top of page

By:

Quad Najmi and PTI

17 June 2026 at 5:11:32 pm

Uddhav faces another rebellion; decision today

Six Lok Sabha MPs trying to move away; picture may be clear at today’s Parliamentary party meeting in New Delhi AI generated image Mumbai: A cloak-and-dagger crisis engulfing the Uddhav Thackeray-led Shiv Sena has landed at the door of the Lok Sabha Speaker, with the party urging him to guard against any unlawful defection and issuing a whip directing its MPs to attend a meeting in Delhi on Thursday. Amid the escalating crisis, a group of rebel Shiv Sena (UBT) leaders is learnt to have met...

Uddhav faces another rebellion; decision today

Six Lok Sabha MPs trying to move away; picture may be clear at today’s Parliamentary party meeting in New Delhi AI generated image Mumbai: A cloak-and-dagger crisis engulfing the Uddhav Thackeray-led Shiv Sena has landed at the door of the Lok Sabha Speaker, with the party urging him to guard against any unlawful defection and issuing a whip directing its MPs to attend a meeting in Delhi on Thursday. Amid the escalating crisis, a group of rebel Shiv Sena (UBT) leaders is learnt to have met Speaker Om Birla informally on Wednesday, claiming the support of six of the party's nine MPs in the Lower House, sources said. Thursday's high-stakes meeting in Delhi will legally and physically define whether Uddhav Thackeray retains his parliamentary strength or faces another devastating party division, the third since Raj Thackeray split Shiv Sena in 2006. Sources in Sena (UBT) said the rival camp still doesn't have the support of six MPs. They claim two of the six rebels have reportedly changed their mind. In a swift counter-offensive to contain the damage, the party high command issued a mandatory three-line whip, summoning an emergency parliamentary party meeting in New Delhi on Thursday to force a physical showdown where the MPs will have to mark their presence physically. The developments triggered a day of high political drama in the national capital, marked by a furious, expletive-laden press conference by Raut, a reported counter-meeting by the rebel faction with Lok Sabha Speaker Birla, and sharp condemnation from the Congress. The internal fracture was visible at Sanjay Raut's press briefing, where only three other Lok Sabha MPs, Arvind Sawant, Anil Desai, and Rajabhau Waje, stood by him. The remaining six lawmakers were conspicuously absent; their exact whereabouts are unknown. The Sena (UBT) has nine MPs in the Lok Sabha, and at least two‑thirds of them would be required to form a separate group. Apart from Desai, Waje and Sawant, the other six MPs are Sanjay Patil, Sanjay Deshmukh, Omprakash Raje Nimbalkar, Bhausaheb Wakchaure, Nagesh Patil-Ashtikar and Sanjay Jadhav Not Reachable The six MPs stopped responding or became unavailable since Wednesday forenoon, after which the party stopped contacting them. They said when the party contacted Mumbai North East MP, Sanjay Dina Patil, he told party leaders that he was not with the rebel group. The party had asked them to submit a letter to the Lok Sabha Speaker, which he has not submitted so far. Later in the day, sources claimed that the group of six rebel lawmakers had privately met the Lok Sabha Speaker to claim a two-thirds majority in the Lower House, the precise threshold required to escape disqualification under the anti-defection law. Simultaneously, Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde, who split the undivided Shiv Sena in 2022, was reportedly camping in Delhi to oversee the operational layout of the defection of MPs. He returned to his home town Thane in Wednesday night. He is reportedly studying all the legal aspects before taking a final call before the party’s foundation day on Friday. Speaker’s Role Following reports of the rebels' move, a loyalist delegation consisting of Raut, Sawant, and Desai rushed to meet Speaker Birla to file a formal representation urging him to reject any unlawful group alignment. Desai argued that the legal provisions are strictly on the side of the original organisational structure. "Under the law, a splinter group cannot simply merge with another party on its own, even if they have two-thirds support. Only the original administrative party holds that right," Desai told reporters, adding that the Speaker assured them he would thoroughly examine every legal aspect before rendering a decision. The widening panic inside the party also triggered a public, familial disconnect involving missing Hingoli MP Nagesh Patil-Ashtikar. While the MP remained unreachable, his son, Krushna Patil Ashtikar, the MVA's official candidate for Thursday's Maharashtra Legislative Council elections, released a video statement strongly defending Uddhav Thackeray. "I am a Shiv Sainik of Uddhav Thackeray. There is no room for doubt when it comes to me," the younger Ashtikar stated.

