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.

Sacred Attire

Updated: Jan 30, 2025

The Siddhivinayak Temple Trust’s recent decision to implement a dress code prohibiting short skirts, torn jeans and other revealing attire is a necessary move to uphold the sanctity of religious spaces. Temples are spiritual spaces where devotees seek solace, offer prayers, and connect with the divine. Temples are not mere tourist attractions but sacred sanctuaries. The least that visitors can do is dress accordingly.


The Jagannath temple in Puri, Odisha, and the Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan have already implemented similar rules, reflecting a growing recognition that religious spaces require a modicum of decorum. In the case of Siddhivinayak, the temple attracts thousands of devotees daily, many of whom have expressed discomfort over attire that they feel clashes with the temple’s spiritual ambience.


Few would question the need for decorum in a courtroom, a government office, or even an upscale restaurant. Yet, when religious institutions enforce dress codes to preserve their sanctity, a chorus of indignation often rises in the name of personal freedom, with such ‘critics’ arguing that such rules reflect moral policing or an imposition of traditionalist values.

But this argument confuses religious sanctity with public space liberalism. No one is being compelled to enter the temple, and those who do should respect the customs that govern it. Even in non-Hindu religious spaces, dress codes are the norm. One does not enter a gurdwara without covering their head, nor a mosque or church dressed in attire deemed unsuitable for prayer. The sanctity of a religious institution should not be sacrificed at the altar of modern whims.


To dismiss this as an encroachment on personal liberties is to misunderstand the nature of such spaces. Religious sites operate under different expectations than public thoroughfares or commercial hubs. They are designed for reflection, devotion, and ritual. While Indian society has rightly evolved towards greater personal freedom in many spheres, faith-based institutions must be allowed to maintain traditions that are integral to their identity. The temple trust has made it clear that its goal is not to impose regressive restrictions but to ensure that all visitors feel comfortable and that the sanctity of the temple is upheld.


Moreover, the argument that religious sites must remain entirely open-ended in their dress codes simply does not hold water. Many of the people who object to these restrictions would scarcely question the need for appropriate attire at a formal event or while meeting a dignitary. The principle is the same -respect for the setting dictates the mode of dress. Those who seek to frame this as a battle between liberalism and conservatism fail to grasp that such measures are about propriety, not repression.


In an era where the lines between cultural expression and decorum are increasingly blurred, it is worth remembering that not every rule is an infringement on liberty. If people can abide by dress codes in secular spaces, they should extend the same courtesy to places of worship.

Comments


bottom of page