Mumbai: Shiv Sena (UBT) chief Uddhav Thackeray has made a shocking and immature statement about Abhijeet Dipke, the founder of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) and one of the principal faces of the Jantar Mantar agitation.
In an interview with his party mouthpiece Saamana, speaking to Sanjay Raut ahead of the political mobilisation in Mumbai supporting the agitation, Thackeray described Dipke as an “avatar of Lord Vishnu” who had taken birth to save the country.
"Abhijeet Dipke is an Avatar of Bhagwan Vishnu" Uddhav Thackeray 😂😂😂 pic.twitter.com/JTecTBWyz9
— Tajinder Bagga (@TajinderBagga) July 28, 2026
“The youths who have joined the street protests and Jantar Mantar have been accompanied by their family elders. That means this (Abhijeet Dipke) is an avatar of Lord Vishnu who has taken birth to save the country,” Thackeray said.
The statement deserves more than a passing political reading.
Uddhav Thackeray’s ridiculous claim has triggered a barrage of angry responses.
विनाश काले विप्रीत बुद्धि, बाला सहिब् क्या ये आपका ही खून है❓
— Mannu_bhai (@chicky_mannu) July 28, 2026
When all else fails, there's always delusion 😂
— Pranavsinh (@Pranavsinh9) July 28, 2026
One X user handle certified the Thackeray-Raut duo as more insane than Congress leader Rahul Gandhi.
These two are even more insane than Rahul Gandhi.
— Gadi Srinivas Rao (@gadisri20) July 28, 2026
For Hindus, the word avatar has a specific and profoundly religious significance. Vishnu’s avatars are not simply admired personalities or political leaders whom one considers particularly effective.
The concept of avatar, or divine descent, occupies a central place in Sanatani Hindu theological thought and is associated with the restoration of dharma and the protection of cosmic and moral order.
To describe a contemporary rabble-rouser and a just hatched and quite obviously irresponsible political activist as an avatar of Lord Vishnu is therefore not merely colourful political rhetoric. It is an extraordinary appropriation of sacred Hindu vocabulary for a political purpose.
Vishnu’s avatars are not political metaphors
The Hindu concept of avatara cannot be reduced to the modern political meaning of a “saviour”.
The Bhagavad Gita articulates the principle of divine intervention in the world when dharma declines and adharma rises. Across Hindu traditions, Vishnu’s manifestations are understood within a sacred framework of preserving order, protecting righteousness and restoring dharma.
Bhagwan Ram and Bhagwan Krishna, among the most revered Vishnu avatars, are central not only to Hindu religious belief but to India’s civilisational memory, philosophy, literature, temple traditions and bhakti.
The Dashavatara tradition, with variations across different textual and sectarian traditions, includes Matsya, Kurma, Varaha, Narasimha, Vamana, Parashurama, Rama and Krishna, among others.
These figures cannot meaningfully be equated with contemporary political personalities merely because a politician wishes to praise them.
That is why Thackeray’s choice of language is so shocking to Hindus.
He could have described Dipke as a determined activist, an influential protest leader, a representative of young people or a political campaigner.
Instead, he invoked Vishnu. And not merely Vishnu. He described Dipke as an avatar who had been born to “save the country”. That is a remarkably exalted theological claim to attach to a contemporary political mobilisation.
The significance of Balasaheb Thackeray’s legacy
The statement assumes a particular significance because Uddhav Thackeray is the son of the late and iconic Balasaheb Thackeray, one of India’s most fearless and prominent political proponents of Hindutva.
Balasaheb did not treat Hindu identity as an incidental component of political rhetoric. Hindu pride, the assertion of Hindu identity and the protection of Hindu interests were central to the political vocabulary through which he built the Shiv Sena.
The Shiv Sena’s original political identity was unmistakably rooted in that worldview.
The political journey of the Uddhav Thackeray-led Shiv Sena (UBT), however, has been markedly different. Its alliances with Congress and other opposition forces have generated sustained debate over the extent to which the political organisation that Uddhav leads today represents the ideological inheritance of the Shiv Sena founded by his father.
This is why the Vishnu-avatar remark is particularly difficult to dismiss as an innocent flourish. You could say, it did not land well, it was a thud and a dud.
A leader whose political inheritance is inseparably connected with Hindu identity has chosen to use one of the most sacred concepts in Hindu iconography to confer extraordinary stature upon a contemporary protest leader whose political positioning and public rhetoric have often been articulated through an anti-Sanatan order framework.
The result is an uncomfortable contradiction.
The Dipke question
Abhijeet Dipke has publicly foregrounded an Ambedkarite identity, including the slogans “Jai Bheem” and “Blue is my colour” – as though Ambedkar was not a Sanatani Bharatiya.
