Tag: Maharashtra coalition

NPR, Bhima Koregaon Case Sow First Seeds of Difference Within Maha Vikas Aghadi

Until now, the coalition partners have so far ensured that any disagreement between the three does not get out of hand.

Differences between the partners in the Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi government in the state have emerged over two recent decisions taken by chief minister Uddhav Thackeray.

Though criticism by the partners has remained subdued, the Nationalist Congress Party has left no doubt that it is unhappy with Thackeray’s moves.

Though all the three partners have been keen to proclaim publicly that there is no rift, or any danger to the coalition, both the Congress and the NCP have been getting restive at the Shiv Sena’s initiatives on key issues, on all of which the others have strong opinions.

The NCP and Congress are firmly opposed to the Modi government’s Citizenship Amendment Act and its related processes, which includes the National Population Register drive, which begins in May. The Congress has called the NPR, the “NRC in disguise” and Thackeray too had said earlier that no citizen in Maharashtra would be affected.

A few days ago, the state government did a U-turn over its stand on the Centre’s move to have the National Investigative Agency take over the Elgar Parishad case, as part of which several activists have been held for over a year on charges of sedition.

Maharashtra CM Uddhav Thackeray. Photo: Twitter/@OfficeofUT

Just before the NIA took it over, there was speculation that the accused would get bail; that was effectively stymied by the Centre.

Thackeray and the Shiv Sena’s mouthpiece, Saamana, criticised the move but a few days later, agreed to hand it over to the NIA without any objection. Home minister Anil Deshmukh said he had objected to this, but had been overruled.

Also read: ‘Centre’s Decision to Hand Bhima Koregaon to NIA Unconstitutional’: Maha Home Minister

Last week, Thackeray called a meeting of senior bureaucrats for a briefing on the preparation of the door-to-door enumeration process under the National Population Register, which is being assumed to be a key component of the entire CAA-NRC process which has drawn massive protests all over the country. A large rally was held in Mumbai just on Saturday where speakers such as Abu Azmi, an MLA of the Samajwadi Party, declared that people not allow NPR teams to enter their homes.

Thackeray’s open endorsement for it, after indicating he was against CAA-NRC, has upset his partners considerably. NCP chief Sharad Pawar has reportedly conveyed his displeasure to Thackeray and on Saturday, the chief minister made it a point to declare that the BJP’s attempts to destablise his government will not work.

That is not likely for now, since the local BJP is in disarray following it loss in the state elections and the clumsy attempt to form a government with NCP’s Ajit Pawar which failed spectacularly and in full public view.

It has put paid to Devendra Fadnavis’s political ambitions for now and others, like former minister Eknath Khadse, have not succeeded in stepping into the breach, though not for want of trying.

The coalition partners thus have no immediate threat from outside, but have to consolidate their own house.

The three parties come from disparate ideological backgrounds and though each one is making special efforts to make adjustments, there is discomfort in all three at having to do so with others. The NCP and the Congress have an old relationship and overlap on broad issues, but the latter is always wary of Sharad Pawar. The Congress, also, is deeply uncomfortable of supping with the Sena, while within the latter, many influential leaders would rather be back with the BJP.

All three are in an arrangement of mutual benefit, but each knows of the innate problems of such a coalition.

Still, with considerable goodwill and with a common goal of keeping the BJP out, it is likely that they will stick together for the time being. Many observers feel that if they can continue with minimal hiccups for at least two years, they could make a big difference. The social atmosphere has certainly improved and the public protests, which have been held without much problems is a refreshing breath of fresh air in comparison with other BJP ruled states where governments have reacted against protestors with ferocity.

The Shiv Sena is also watching Raj Thackeray of the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena closely.

Also read: Raj Thackeray’s Right Turn is Dangerous. Here’s Why it Is Likely to Fail

After attacking Narendra Modi bitterly during the run up to the May 2019 generation elections, Raj has now gone full saffron, even changing his multi-coloured flag to that colour. He has begun talking in public about Hindutva and his party’s latest vigilante action against Muslims in the northern Mumbai suburbs where residents were asked for their citizenship documents, has set alarm bells ringing.

Uddhav Thackeray, who is aware that many of his followers are pro-Modi and pro-Hindutva, could be worried that his cousin will woo away such partymen. That has to be nipped in the bud and the chief minister’s pro-NPR announcement could be to pre-empt any bid by Raj to criticise the state government.

The coalition partners have so far ensured that any disagreement between the three does not get out of hand – statements are quickly issued to express unity.

But this is no permanent solution – unless there is complete agreement on key policy issues such as the NPR, the differences could tear the coalition apart. The next few months will be crucial.

India’s Liberal and Democratic Voices Must Get Ready for Another Battle

The latest anniversary of ‘December 6,’ made particularly depressing by the Ayodhya verdict, is upon us. Yet, the central task before the democratic politics has never been clearer.

Before Ranjan Gogoi there was Jagdish Sharan Verma. We may have a very good reason  to quibble vehemently with Justice Gogoi and his  Ayodhya verdict for having provided judicial aid and comfort to the practitioners of a certain kind of  vicious  majoritarianism; but, let it be recalled that on this count  Justice Verma was the original sinner.

