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.

Twisting History

In an audacious display of historical revisionism, Pakistan has not only sought to deny Bhagat Singh his rightful place in history but has also taken the extraordinary step of branding him a ‘terrorist.’ This comes despite Singh’s widely acknowledged status as one of India’s greatest freedom fighters and a revolutionary martyr. Bhagat Singh was hanged by the British colonial government in Lahore Central Jail 1931 at the age of 23, but now, the authorities in Pakistan have chosen to brand him a criminal, a designation that is as inaccurate as it is offensive.


This attempt to undermine Singh’s legacy comes with the scrapping of a proposed plan to rename Shadman Chowk in Lahore after him and install his statue there. The proposal was halted in response to the views of a retired Commodore Tariq Majeed, a member of the committee set up by the Lahore district government to oversee the renaming. Majeed’s objections were both insulting and historically inaccurate, claiming that Bhagat Singh was not a revolutionary but a “criminal,” and that in today’s terms, he would be considered a “terrorist.” Singh, according to Majeed, had killed a British police officer and was therefore deserving of execution - an interpretation that gravely distorts the very nature of Singh’s sacrifice.


Majeed’s report went further, alleging that Singh was influenced by “religious leaders hostile to Muslims” and accusing the Bhagat Singh Foundation of promoting an ideology contrary to Islamic values. He also claimed that it was not acceptable in Pakistan to honour a figure who was an atheist, and that human statues, in line with Islamic prohibitions, should not be allowed. The fact that these views were taken seriously by the Lahore government shows not only a deep-seated bias but an active effort to erase Bhagat Singh’s place in history.


This revisionist narrative is an affront to the principles of justice and history. Bhagat Singh’s actions were rooted in a deep sense of nationalistic fervour and a commitment to ending colonial oppression, not religious or ideological extremism. His bomb attack on the Central Legislative Assembly in Delhi was intended as a protest against British imperialism, not an act of indiscriminate violence. It was an expression of defiance against the tyranny of colonial rule, not the terror of an insurgent group.


What makes this revisionism even more glaring is the hypocrisy of Pakistan itself, a nation with a long and documented history of sponsoring terrorism. From providing safe havens to groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, to orchestrating violence in Kashmir and Afghanistan, Pakistan has long used terrorism as a tool of statecraft. To then turn around and condemn Bhagat Singh - who fought to free his people from colonial oppression - is not only absurd but deeply insulting.


External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and the Indian government must respond firmly. Singh’s stature as a revolutionary icon is unquestionable, and India must not allow this travesty to go unchallenged.

Comments

bottom of page