Joke of the day 😭😭😭
Abhijeet Dipke is an Avatar of Vishnu
But question is he himself believes in god? He was laughing and clapping when anti god statement were given from Jantar Mantar pic.twitter.com/ClobIWy9BK
— Lala (@FabulasGuy) July 28, 2026
There is no inherent contradiction between being Dalit, identifying with Dr B.R. Ambedkar’s political thought and being Hindu. Hindu society itself contains an extraordinary diversity of communities, traditions and philosophical schools.
Nor should an assertion of Dalit identity automatically be construed as a rejection of Hinduism. The question here is different.
Dipke’s political identity has been presented in a framework that places considerable emphasis on caste identity rife with divisive and abusive politics. The contemporary Sanatani argument, by contrast, increasingly seeks to transcend caste divisions by emphasising a common Hindu civilisational identity.
The central proposition of that argument is that Hindu society cannot remain permanently divided into caste compartments and that its sacred inheritance belongs equally to all Hindus.
It is therefore legitimate to ask why Thackeray chose to place Dipke within the specific theological category of a Vishnu avatar.
Was this intended literally? Obviously, almost certainly not. Was it political hyperbole? He could offer that as the likely explanation. But if it was hyperbole, the question remains: why employ one of the most sacred concepts of Hindu theology as political hyperbole at all?
The Jaipur Dialogues reaction
The incongruity was immediately highlighted by critics on social media. An X post from The Jaipur Dialogues stated:
“Abhijeet Dipke is a Vishnu Avatar as per Uddhav Thackeray. So this Vishnu Avatar was ok with the abuses Hurled to Hindus and Maa Sita, Shei Ram? Waah Uddhav Bhau!”
Dipke has stood silent, or clapped in glee, or even expressed boisterous joy when several Sanatan Hindu Gods and figures were insulted during the longdrawn agitation at Jantar Mantar.
The final expression is social-media rhetoric and need not be adopted as the language of serious political commentary. The substantive question contained within the post, however, is significant.
If Thackeray wishes to invoke Vishnu and the concept of divine incarnation in order to elevate Dipke, then what standard of reverence does he apply to Hindu religious figures and Hindu religious sentiment elsewhere in the political environment surrounding this agitation?
The question becomes especially pertinent when one considers the controversies surrounding expressions directed at Lord Rama, Maa Sita and Hindu religious identity.
The issue is not whether a politician is entitled to support Dipke. He is.
Nor is the issue whether a political movement is entitled to challenge the government. It is.
The issue is whether sacred Hindu terminology is being deployed selectively, according to political convenience.
The Kunal Kamra controversy
This question also intersects with Uddhav Thackeray’s public position on comedian Kunal Kamra.
During the controversy surrounding Kamra’s remarks about Eknath Shinde, Thackeray defended the comedian’s right to use the term “gaddar” and argued that describing someone who had “stolen” as a traitor was not itself objectionable.
There is a legitimate democratic principle involved here. Political satire, criticism and even provocative speech must have space in a democracy. Politicians cannot reasonably demand immunity from ridicule.
But that principle must also be applied consistently.
The question raised by Hindu critics is what happens when the target of ridicule is not a politician but a Hindu deity.
What happens when Bhagwan Rama is mocked?
What happens when Maa Sita becomes the subject of offensive political or comedic expression?
Does the same commitment to sensitivity apply?
The concern is not that Hinduism should be exempt from criticism or satire. A democratic society cannot operate on such a principle.
The concern is that a political culture which is extremely alert to perceived insults against some communities can become remarkably dismissive when Hindu religious sentiment is involved.
That is the contradiction critics are pointing towards.
The ‘Hum Dekhenge’ controversy
Another episode associated with the wider protest environment has similarly raised questions about religious sensitivity.
A woman was seen singing Faiz Ahmed Faiz’s Hum Dekhenge, a poem that employs Islamic religious imagery and contains the well-known imagery of idols being removed and the declaration that only Allah’s name will remain.
CJP Protest started in the name of students but has now descended into "Hum Dekhenge" and "Bas naam rahega Allah ka."
The leftist's obsession with Faiz Ahmad Faiz’s radical poems, those promising to smash every idol and topple every throne, has suddenly awakened again.
What is… pic.twitter.com/BCOenoN2br
— OpIndia.com (@OpIndia_com) July 11, 2026
That imagery has generated controversy when Hum Dekhenge has been performed in Indian public spaces, particularly where the audience includes Hindus who understand references to idols and the ultimate survival of only Allah’s name through a different historical and religious lens.
And Hindus can legitimately find particular imagery in the poem uncomfortable when it is performed in a contemporary Indian political setting.
It is shocking that in his quest for thrusting pluralism down the Hindus’ throat, Thackeray also wants the tolerant lot to suspend their own cultural and religious sensitivities.