It was Justice Verma’s “Hindutva” judgment of December 1995, just three years after the December 6, 1992 demolition of the Babri Masjid, that gave some respectability to the arguments behind the “this land belongs to the Hindus” politics.

The Verma judgment simply legitimised the electoral politics of  Hindu mobilisation. One contemporary commentator, A.G. Noorani, had noted matter-of-factly: “In one fell blow, the wall of separation which the founding fathers built so laboriously to keep religion and politics apart is destroyed. Elections can be fought to make India a theocratic state.”

Those were genuine fears, clearly spelled out, but India did not become a theocratic state. What redeemed a dark possibility was that politics was so conducted – often patchily, no doubt – as to contain the consequences of a profound judicial folly. For years, the Hindutva forces were kept at bay; even during the Vajpayee era, when the BJP ruled at the Centre, the Hindutva camp was never allowed to feel dominant or triumphant. Of course, the follies and stupidities of the ‘secular’ parties and politicians allowed the Hindutva forces to establish a beach-head, but not before 2014.

It is equally relevant to remember that towards the end of his life Justice Verma reportedly came to rue his judgment; it was obvious to him – as it was to anyone blessed with an iota of political sense – that the Hindutva forces had mischievously run away with the Verma ball.

There is no way for a retired judge to do any kind of penance for his judicial sins. Justice Verma died a troubled judge. Will Justice Gogoi – and, more importantly, his remaining four brother judges – come to regret the Ayodhya verdict? Will it be possible for the apex court to recover its judicial conscience?

In a way, we had had a foretaste of the emerging judicial inclination of the Gogoi court – some kind of “let there be peace” jurisprudence – being scripted.

In October this year, the court had given in to the pressure of political protest in the matter of the demolition (by the DDA) of a Ravidas temple in Tughlaqabad, and found itself constrained to order re-construction of a temple at the same spot. Justice Arun Kumar Mishra had formulated the “let there be peace” principle for reversing itself. On the face of it, the judgment appeared anchored in some kind of a political calculus, rather than in axioms of judicial consistency. The sentiment – “a lasting sense of peace and tranquillity” – found an echo in the Ayodhya verdict. If this is going to be the preferred impulse of the apex court, then we are inviting dark forces to the party.

Whether or not Justice Gogoi comes to regret his judgment and perform any kind of penance, it has become incumbent upon liberal and democratic opinion to see to it that the Ayodhya verdict does not degrade into a constitutional ugliness. In particular, the relentless invocation of constitutional provisions and commitments is necessary to ensure that the contents of “peace” are not dictated by the Nagpur bosses.

Variably we all subscribe to a charming hypocrisy that judges are impervious to the political fortunes of the ruling party of the day because they are zealously mindful of their institutional autonomy. It is a serviceable piety. But that is all. It can arguably be suggested, for instance, that the former home minister, P. Chidambaram would still be languishing in jail had the ruling establishment not sullied its moral book so spectacularly in the Mumbai power-grab.

Whatever inferences the judiciary and other institutions may or may not draw from the constitutional sordidness of that failed power grab, the only recourse open to the liberal community is to demand of the so-called secular parties a different kind of politics. Republican virtues and constitutional values cannot, in the long run, by protected by dubious practitioners of dubious politics, even if sanctified by the claim to ‘secularism’.

Thanks to inspired partisanship pursued these past five years from the very top, our society and polity are deeply divided. Post-Maharashtra, a new centrist coalition is possible. And, the most essential prerequisite for such a convergence will be a blunt clarity on an essential point: whatever the compulsions of electoral politics, secularism in practice means respecting majority sentiment without making the minorities feel threatened or neglected or alienated. An obvious but elusive business.

A Shiv Sena-NCP-Congress coalition has opened up possibilities beyond Maharashtra. The ‘secular’ parties have a historic opportunity to help a new Shiv Sena leadership move beyond the frozen animosities of the 1990s. In particular, the habitually pricey Congress has to demonstrate that it has cured itself of its big brother arrogance and bogus pretensions and can in fact work with new partners in different regions.

Post the Maharastra realignment, it is possible to induce a Nitish Kumar or a Naveen Patnaik to join hands in defeating the ill-intended changes in the citizenship laws. These regional satraps can be made to understand that the ruling party is testing how far it can go in tinkering with a fundamental constitutional proposition. The country cannot reward a politics that endlessly squanders its energies and imagination in chasing out invented enemies.

Maharashtra has already punctured the new Chanakayas’ aura of invincibility. The ruling establishment’s ingrained limits are catching up with it and it is bound to flirt with anti-democratic devices and designs. Robust but reasoned opposition voices need to be raised, thereby enabling the judiciary and other institutions of restraint to slow down a wilfully arrogant regime.

This December 6, India’s liberal and democratic voices should demand that the ‘secular’ parties and politicians clean up their act. We have come to terms with distortions and duplicities among secular political leaders. That must change before the Hindutva onslaught can be rolled back. Public purpose has to be restored at the centre of political life.

Harish Khare is a journalist who lives and works in Delhi. He was, until recently, editor-in-chief of The Tribune.