The Comrade’s Contradictions

Updated: Feb 14, 2025

Kerala CM Pinarayi Vijayan’s eyebrow-raising volte-face on private universities is causing detractors and adherents to question whether the CPI(M) is shedding its Marxist dogma.

Marxist dogma
Kerala

Until recently, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)) would have considered private universities an abomination, a neoliberal Trojan horse ushering in capitalist decay. For a party that once wore its ideological purity as a badge of honour, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) is now embracing a shockingly contradictory stance on private universities in Kerala. Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan’s recent defence of the Private University Bill marks nothing short of an ideological whiplash.


Once a fierce opponent of higher education privatization, the CPI(M) is now the very architect of reforming the sector which is being seen by critics see as a departure from its Marxist roots and an unmistakable lurch toward neoliberalism.


At the CPI(M) Thrissur District Conference in Kunnamkulam, Vijayan framed the Bill as a necessary evolution, insisting that social justice would be the guiding principle. The legislation, he argued, is not a radical departure from Kerala’s public education model but an inevitable step forward, one that mirrors the policies of more than 20 Indian states. But for those with a long memory of CPI(M) politics, his justification rang hollow.


The party’s stance on private education has been, for decades, one of fierce resistance. The CPI(M)’s ideological opposition dates back to 1995 when it launched a blood-soaked agitation against the Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF) government’s proposal to establish a cooperative-sector medical college in Kannur. The protest culminated in the infamous Koothuparamba police firing, where five members of the party’s youth wing, the Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI), were killed. That tragedy became the rallying cry against the so-called privatization of education. One of the injured protestors, left bedridden for three decades, passed away only months before Vijayan’s government greenlit private universities.


A decade later, CPI(M) leaders decried the Congress government’s move to introduce self-financing engineering and medical colleges, branding it a ploy to commercialize education. When, in 2014, the UDF sought to grant autonomy to reputed arts and science colleges, the CPI(M) reacted with vitriol. The party’s student wing, the Students’ Federation of India (SFI), even went as far as physically attacking diplomat-turned-educationist T.P. Sreenivasan at a global education summit.


Given this history, Vijayan’s defence of private universities seems more like a calculated political pivot than a genuine ideological shift. And it is hardly the first instance of CPI(M) softening its ideological stance in the name of pragmatism. The party once opposed computerization, mechanization in agriculture, and even Asian Development Bank loans, only to eventually embrace them under Vijayan’s leadership. His tenure has been marked by a series of economic recalibrations, including Kerala’s entry into the international masala bond market and an openness to foreign investment.


In many ways, Vijayan’s decision reflects broader changes within the CPI(M). The party, once a bastion of Marxist orthodoxy, has been forced to acknowledge economic realities that demand adaptation. A dwindling student population in arts and science colleges, coupled with an exodus of students to private institutions in neighbouring states, has further exposed the limitations of an entirely state-controlled education system.


Yet, critics argue that the move is less about adaptation and more about survival. In shifting its economic and policy stance, the CPI(M) appears to be shedding its ideological rigidity in favour of electoral expediency. By controlling the entry of private universities rather than resisting them outright, the party ensures its continued influence over the education sector, albeit through regulation rather than outright ownership.


The UDF has wasted no time in highlighting this ideological U-turn, accusing the CPI(M) of hypocrisy.


To be sure, Vijayan’s strategy is not without merit. Private universities, if properly regulated, could help bridge the gap in Kerala’s higher education sector. But the larger question remains whether Vijayan is crafting a new, pragmatic CPI(M), or is he merely abandoning its ideological commitments for short-term gains?


Comments


bottom of page