The controversy around Hum Dekhenge has often focused on the verses describing the removal of idols and the ultimate survival of Allah’s name.
Would the same interpretive generosity be extended to a poem performed at a political gathering that declared that all mosques or Islamic religious symbols would disappear and only the name of a Hindu deity would remain?
Would political commentators simply respond that the language was metaphorical and therefore beyond criticism?
Pluralism cannot mean that one community must endlessly explain why it should not be offended while everyone else is entitled to have its sensitivities recognised.
The food-order controversy
The debate surrounding Dipke has also been fuelled by screenshots circulated online and attributed to his former CJP colleague Vijeta Dahiya.
The screenshots have been presented as conversations involving food orders from outlets including KFC and Baskin Robbins during the period when Sonam Wangchuk was undertaking his prolonged fast at Jantar Mantar.
🚨 अभिजीत दीपके की पोल खुल रही है! 🚨
विजेता दहिया ने लीक किए उनके चैट्स…⁰प्रोटेस्ट साइट से खुद बाहर नहीं जाते क्योंकि “पॉलिटिकल इमेज खराब हो जाएगी”,
⁰लेकिन दूसरों को भेजकर CP से KFC के चिकन पॉपकॉर्न, नगेट्स और बास्किन रॉबिन्स आइसक्रीम मंगवाते हैं।विजिता के कार्ड से करीब 1… pic.twitter.com/eYJZcw0mVO
— Manoj Singh (@PracticalSpy) July 24, 2026
One exchange circulated on social media concerns an objection to ordering non-vegetarian animal meat food on a Tuesday, a day considered sacred by many devotees of Lord Hanuman.
The response attributed to Dipke was: “Arey yeh sab kaun manta hai bhai?”
While not every Hindu is obliged to observe the same dietary practices and Hindu traditions are diverse, many Hindus eat meat, there are many others who observe particular days as vegetarian or fasting days.
For the man – Dipke – who disregards the relevance and existence of Hindu Gods, Thackeray assigning the sacred designation of a Vishnu avatar cannot be more ridiculous and hurting to Hindus’ sentiments.
The question is not about food. It is about the meaning of the word “avatar”.
The politics behind the Jantar Mantar mobilisation
The real issue is exam fairness, especially NEET. Students deserve honest exams, and ministers must be accountable. Political protests on this are fine. But this movement had a clear political agenda. Opposition parties used it to attack the government and demand the Education Minister’s resignation. Uddhav Thackeray also joined in. Once it became political, its leaders and language are open to criticism.
“Born to save the country”
There is an important distinction between describing someone as an influential protest leader and describing him as a person who has been born to save the country.
The second formulation is explicitly messianic.
Thackeray did not merely say that Dipke had inspired young people. He did not merely say that Dipke represented a new generation. He placed him within the language of divine incarnation and national salvation. That is why the remark is so religiously insulting and insensitive.
If a BJP leader described a contemporary political activist as an avatar of a Hindu deity who had been born to save India, the political reaction would be immediate.
Opposition parties would accuse the leader of mixing religion with politics and cultivating a personality cult.
The same standard should apply here.
The fact that the person being elevated is aligned with an opposition political cause does not make the language less religious.
Hindu sacredness cannot be selective
A genuinely plural society recognises that people have sacred beliefs and that those beliefs have emotional, cultural and civilisational significance.
If Muslims object when the Prophet or Islamic religious symbols are mocked, that sensitivity deserves to be understood.
If Christians object when Jesus Christ or Christian symbols are mocked, that sensitivity deserves to be understood.
And when Hindus object to insults directed at their Gods and Goddesses – Rama, Sita, Krishna, Shiva, Durga, Hanuman or other sacred figures, that sensitivity deserves precisely the same recognition.
Politicians should not pretend that religious sentiment becomes legitimate only when it serves their political narrative.
What would Balasaheb Thackeray have made of this?
Uddhav Thackeray wears that he is the carrier and legitimate heir of the political and legitimate heir of the legacy and heritage of Balasaheb Thackeray.
The senior Thackeray was outspoken and fearlessly vociferous as well as unmistakably assertive about Hindu identity. He did not treat Hinduism as a rhetorical accessory to be brought out when electorally useful and put away when inconvenient.
The Shiv Sena he founded was built around a strong sense of Hindu and Marathi identity. The contemporary Shiv Sena (UBT) operates within a substantially different political arrangement.
Its critics have repeatedly accused it of diluting the Hindutva politics associated with Balasaheb. The political movement has moved away from much of the original ideological environment, yet the language of Hindu theology is suddenly being used to elevate a political ally.
If Hindu religious language is to be brought back into the political vocabulary, then it should be accompanied by a corresponding respect for Hindu religious sentiment.
