Thackeray’s Folly and Shinde’s Sena

WHEN THE SHIV SENA constitution, stat­ing that its national executive is the highest decision-making body and the leader is not the sole authority in party matters, was submitted to the Election Commission (EC) in 1999, hardly anyone in the Sena (or outside) would have considered that the provision would ever be put to test. Ever since he first led the Sena, Bal Thackeray (Balasaheb) was the unchallenged leader and it was inconceivable that he would not have the final word. There were instances of dissent but the rebels left the party for other destinations. It could be that they could oppose Balasaheb’s diktat. When he took a decision on the future of the Sena, Balasaheb chose son Uddhav over nephew Raj and this led to the formation of the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena in 2006. In their wildest imagination, Shiv Sainiks could not envisage a day when a majority of party MLAs would desert Matoshree. After all, could anyone equal the Thackeray lustre? And didn’t the bonds of loyalty to the Sena pramukh run deep?

All this changed on June 21, 2022 when Sena MLAs led by Eknath Shinde revolted against the leadership of Uddhav Thackeray and allied with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to bring down the Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government. Uddhav paid the price for being cut off from his party cadre and listening instead to partisan advice that ignored the sentiment of the Sena base. He also forgot that politics is a ruthless game and his erstwhile ally BJP was unlikely to for­give him for abandoning an alliance after having jointly contested the 2019 Assembly election where Sena candidates did not hesitate to cash in on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s popularity. Claims of a ‘deal’ for a rotating chief minis­tership were never established and there is no reason why BJP would have made such an offer. Through­out the 2019 campaign, BJP leader Devendra Fadnavis said he would be back as chief minister and he was not contradicted either by his own party or the Sena.

The issue of disqualification before Maharashtra Speaker Rahul Narvekar, while not divorced from political realities, was about which constitution of the Sena, and therefore the leadership structure, would be relevant in deciding “the real political party” as he put it. The Uddhav faction claimed that the constitution of 2018, which gave the paksha pramukh (party leader) overriding authority, needed to be taken into consideration. The fly in the ointment was that this consti­tution was never submitted to the EC. The Shinde faction argued that the 2018 document was manufactured after the 2022 party split. It was the 1999 constitution that was legitimate and its provisions needed to be taken into account to decide the claims of the rival Sena factions. Narvekar agreed in the absence of any evidence that the 2018 constitution had indeed been submitted to the EC. The view or the opinion of the party pramukh—and the council of leaders—would be applicable in settling the question as to which faction had the right to be treated as the real Shiv Sena.

Having decided the matter of the party constitution, Narvekar needed to satisfy himself whether the Shinde camp was in violation of the Tenth Schedule that sets out conditions for disqualification. The Schedule states that disqualification will not arise in the case of a merger with another political party which is backed by two-thirds of the legisla­tive party. This would be in the case of a merger, a new political party that results from such a develop­ment, or for those who have not accepted such a merger and chose to function as a separate group. In the Sena case, 40 of 56 MLAs left, more than fulfilling the two-thirds requirement. As per the Tenth Schedule, neither the breakaway majority nor the rump faces disqualification. (Incidentally, the Shinde faction didn’t petition for the disqualification of two MLAs in the Uddhav camp, Aaditya Thackeray and Rutuja Latke, as political courtesy. Thus, the Uddhav camp retains 16 MLAs.) But the Shinde faction will henceforth be the ‘real’ Shiv Sena, a hard blow to bear for Uddhav and the Thackeray family. With EC having allotted the name and the bow and arrow symbol to the Shinde faction, the Sena legacy has all but slipped out of the hands of the Thackerays.

The speaker’s ruling is, however, unlikely to provide qui­etus to the case. The Uddhav faction approached the Supreme Court ahead of Narvekar’s delivering his verdict on January 10, arguing that the “judge” cannot meet an “accused”. Narvekar’s order was met with withering sarcasm in an edito­rial in the Sena mouthpiece Saamana, controlled by the Uddhav faction, which said the Shinde faction was born through BJP’s “test tube baby experiment”. But as things stand, Uddhav and his supporters can only fulminate. They may pick holes with the nitty-gritty of the speaker’s order but will find it difficult to escape the consequences of political decisions since Balasaheb died in 2012. Just months ahead of the Lok Sabha polls, Uddhav’s Sena finds itself deprived of party name and symbol, weakening its seat bargaining with Congress and the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP). Congress may tut-tut over Uddhav’s predicament but is not likely to be accommodating at the negotiation table.

Given the general reluctance of courts to step into the speaker’s domain, the prospect of relief is slim. A reading of Narvekar’s order shows he had dealt with the major legal and constitutional issues and it will not be easy to mount a challenge with any hope of success. The ruling is only likely to deepen the angst of many Shiv Sainiks (workers) who are riven by events. On the one hand lies the emotional connect with the Thackeray family and on the other the calamitous fallout of decisions that flew against that legacy and tradition. In the worst of circumstances, Sainiks could not have envi­sioned they would be in the same corner as Congress and NCP given how different the Sena’s political beliefs are. The turn of events has seen Uddhav and his associates target BJP as Enemy No 1, giving rise to contradictions at every step, whether about the legacy of Hindutva icon Vinayak Damodar ‘Veer’ Savarkar or the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya where it is totally at odds with its current partners.

During his lifetime, Balasaheb had refused to succumb to the temptation of becoming chief minister even though the Sena was the senior in the alliance with BJP. He appointed a Sena leader of his choice and ruled from the comfort of his home. Uddhav chose to strike what proved a Faustian deal, sup­ping with the enemy to spite BJP. The argument that the Sena would be forever condemned to playing a supporting role if BJP were to again head the state after the 2019 election might have seemed persuasive but was in fact beguiling. It not only flew in the face of political morality but in succumbing to the entice­ment of becoming chief minister, Uddhav did not fathom the extent of his folly. He would not be the first leader to have failed to recognise the strength Brand BJP has acquired under Prime Minister Modi.

Eknath ShindeElection CommissionMaharashtrapoliticsShiv SenaUddhav Thackeray