 |
|
The political landscape of Maharashtra witnessed a significant shift as estranged cousins Uddhav Thackeray, chief of Shiv Sena (UBT), and Raj Thackeray, president of Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS), shared a public platform for the first time in two decades. This reunion signaled a potential realignment of political forces in the state, primarily driven by a shared concern over what they perceived as the BJP-led Mahayuti government's attempt to undermine Marathi identity through the imposition of Hindi in primary schools. The joint rally, held at Mumbai's National Sports Club of India in Worli, was strategically framed as a demonstration of unity for Marathi pride and identity, resonating with a powerful sense of regionalism that has historically played a crucial role in Maharashtra's politics. The Thackeray cousins directed their criticism towards Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, with Raj sarcastically remarking that Fadnavis had achieved what even Balasaheb Thackeray, the revered founder of Shiv Sena, could not – the reunification of the Thackeray family, at least in the political arena. Uddhav, on his part, further fueled speculation about a potential alliance between the Sena (UBT) and the MNS in the near future, emphasizing their commitment to staying united. The rally served as a platform to celebrate the revocation of two Government Resolutions (GRs) that had mandated Hindi for Classes 1 to 5 or made it optional, a move that both the Sena (UBT) and the MNS had vehemently opposed, characterizing it as an unwarranted imposition of the language. The gathering was intentionally branded as a “non-political and all-party” event, underscored by the absence of party flags or banners on the stage backdrop. Instead, a map of Maharashtra served as the central visual, reinforcing the unifying theme of Marathi identity, language, and pride. While several Opposition leaders, including Supriya Sule and Jitendra Awhad from the NCP(SP), were present at the event, only Uddhav and Raj Thackeray addressed the crowd, highlighting their central role in this renewed political alignment. The significance of this event extends beyond the immediate issue of language policy. It reflects a deeper anxiety among Marathi-speaking communities about the erosion of their cultural and linguistic identity in the face of increasing national integration and the perceived dominance of Hindi. The Thackerays, known for their ability to tap into this sentiment, are strategically positioning themselves as the protectors of Marathi pride, potentially attracting a significant segment of the electorate. The BJP, on the other hand, faces the challenge of navigating this complex political landscape. While it seeks to promote national unity and Hindi as a unifying language, it must also be mindful of the sensitivities of regional communities. The imposition of Hindi, even if unintentional, can be perceived as a threat to local languages and cultures, leading to resentment and political backlash. The Thackerays are adept at exploiting such sentiments to consolidate their political base and challenge the BJP's dominance in Maharashtra.
Raj Thackeray's address to the gathering was particularly fiery, accusing the BJP of using the three-language formula as a political tool rather than for genuine educational reform. He alleged that the BJP was subtly testing the waters to determine whether Mumbai, the economic capital of India, could be separated from Maharashtra, a claim that resonates with anxieties about the state's territorial integrity and economic autonomy. Raj argued that the BJP's attempt to impose Hindi was a calculated move to weaken Marathi influence in Mumbai, paving the way for its potential separation from the state. He emphasized the power of the Marathi people and their ability to resist such attempts, citing the withdrawal of the GRs as a testament to their collective strength. Raj further questioned the need for Hindi, pointing out that the three-language formula was originally intended for Centre-state coordination and that even the National Education Policy (NEP) does not mandate it. He argued that the BJP was experimenting in Maharashtra because the southern states, known for their strong regional identities, would not tolerate such imposition. He also highlighted the irony of Hindi-speaking states being economically backward while non-Hindi-speaking states are generally more prosperous, questioning the rationale behind forcing the latter to learn Hindi. Raj clarified that his opposition was not against Hindi per se, but against its imposition at the expense of regional languages. He framed the issue as a power struggle, with the BJP attempting to weaken Marathi in order to isolate Mumbai from the rest of Maharashtra. Raj's speech also addressed a recent incident in which MNS workers had thrashed a shopkeeper in Thane for not speaking Marathi. While defending the sentiment behind the action, he cautioned against violence and urged supporters to be discreet in their actions. This seemingly contradictory stance reflects the complex and often ambiguous nature of regionalist politics, where expressions of cultural pride can sometimes border on intolerance. Raj concluded his speech with a warning, urging the Marathi people to remain vigilant against the BJP's attempts to divide them along caste and religious lines. He emphasized the need to maintain unity for Marathi pride and to fulfill the dream of Balasaheb Thackeray, suggesting a continuity of ideology and political purpose. This call for unity resonates with a broader historical narrative of Marathi identity formation, which has often been characterized by a sense of shared cultural heritage and resistance against perceived external threats.
Echoing Raj's sentiments, Uddhav Thackeray praised his cousin for taking a clear and principled stand. He emphasized that the unity between them was grounded in ideology and that their coming together was not merely a political convenience but a long-term commitment. Uddhav also launched a scathing attack on Shiv Sena chief and Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde, who had raised the slogan “Jai Gujarat” during a recent event in Pune attended by Union Home Minister Amit Shah. He accused Shinde of bowing down to the BJP and the Centre, betraying the interests of Maharashtra in the process. Uddhav reiterated Raj's concerns about the imposition of Hindi, highlighting the importance of their joint appearance as a symbol of their unity and shared purpose. He then turned his attention to the BJP, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and Shinde, accusing them of using divisive tactics and undermining Maharashtra's interests. He invoked the historical struggle for Mumbai, emphasizing that it was earned through the blood of Marathi people. He questioned the BJP's claim of being Marathi, suggesting that their actions betrayed a lack of genuine commitment to the state's interests. Uddhav drew a parallel with the Samyukta Maharashtra movement, noting that the Jana Sangh, the precursor to the BJP, had only played a marginal role in the struggle for a Marathi state. He accused the BJP of selling off Mumbai to corporate giants like Adani, questioning whether the Marathi people were simply expected to stand by and watch their city being dismantled. Uddhav also addressed speculations about his alliance with Raj, dismissing rumors that they were only coming together for the upcoming municipal corporation elections. He clarified that their “M” stood not just for the municipality but for Maharashtra, emphasizing their broader commitment to the state's welfare. He accused the BJP of engaging in “use and throw” politics, suggesting that both he and Raj had experienced its manipulative tactics. He declared that they were now going to throw the BJP out of power, together. Uddhav concluded his speech by urging the Marathi people to rise above caste and politics, calling for unity in the spirit of the Samyukta Maharashtra movement. He emphasized the need to forget old divisions and stand together for their language, identity, and Maharashtra. The Samyukta Maharashtra movement, which successfully campaigned for the inclusion of Mumbai in Maharashtra, serves as a powerful historical reference point, invoking a sense of collective struggle and shared identity. The movement's focus on unity and resistance resonates with the current political climate, where the Thackerays are seeking to mobilize Marathi sentiment against the perceived dominance of the BJP and the Centre. The reunion of the Thackeray cousins and their joint rally represent a significant development in Maharashtra politics. It signals a potential realignment of political forces and a renewed focus on regional identity. The BJP, on the other hand, faces the challenge of navigating these complex dynamics and addressing the concerns of Marathi-speaking communities. The outcome of this political contest will have a profound impact on the future of Maharashtra and its relationship with the rest of India.