top of page

By:

Abhijit Joshi

31 August 2024 at 10:09:24 am

A Walkover in Maharashtra

Unopposed victories and opposition withdrawals reveal the widening gap between Mahayuti’s organisational muscle and the MVA’s fading grassroots strength. As Maharashtra heads towards the Legislative Council elections for 17 Local Authorities Constituency seats on June 18, the political narrative appears to have been settled even before a single vote is cast. A supposedly keen contest between the ruling Mahayuti alliance and the opposition Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) has instead become a...

A Walkover in Maharashtra

Unopposed victories and opposition withdrawals reveal the widening gap between Mahayuti’s organisational muscle and the MVA’s fading grassroots strength. As Maharashtra heads towards the Legislative Council elections for 17 Local Authorities Constituency seats on June 18, the political narrative appears to have been settled even before a single vote is cast. A supposedly keen contest between the ruling Mahayuti alliance and the opposition Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) has instead become a demonstration of the ruling coalition’s growing dominance and the opposition's shrinking political confidence. The most striking feature of this election is not merely the numerical advantage enjoyed by the Mahayuti but the apparent unwillingness of the opposition to mount a serious challenge. Tame Opposition With seven Mahayuti-backed candidates reportedly elected unopposed and several opposition-supported candidates withdrawing from the race, the election has turned into a veritable consolidation of political power. The Maharashtra Legislative Council, or the Upper House consists of 78 members elected through a complex system involving MLAs, local authorities, graduates, teachers, and gubernatorial nominations. The current election concerns 17 seats elected by members of local self-government bodies such as municipal corporations, municipal councils, district councils, and panchayat institutions. Consequently, organizational strength at the grassroots level matters far more than public rallies or social media campaigns. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has approached these elections with remarkable organizational discipline. After securing a dominant position in local bodies across large parts of Maharashtra, the party has successfully translated its electoral gains into institutional control. Under the final seat-sharing arrangement, BJP is contesting 11 of the 17 seats, while Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde’s Shiv Sena has been allotted four seats and Deputy Chief Minister Sunetra Pawar’s Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) two seats. The distribution reflects the BJP’s position as the undisputed senior partner within the ruling alliance. What is noteworthy is the confidence with which the alliance has managed candidate selection and coalition management. Despite occasional rebellions and disgruntled aspirants, the leadership has largely succeeded in containing dissent before it could affect the electoral outcome. The Mahayuti’s strength stems from years of political expansion at the local level. Municipal councillors, Zilla Parishad members, Panchayat Samiti representatives, and other elected local body members form the electorate in these contests. Over the past decade, BJP has systematically expanded its footprint in these institutions, often at the expense of traditional regional parties. If the Mahayuti enters the election from a position of strength, the Maha Vikas Aghadi enters it carrying the burden of uncertainty. The MVA eventually agreed on a seat-sharing formula under which Congress is contesting eight seats, Shiv Sena (UBT) four seats, and Sharad Pawar’s NCP three seats, while negotiations continued in a few constituencies until the last minute. Shrinking Influence However, the larger issue confronting the MVA is not seat-sharing but shrinking influence within local self-government institutions. Many of the local bodies that form the electoral college were elected years ago when political equations were vastly different. Since then, Maharashtra has witnessed major political realignments, including the splits in the Shiv Sena and the Nationalist Congress Party. These developments significantly weakened the organizational network of the Opposition. As a result, several constituencies that once appeared competitive now heavily favour Mahayuti candidates. The Opposition’s cautious approach reflects an uncomfortable reality that in many constituencies, the numbers simply do not support an aggressive contest. The withdrawal of candidates in several constituencies has paved the way for multiple Mahayuti nominees to secure victory without a contest. While uncontested elections are not uncommon in indirect polls, the scale witnessed this year is unique. Democracy thrives on contestation. Elections are not merely mechanisms to determine winners; they are opportunities to test ideas and hold those in power accountable. When opposition parties are unable - or unwilling - to field serious challengers, the democratic process risks becoming a procedural exercise rather than a genuine political contest. By avoiding direct contests, the Opposition risks reinforcing the perception that the battle has already been lost. Despite the Mahayuti’s overall advantage, a few constituencies remain politically significant. Thane, Pune, Raigad, Satara, Nashik, Nanded and Amravati have witnessed intense negotiations and local-level negotiation. In some seats, internal dissatisfaction within the ruling alliance has produced rebel candidates. In Nashik, Pune, Raigad and Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, disagreements over ticket distribution had briefly threatened to disrupt alliance calculations. Similarly, in Amravati and Yavatmal, local leaders had expressed unhappiness over candidate selection. However, unlike previous elections where such rebellions could have altered outcomes, the Mahayuti leadership appears confident of containing the damage through political negotiations and organizational discipline. Beyond the immediate electoral results, the 2026 Legislative Council elections carry a broader political significance. The elections are serving as a barometer of Maharashtra’s changing political landscape. They underline the extent to which BJP has emerged as the central pole of state politics, capable not only of winning elections but also of managing alliances, controlling local institutions and shaping electoral outcomes long before polling day. For the MVA, the elections offer a sobering reminder that electoral alliances alone are insufficient. Without rebuilding grassroots networks and strengthening local organizational structures, the Opposition will continue to struggle against a ruling coalition that enjoys both numerical superiority and institutional control. As Maharashtra prepares for voting on June 18, the more important question is whether the Opposition can rediscover the political confidence necessary to challenge the ruling alliance in future battles. For now, the Mahayuti’s march appears unstoppable, while the Opposition fights to stay politically relevant. (The writer is a political observer. Views personal.)

