Shiv Sena Crisis: Lesson for dynastic politics

Thackeray minus Shiv Sena or Shiv Sena minus Thackeray is not unexpected. It was bound to happen. It cannot be merely treated as yet another split in a political party but needs to be seen on a bigger canvas. This canvas provides the background of dynastic politics, a major shortcoming of India polity.

Dynastic politics essentially turns into dictatorship and strangulates democratic values. Dynastic politics is a new manifestation of feudalism in modern democracy. In dynastic politics, larger public interests are overpowered by family interests, which is absolutely undesirable for healthy democracy. Thackerays miserably failed to take note of changing mindset and aspirations of Indians, including their own supporters, who were once ready to face any hardships for the party.

Indians are no more in mood to tolerate dynastic politics. They have rejected national/regional family run dynastic parties when had better option

Eaknath Shinde episode has to be seen against the backdrop of few incidents, involving 56-year-old Shiv Sena. This is not the first split in the party. Sena has experienced three major splits in the past and two of them were directly related with Uddhav. Shinde is the fourth such case. The only difference is that earlier splits took place when Sena was in opposition while the current incident occurred when Sena was in power.

Sena suffered first major jolt when Chhagan Bhujbal left the party along with 18 MLAs in 1991.

Bhujbal, considered as an OBC face of the party, was mainly unhappy with party’s position on implementation of Mandal Commission report. Bhujbal, now in Pawar’s NCP, later emerged as a strong advocate of OBC politics in Maharashtra. Sena again faced similar situation when former chief minister Narayan Rane left the party with 12 MLAs. Rane had major grudge against Uddhav. He felt that Uddhav was nursing ambition of becoming chief minister and was side-lined as Uddhav considered him as potential threat.

In 2006, Sena received the most severe blow when Balasaheb’s nephew and Uddav’s cousin brother – Raj – floated his own political party – Maharashtra Navnirman Sena. Pointing finger at Uddhav, Raj Thackeray had then said his fight was not with the Sena leadership, but with those surrounding Balasaheb. Raj’s decision to depart with his uncle was a rude shock for Sena cadre as he was being seen as a natural successor of Balasaheb.

Fact cannot be neglected that all three splits took place when Balasaheb was alive and had undisputable control over the party. Seeds of current situation were sown in 2003, when Balasaheb picked up Uddhav as his political heir. Uddhav was appointed as working president of the party, neglecting Raj. Uddhav was anointed even though he was keeping low profile and had demonstrated hardly any interest in robust Sena politics. Several senior Sena leaders admit in private that Uddhav was never accepted as party chief by the cadre but remained loyal thanks to their unflinching and blind loyalty to Balasaheb.

And now Uddhav is facing the worst crisis. In Uddhav’s words, current situation was worse than the situation after Balasaheb’s demise. Shinde episode is the explosion of strong resentment, which remained suppressed for two decades. While Uddhav’s leadership was half-heartedly accepted by Sena cadre, Aditya was launched into politics and became heir apparent. Deviating from Balasaheb’s legacy to stay away from any formal political position, Uddhav and Aditya entered into electoral politics, eroding moral sanctity of Thackeray family. Additionally, interreference of Thackeray family and their relatives into party and government affairs proved as last straw on the camel’s back. Current pitiable situation of Thackeray has to be seen against this backdrop. Revolt against Uddhav was inevitable. It was merely a matter of time. Sena was plagued with all the shortcomings of dynastic and family run political party.

Some observations by Election Commission of India (ECI) underline all these faults. ECI, in its order, has pointed at absence of democratic internal structure in Shiv Sena. The order has even remarked about undemocratic appointment of people from a coterie, expressing displeasure on certain amendments in party constitution, giving blanket rights to party leader to appoint office bearers.

As anticipated, Uddhav Thackeray has refused to wake up to the current situation. He believes that his father’s legacy and Thackeray charisma would help him to stage a comeback. His statements do not show any signs that he was ready to come out of Matoshree. The most challenging task for Uddhav Thackeray is to convince voters why he broke alliance with BJP and opted to go with Congress and NCP, which are always perceived as anti-Hindu by the voters. Thackeray will have to explain voters’ perception that Uddhav departed from BJP for the sake of chief ministership and power. It will be tough for Uddhav camp to provide any ideological and logical reason for its decision. BJP has already launched aggressive campaign against Uddhav Thackeray, describing him as anti-Hindu. BJP campaign will get further boost if Uddhav joins national level anti-BJP alliance of TMC, DMK, SP, JD (U) and others.

As against this, Eaknath Shinde has been continuously saying that he would follow the Balasaheb’s path of Hindutva. Shinde has been saying that Uddhav had made serious compromise with Balasaheb’s ideology by joining hands with Congress and NCP. He is also saying that BJP-Sena was a natural alliance, cemented by Hindutva. Uddhav’s argument that BJP betrayed over the post of chief ministership, is perceived very weak.

Eaknath Shinde’s decision to join back with BJP, thus provides him high ideological and moral ground of Hindutva.

To add to Uddhav’s woes, his new found friends – NCP and Congress – have not demonstrated much concern over the recent developments. Sena has lost its bargaining power to negotiate seat sharing with Congress and NCP. It has lost its earlier shine and strength. It will not be surprising if both the parties would prefer weak Uddhav as it would create fresh and new space in Maharashtra politics. Uddhav Thackeray, thus, is left with no option but to play victim card and invoke Marathi sentiment. But Thackeray is not the only family, calling shots in Maharashtra. Three generations of Pawar family are active in politics. While a few other states have one regional party of a family, Maharashtra has two such families.

Indians are no more in mood to tolerate dynastic politics. They have rejected national/regional family run dynastic parties when had better option. The biggest challenge for Uddhav is to reach people with new name and symbol when with weak party organization. Shinde episode has seriously exposed Uddhav’s leadership limitations. Mere blame game, accompanied by screaming and shouting is unlikely to help Uddhav for political survival. But Uddhav still continues to be dominated by the same coterie. Few months back, the same coterie projected Uddhav as a new face of anti-BJP national level alliance. Now he is facing the worst political crisis for survival. Sycophancy is unavoidable element of dynastic politics. Uddhav has paid heavy price for it.