In Maharashtra, BJP tries to play down Sena’s role in Hindutva history
Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray’s targeted and unfiltered speech during the 96th birth anniversary of Shiv Sena founder (and his father) late Bal Thackeray last Sunday seems to have touched a nerve with the BJP. The Sena chief did not mince words and accused the BJP of “using” Hindutva for political mileage, and made it clear that his party had distanced itself from the BJP — and not the saffron ideology.
The very next day Leader of Opposition (and Thackeray’s predecessor as chief minister) Devendra Fadnavis held a press conference in Mumbai. In a riposte to his former ally, he questioned how many sainiks had participated in the Ram Janmabhoomi movement of 1992. “We were the ones who took bullets and lathis in the movement. Your [Shiv Sena’s] Hindutva is only on paper,” he said.
The demolition of Babri Masjid in Ayodhya by Hindu right-wingers was a turning point in Indian history; the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, which popularised the idea that the mosque had been built at the birthplace of Lord Ram, led to the rise of the BJP. At the same time, the movement was also significant for Thackeray Sr’s Shiv Sena.
The saffron alliance between the two parties remained strong, albeit not without tensions, from the 1980s up until the 2019 Maharashtra assembly election. In 2019 the BJP emerged as the single-largest party, but the Sena ended up joining hands with Sharad Pawar’s NCP and its (the Sena’s) nemesis in Maharashtra, the Congress, to form the Maha Vikas Aghadi coalition that now governs the state. The Sena claims that it broke ties with the BJP after the November 2019 general election because a promise of sharing the chief ministers’ berth was not being honoured by the BJP. Thus, the once radical Sena, which had built its reputation on the “sons of the soil” and “Marathi manoos” issues of the ’60s and ’70s, ended up quitting its longstanding position as a member of the NDA and joined a sub-section of the UPA.
Also read: What’s behind Sena’s newfound bonhomie with Congress?
The ideology that once brought the parties together is now seen as a cause of divide, with both the Sena and BJP claiming that their brand of Hindutva is more hardcore than the other’s.
Fadnavis’ criticism of the Sena over the latter’s involvement, or rather lack of it, in Hindutva causes like the Ram Janmabhoomi matter seems to be forcing the Sena to do two things: first, assert that it still believes in Hindutva as its core ideology — something that may not sit well with its secular coalition partners — and secondly, to establish that its brand of Hindutva is “different” from that of the BJP’s.
It is likely that the ex-chief minister got his facts wrong about sainiks not having done their due diligence when it came to kar seva for the Ram Janmabhoomi movement. After all, there is barely any room for debate or doubt as to the Sena’s role in the demolition of the Babri Masjid. The first charge sheet filed by the CBI a year after the demolition named a total of 48 people in it. Of these, eight were associated with the Sena — including Bal Thackeray.
But by undermining the Sena’s contribution to what was a watershed moment in Indian (and Hindutva) politics, Fadnavis is forcing the Sena to publicly acknowledge — and reinforce — its Hindutva-driven past, which in turn puts the party in a tricky spot with its coalition partners. It is a calculated move, aimed at changing the public perception of the Sena from a radical, Hindutva-driven outfit, to a slightly more accommodating organisation.
Sena leader and four-time ex-MP from Aurangabad, Chandrakant Khaire, told The Federal that he was one of the people who had touched Lord Ram’s idol that is now inside the temple. “It is rubbish that the Shiv Sena has left behind its Hindutva ideology,” he said. “We fought the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation election of 1988 on the basis of Hindutva. At the time, senior BJP leaders did not want to form an alliance with us because they were scared of endorsing the Hindutva ideology. They said, ‘Yeh Hindutva ka ghar hai’ (This is the home of Hindutva). After Balasaheb and other senior Shiv Sena leaders came and campaigned in Aurangabad that year, we emerged as the single-largest party. Since then, the Shiv Sena has been consistently winning in Aurangabad based on our Hindutva ideology.”
According to Khaire, Bal Thackeray had always maintained in talks with senior BJP functionaries, such as the late Pramod Mahajan, that the Sena had only one cause – Hindutva – and that the two parties could come together based on their common ideology. But apart from that, their policies were different.
Khaire recalled the moment when, in 1992, he, along with a few other sainiks, went to meet Bal Thackeray and Manohar Joshi to announce their intent to go for kar seva to Ayodhya. “Balasaheb Thackeray ji gave us his blessing at the time and told us: ‘Ram ke mandir ka nirmaan karne ke like shubh aarambh karo (Prepare for the auspicious creation of a Ram Temple),’” Khaire said. “We were stopped by the police in Allahabad and not allowed to leave the city and go towards Ayodhya. But when we got the news that the dome had fallen, we started bursting crackers that night, and then left for Ayodhya by flight the very next day. We reached at 9.30pm and performed kar seva till 3.30am. There were at least 25,000 sainiks who had come to Ayodhya from Gujarat, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi at the time.”
Asked what he thought about Fadnavis decision to question the Sena’s credentials and the party cadres’ role in the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, Khaire said: “The more Devendra ji talks, the more he is spoiling his own image. When Babri Masjid was demolished, no one came forward to take responsibility. But the Shiv Sena acknowledged its participation. Balasaheb Thackeray had even said that if it indeed were sainiks who had brought the mosque down, then he was proud of them.”
In fact, after the demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992, Sunder Singh Bhandari, a prominent BJP leader at the time, had even tried to pin the entire blame on the Sena.
A Different, But Strong Hindutva
“Our Hindutva has not become weaker. It is the BJP’s Hindutva ideology that has changed. Our Hindutva is different: it is not about attacking anyone’s religion —unless and until they attack us first. Even Balasaheb Thackeray believed so. Uddhav ji and all of us in the Sena are 100 per cent Hindutva and we will keep working for the cause of development,” Khaire said.
Also read: Sharp U-turns and subtle flexes that mark the Param Bir Singh saga
“The Maha Vikas Aghadi is only for development. It is only for vikas. It is not about Hindutva — Hindutva remains ours. Our symbol is the bow and arrow; Lord Ram had a dhanush in his hands. That is why I say that the Shiv Sena will never leave Hindutva.”
Political scientist Sandeep Shastri said there was a need to understand the context of the current BJP-Shiv Sena equation at the Maharashtra level. “When two partners separate, the acrimony and bitterness — about either having been together, or parting — comes into play, and a lot of what is said is shadow boxing for expressing bitterness,” he said.
“If you look at Bal Thackeray’s political trajectory, you will notice that at different points in his career, he focused on different issues. He began with the ‘Marathi manoos’ issue, then went on to champion the cause of Mumbai and Mumbaikars, and then moved on to a Hindutva agenda, which then became a prime factor throughout his political tenure, although the intensity of it varied.”
He added: “However, it is important to remember that when he [Thackeray] started advocating for Hindutva is when the Shiv Sena and BJP saw a meeting of minds and came together. Today, they both want to accuse each other of what they stood for.”
