top of page

By:

Abhijit Mulye

21 August 2024 at 11:29:11 am

Shinde dilutes demand

Likely to be content with Deputy Mayor’s post in Mumbai Mumbai: In a decisive shift that redraws the power dynamics of Maharashtra’s urban politics, the standoff over the prestigious Mumbai Mayor’s post has ended with a strategic compromise. Following days of resort politics and intense backroom negotiations, the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena has reportedly diluted its demand for the top job in the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), settling instead for the Deputy Mayor’s post. This...

Shinde dilutes demand

Likely to be content with Deputy Mayor’s post in Mumbai Mumbai: In a decisive shift that redraws the power dynamics of Maharashtra’s urban politics, the standoff over the prestigious Mumbai Mayor’s post has ended with a strategic compromise. Following days of resort politics and intense backroom negotiations, the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena has reportedly diluted its demand for the top job in the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), settling instead for the Deputy Mayor’s post. This development, confirmed by high-ranking party insiders, follows the realization that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) effectively ceded its claims on the Kalyan-Dombivali Municipal Corporation (KDMC) to protect the alliance, facilitating a “Mumbai for BJP, Kalyan for Shinde” power-sharing formula. The compromise marks a complete role reversal between the BJP and the Shiv Sena. Both the political parties were in alliance with each other for over 25 years before 2017 civic polls. Back then the BJP used to get the post of Deputy Mayor while the Shiv Sena always enjoyed the mayor’s position. In 2017 a surging BJP (82 seats) had paused its aggression to support the undivided Shiv Sena (84 seats), preferring to be out of power in the Corporation to keep the saffron alliance intact. Today, the numbers dictate a different reality. In the recently concluded elections BJP emerged as the single largest party in Mumbai with 89 seats, while the Shinde faction secured 29. Although the Shinde faction acted as the “kingmaker”—pushing the alliance past the majority mark of 114—the sheer numerical gap made their claim to the mayor’s post untenable in the long run. KDMC Factor The catalyst for this truce lies 40 kilometers north of Mumbai in Kalyan-Dombivali, a region considered the impregnable fortress of Eknath Shinde and his son, MP Shrikant Shinde. While the BJP performed exceptionally well in KDMC, winning 50 seats compared to the Shinde faction’s 53, the lotter for the reservation of mayor’s post in KDMC turned the tables decisively in favor of Shiv Sena there. In the lottery, the KDMC mayor’ post went to be reserved for the Scheduled Tribe candidate. The BJP doesn’t have any such candidate among elected corporatros in KDMC. This cleared the way for Shiv Sena. Also, the Shiv Sena tied hands with the MNS in the corporation effectively weakening the Shiv Sena (UBT)’s alliance with them. Party insiders suggest that once it became clear the BJP would not pursue the KDMC Mayor’s chair—effectively acknowledging it as Shinde’s fiefdom—he agreed to scale down his demands in the capital. “We have practically no hope of installing a BJP Mayor in Kalyan-Dombivali without shattering the alliance locally,” a Mumbai BJP secretary admitted and added, “Letting the KDMC become Shinde’s home turf is the price for securing the Mumbai Mayor’s bungalow for a BJP corporator for the first time in history.” The formal elections for the Mayoral posts are scheduled for later this month. While the opposition Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi (MVA)—led by the Shiv Sena (UBT)—has vowed to field candidates, the arithmetic heavily favors the ruling alliance. For Eknath Shinde, accepting the Deputy Mayor’s post in Mumbai is a tactical retreat. It allows him to consolidate his power in the MMR belt (Thane and Kalyan) while remaining a partner in Mumbai’s governance. For the BJP, this is a crowning moment; after playing second fiddle in the BMC for decades, they are poised to finally install their own “First Citizen” of Mumbai.

Tech Barrier

Maharashtra’s decision to introduce a Facial Recognition System (FRS) at the Mantralaya is being sold as a step towards enhanced security, transparency and efficiency. The Devendra Fadnavis-led Mahayuti government insists that the new technology will regulate entry, ensuring that only authorised personnel gain access while expediting bureaucratic processes. On the surface, it appears to be a commendable move. Yet, beyond the rhetoric of efficiency and security lies a more troubling question: Will this system serve as an enabler of governance or a barrier that alienates the very citizens it is meant to serve?


The Mantralaya, as Maharashtra’s seat of power, has historically been a space where common citizens, especially those from rural or marginalised backgrounds, could physically access the corridors of decision-making. It is here that ordinary petitioners have sought direct redressal of their grievances, often bypassing bureaucratic hurdles to reach ministers and senior officials. This access, however imperfect, has been a crucial safeguard in a democracy where digital literacy and technological access remain unevenly distributed. By introducing a high-tech gatekeeping mechanism, the state risks reinforcing an already widening digital divide, privileging those who can navigate the new system over those who cannot.


The official justification for facial recognition technology is predicated on security. The argument is that by restricting entry to registered personnel, the government can weed out brokers and unauthorised middlemen who often exploit petitioners. It is a worthy goal. But technology alone cannot root out corruption or inefficiency, nor can it replace the accountability and trust that personal interactions with officials engender. A petitioner from rural Maharashtra, unfamiliar with digital systems, may now find themselves locked out of the very institution meant to address their grievances, while well-connected power brokers, builders and business magnates will still find their way in, as they always have.


The risks of such technological barriers are not theoretical. Across India, digitisation drives have often left the most vulnerable behind. The introduction of Aadhaar-based authentication for welfare schemes, for instance, was intended to streamline access and prevent fraud. Yet, in many cases, it became an obstacle for those lacking proper documentation or facing technical errors. The same risk looms over the new security measures at the Mantralaya. What happens when a daily wage worker, seeking justice for unpaid wages, is denied entry because their facial recognition data is not properly registered? Or when an elderly farmer from Vidarbha, unversed in the intricacies of online registration, finds himself shut out from reaching officials?


Too often, the allure of digital governance is seen as a substitute for systemic reform. But AI-powered surveillance will not fix a culture of bureaucratic opacity. To be sure, the government is within its rights to upgrade security at such a critical establishment. Recent years have seen instances where lax oversight has led to security breaches. But striking a balance between security and accessibility is imperative. Technology must facilitate governance, not fortify barriers between the government and its citizens.

Comments

bottom of page