Selective Outrage

India’s left-liberal media has long prided itself on being the torchbearer of secularism, dissent and moral rectitude. In the aftermath of ‘Operation Sindoor,’ the precision military strike launched by the Modi government against Pakistan-based terror camps, it has revealed its not a principled commitment to peace or truth, but a disturbing penchant for ideological prejudice, performative sanctimony and selective outrage.


The operation itself was a textbook display of calibrated force and geopolitical prudence. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, often caricatured as ‘authoritarian’ by the ‘liberal’ English-language commentariat, chose patience over provocation. He consulted opposition leaders, held detailed discussions with defence chiefs and took key international stakeholders, notably the United States and Russia, into confidence before authorising limited military action. The symbolism of ‘Operation Sindoor’ was also carefully crafted: a pointed reminder that the attack’s real victims were Hindu women widowed by Pakistan-sponsored militants in Kashmir. The government’s briefings were also strategic and symbolic as two ranking female officers, one of them Muslim, were made the public face of the mission, underlining a new Indian confidence that blends military muscle with democratic pluralism.


But this was unacceptable for India’s entrenched ‘left-liberal’ press, steeped in academic jargon, Western validation and a knee-jerk hostility to anything remotely ‘Hindutva.’ That a Muslim officer briefed the nation on ‘Operation Sindoor’ was branded ‘tokenism’ by such commentators. Others crudely alleged that the April 22 Pahalgam massacre was the logical culmination of reported atrocities against Muslims since Modi came to power in 2014.


The semantic nitpicking over ‘Operation Sindoor’ was maddening. An editor of a prominent magazine dubbed the operation’s name as ‘patriarchal’ and coded in Hindutva tropes. In a bizarre case of moral inversion, sindoor was likened to symbols of ‘honour killings’ and gender oppression, ignoring both its cultural resonance and the cruel reality that these women had lost their husbands in cold blood. For years, India’s ‘secular’ commentariat nurtured a preordained binary: the Congress may be flawed but was at least ‘secular’ while the BJP was an inveterate ‘fascist.’ Thus, the 2002 Gujarat riots are always focused upon but the Congress-backed pogrom of the Sikhs in 1984 is either downplayed or rationalised. Terrorism in Kashmir is tragic, but state retaliation is ‘jingoism.’ A strong Muslim voice in government is ‘tokenism’ but its absence is ‘exclusion.’ Even journalistic rigour is selectively applied. When Pakistan claimed to have downed Indian jets, some Indian outlets rushed to amplify the story before verification, inadvertently echoing enemy propaganda.


Dissent is vital in any democracy. But when its becomes indistinguishable from disdain, when editorial choices are dictated by ideological conformity, then the press becomes a caricature of itself. Ironically, many of these journalists enjoy robust free speech and loudly lament India’s supposed slide into ‘fascism’ from the safety of their X handles. Yet they turn a blind eye to Putin’s repression, Erdogan’s purges or Xi Jinping’s camps. In their eyes, Modi remains the greatest threat to democracy even as they broadcast their outrage freely, without fear of censorship or reprisal. ‘Operation Sindoor’ was a statement of cultural self-confidence. That confidence has rattled those who have spent their careers gatekeeping Indian discourse. Today, their monopoly is over. The people are watching and they no longer believe that the emperor has clothes.

Comments

bottom of page