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.

Trophy Snub

In the realm of cricket diplomacy, certain gestures carry symbolic weight. The Border-Gavaskar Trophy, named after two cricketing titans, symbolizes the storied rivalry and camaraderie between Australia and India. Yet, Cricket Australia’s (CA) handling of the trophy presentation in Sydney displayed a glaring lack of tact. While Allan Border was invited to present the trophy to Australia’s victorious captain, Pat Cummins, Sunil Gavaskar, his Indian counterpart in the eponymous trophy, was relegated to the boundary ropes. It was a slight that, despite an apology from CA, continues to reverberate as an unnecessary insult to one of cricket’s greatest ambassadors.


Gavaskar, the original ‘Little Master’ and one of cricket’s finest batsmen, has long been the face of Indian cricket’s ascension to global relevance. His displeasure was restrained yet poignant. His sentiment was not rooted in ego but in principle. The Border-Gavaskar Trophy represents a bilateral contest, and the presence of both namesakes during the presentation should have been non-negotiable, irrespective of the match outcome.


CA’s explanation—that only one of the legends would present the trophy depending on the winner—was as ill-conceived as it was patronizing. Even as record crowds thronged the series, reflecting the growing stature of this rivalry, the presentation ceremony betrayed a lack of cultural sensitivity. While CA eventually conceded that it would have been preferable if both Border and Gavaskar had been asked to go on stage, this afterthought could hardly undo the damage.


This is not the first time Australian cricket has been accused of crossing the line from assertiveness into arrogance. The 2006 Champions Trophy ceremony in Mumbai remains a blot on its record. Then, Australian players, led by Ricky Ponting, infamously pushed Sharad Pawar, the then BCCI president, off the dais in their haste to celebrate.


While one might argue that the trophy snub in Sydney pales in comparison, its symbolism is no less damaging. The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), the financial behemoth of world cricket, has remained surprisingly quiet. Given that the BCCI’s influence at the International Cricket Council (ICC) is unparalleled, it must lodge a formal complaint or demand clarity on the protocols surrounding such events.


Cricket is more than just a game. It is a medium for fostering goodwill and mutual respect between nations. The Border-Gavaskar Trophy, in particular, celebrates the intertwining histories of two cricketing powerhouses. Moments like the presentation ceremony are meant to honour not just the victors but also the heritage and individuals that make the contest significant.


Gavaskar’s presence at the Sydney Cricket Ground was an opportunity to underscore this heritage. His exclusion, however inadvertent, undermined the spirit of the occasion. The Gavaskar snub is a reminder that in an era where the sport is increasingly shaped by commercial imperatives, moments that honour its rich history must not be compromised. Gavaskar, as a contemporary of cricket’s golden era and a commentator of global renown, deserves better.

Comments

bottom of page