-door deliberations with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah—purportedly to protest being marginalised in regional power-sharing—the state BJP responded on Wednesday with a series of aggressive manoeuvres. Instead of a reconciliation, Shinde got a reality check in which his Shiv Sena was systematically outmanoeuvred and isolated across key zilla parishads (ZPs) in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Parbhani, and Sangli. This latest sequence of events underscores a rapidly changing dynamic in Maharashtra politics. Ever since Devendra Fadnavis assumed the Chief Minister’s office in December 2024, the BJP has adopted an increasingly assertive posture. Shinde and his camp are visibly struggling to counter this dominance. The political manoeuvring in Parbhani perfectly illustrates the BJP’s new strategy. The BJP emerged as the single largest party with 24 seats. The Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) secured 15 seats, followed by the Shiv Sena with five. The opposition consisted of Shiv Sena (UBT) (six seats), Congress (three seats), and one independent candidate. Guardian Minister Meghana Borikar had initially indicated a plan to seize power alongside Shinde’s Shiv Sena while keeping the NCP out. Silent Moves However, the Congress silently attempted to engineer a broad anti-BJP coalition, trying to unite the NCP, both Sena factions, and the independent member. Sensing the threat, the BJP went into a huddle with NCP leadership for a counter-strategy. Clear directives were sent to the district level. The BJP abruptly formed an alliance with the NCP. Consequently, the Shiv Sena, which had been aggressively eyeing the ZP chairperson’s post, was unceremoniously shown the door. Tight Race A similar drama unfolded in Sambhajinagar. The alliance broke down at the very last moment. Local leaders failed to reach a consensus about the chairperson post. Numbers were extremely tight. The BJP held 23 members, while the Shiv Sena commanded 22. When state-level power-sharing formulas were rejected locally, the BJP took drastic action. Leveraging assistance from the NCP, the BJP successfully engineered a split within the opposition alliance. It managed to win over the crucial votes of three UBT members and one NCP-Sharad Pawar member. On Wednesday, both the BJP and the Shiv Sena filed rival nominations for the top post. Ultimately, the BJP’s tactical cross-voting strategy prevailed. The party walked away with both the chairperson and deputy chairperson positions, leaving the Sena empty-handed. The situation in Sangli further damaged the fragile relationship between the two ruling partners. In Sangli, the NCP-SP successfully bagged the chairperson post. The Shiv Sena accused the BJP of sabotage. It was claimed that the BJP deliberately refused to back the Sena candidate and decided to field its own candidate at the eleventh hour. The last-minute entry split the votes of the ruling alliance and turned the regional equations decisively in favour of the NCP-SP.

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