Uddhav’s Strategic Move or Political Harakiri?

By opposing the Bill, the Shiv Sena (UBT) is betting on Muslim consolidation ahead of the BMC polls at the risk of alienating its Hindutva base.

The recent passage of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha has ignited a political storm. One of the most vocal opponents in Maharashtra and a key player in the national Hindutva discourse is Uddhav Thackeray’s Shiv Sena (UBT). The Sena (UBT)’s stance has sparked debates about its political strategy, especially in light of its recent electoral challenges.

Predictably, its fiercest political detractors like the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena have lambasted the Sena (UBT) of abandoning its Hindutva roots in favour of appeasement politics.

The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, introduces significant changes to the management of Waqf properties, which are endowments made by Muslims for religious or charitable purposes.

Chief among the reforms is the inclusion of non-Muslim members in state Waqf boards – a move that, according to the government, promotes institutional diversity and transparency. For decades, Waqf boards have operated as insular, self-regulating bodies, managing vast tracts of endowed land, much of it lying fallow, mismanaged or embroiled in dispute. By widening the composition of these boards, the government hopes to bring accountability to an otherwise opaque system.

The second major provision grants the government enhanced authority to verify Waqf land ownership and intervene in cases of suspected encroachment or malpractice. The aim, according to the bill’s proponents, is to curb corruption, deter political patronage, and ensure that Waqf properties serve their intended beneficiaries, rather than private or political interests.

However, critics contend that the bill undermines minority rights and could lead to the appropriation of Muslim religious properties.

A crucial moment in the debate was UBT’s decision to vote against the bill without proposing amendments. UBT MP Arvind Sawant framed the legislation not as a corrective to institutional failure, but as a Trojan horse. In his telling, the bill would enable the central government to systematically transfer valuable Waqf lands in politically sensitive regions like Maharashtra, Kashmir and Manipur into the hands of select industrialists close to the ruling party.

In the Rajya Sabha, Sanjay Raut, the Sena (UBT)’s combative spokesperson, struck a similar note of indignation. But the intervention drew a strong rebuke from Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) leader Praful Patel, who reminded Raut that Balasaheb Thackeray, Uddhav’s father and the founder of the Shiv Sena, had once taken uncompromising positions on the need for transparency and reform within religious institutions, including Waqf boards.

At a press conference held soon after the Lok Sabha vote, Thackeray sought to clarify his position. He was not, he insisted, opposed to reform per se but against the BJP’s alleged intentions behind it.

Thackeray took care to invoke his father’s legacy as a counterbalance to accusations of hypocrisy. Balasaheb, he reminded the media, had never harbored animus toward patriotic Muslims, and had collaborated with Muslim leaders when it served the broader interests of Maharashtra.

Immediately after Uddhav’s press briefing, Deputy Chief Minister and Shiv Sena leader Eknath Shinde slammed UBT for opposing the bill, calling the party’s stance “confused.” BJP state president Chandrashekar Bawankule accused UBT of pandering to a particular vote bank, particularly with the upcoming Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) elections in mind. According to Sena leader Naresh Mhaske, the Sena (UBT)’s stance was motivated not by a principled defence of Waqf institutions, but by the arithmetic of Muslim votes in urban Maharashtra.

The Sena (UBT)’s stance has elicited mixed responses from within the Muslim community. While some interpreted the party’s opposition as a welcome defence of minority rights in the face of growing state oversight, others appeared less convinced. A small but pointed protest took place outside Thackeray’s residence, Matoshree, where demonstrators expressed dismay over the absence of UBT MPs during the initial tabling of the bill in the Lok Sabha.

The episode underscores the delicate balancing act the Sena (UBT) must now perform. The party, long associated with a strident form of Marathi-Hindutva politics under Balasaheb, is attempting a strategic recalibration. By opposing the Waqf bill, it risks alienating its traditional core steeped in the legacy of Hindu majoritarianism but may win favour with Muslim voters, particularly in urban constituencies.

For the Sena (UBT), this stance presents both a political opportunity and a strategic hazard. On one hand, it could bolster its standing among Muslims, who may interpret the party’s stance as a rare show of solidarity in an otherwise polarised environment. On the other, it risks being portrayed as inconsistent and opportunistic, a party abandoning its ideological moorings for short-term electoral gains.

The BMC elections are expected to serve as a litmus test for the relative strength of Maharashtra’s rival Shiv Sena factions.

Crafting a narrative that resonates across constituencies - Hindu and Muslim, Marathi and cosmopolitan - will be no easy feat for Uddhav’s beleaguered Sena (UBT). It must persuade its base that its opposition to the bill is rooted not in appeasement, but in a principled stance against potential land misappropriation. Simultaneously, it must convince sceptics within the minority community that its defence of Waqf properties is more than electoral theatre.

In effect, the party is engaged in a delicate rebranding exercise in seeking to occupy a centrist space that honours its past while accommodating new demographic and political realities.

(The author is a political observer. Views personal.)