Maharashtra: Seat-sharing is a facade, the real fight is for the CM’s chair
The BJP-led ruling Mahayuti alliance on Thursday ironed out its differences over seat sharing in the presence of Home Minister Amit Shah in Delhi. BJP has agreed to leave some more seats for NCP (Ajit), and all the three allies have made a joint pledge to prevent party rebels from contesting.
BJP leaders Devendra Fadnavis and Chandrashekhar Bawankule, NCP(Ajit) leaders Praful Patel and Ajit Pawar, and Chief Minister Eknath Shinde had a marathon meeting at Amit Shah’s residence, where the Home Minister asked all three allies to ensure that rebels do not enter the election fray.
Shah said, it will be the responsibility of party leaders to convince their rebels not to contest. Most of the differences between the three allies are over seats in the Greater Mumbai region.
Ajit Pawar’s problem is that he has several heavyweight leaders in his party who want ticket for their kin, and if his party fails to get those seats, they may contest as rebels. It will be difficult for Eknath Shinde and Ajit Pawar to stem rebellion in their parties, but they have a good advantage as far as the election symbols are concerned. Both Shinde’s Shiv Sena and Ajit’s NCP have the original party symbols with them.
Maha Vikas Aghadi is yet to iron out its seat sharing problem. Uddhav Thackeray’s son Aditya Thackeray told India TV’s daylong conclave ‘Chunav Manch’ that the decision about the chief ministerial face will be taken only after the seat sharing arrangement is finalized. At the same time, he reminded that the people of Maharashtra still remember Uddhav Thackeray’s rule.
Priyanka Chaturvedi, SS(UBT) spokesperson said at the conclave that Uddhav Thackeray leads in popularity ranks compared to other leaders, but NCP supremo Sharad Pawar has consistently said that the question of CM’s face be kept on hold till the elections are over.
Already, BJP-led Mahayuti alliance has decided to bombard the state with election rallies. Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be addressing election rallies in Maharashtra from November 5 till 14, for eight days. He will be seeking votes not only for BJP, but also for alliance partners.
On the other hand, the Maha Vikas Aghadi is yet to come out of the woods as far as seat sharing is concerned. Seat sharing is not the sole issue. The main issue is who will become the Chief Minister if Aghadi comes to power.
For now, Uddhav Thackeray is the first claimant for the CM’s chair in Aghadi and there are others waiting in the wings. In Mahayuti, there are three claimants for the chief minister’s post. Eknath Shinde continues to be the CM, but if BJP wins more seats than Shiv Sena (Shinde), then Devendra Fadnavis will surely say that he is going to make a comeback. Ajit Dada Pawar is also dreaming to become the CM.
Encounters: Are They Caste Based ?
Two encounters, one in UP and the other in Maharashtra, have hit the news headlines, with political parties taking potshots at one another. Anuj Pratap Singh, an accused in the Sultanpur jewellery heist, carrying Rs 1 lakh reward on his head, was killed by UP Special Task Force, while in Maharashtra, Akshay Shinde, an accused in the sexual assault of school kids, was killed inside a police van while being ferried from Taloja jail to Badlapur.
UP encounter
First, the encounter in Unnao, UP. Anuj Pratap Singh was the second accused in the jewellery heist to be killed in an encounter. Earlier, his fellow suspect Mangesh Yadav was gunned down by STF. Of the 14 suspects, two robbers have been killed, nine are in jail and three others absconding. When Mangesh Yadav was killed, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav alleged that UP police was targeting a particular caste. The accused Anuj Pratap Singh, killed in Monday, was a Thakur, and Akhilesh’s party alleged that Chief Minister Yogi’s government was now trying “to create a balance between castes”. Akhilesh Yadav tweeted saying “fake encounter of anyone is nothing but injustice”. The debate on fake or real encounters has been going on since long, with the question being raised whether killing of criminals in encounter is justified. Akhilesh Yadav has added a caste angle to this debate. He has been asking, why only Yadavs or Muslims are being killed in encounters in UP, and why criminals belonging to other castes do not get hit by bullets? His question may be a valid one, but the remark of Anuj Pratap Singh’s father after his son’s death on Monday was – “Now Akhilesh Yadav’s heart will get relief”. This remark is loaded with meanings. I believe, criminals have no caste or religion. No caste or religion teaches anybody to kill, loot, extort or maim. But when the issue of caste was raised about encounters, I asked my reporters to find out statistics about those killed in encounters since Yogi Adityanath took over as Chief Minister in March, 2017. The facts are revealing. In the last seven years, 207 criminals were gunned down in encounters in UP. Of them, 67 were Muslims, 20 Brahmins, 18 Thakurs, 17 Jats and Gurjars, 16 Yadavs, 14 Dalits, three tribals, two Sikhs, 8 belonged to OBC castes and 42 belonged to other castes. To say that the UP police targets criminals in encounters on the basis of caste, is therefore, incorrect. But in politics, such facts are never touched. Politicians of most parties indulge in mudslinging in the name of caste and religion. This issue is going to crop up again, and again.
Maharashtra encounter
The man, Akshay Shinde, killed inside a police van while being taken from jail to Badlapur, used to work as a sweeper in a school. He allegedly assaulted two nursery students sexually. According to police, he snatched the revolver of a policeman inside the van, and fired three rounds, before he was shot. He was rushed to hospital, where he was declared dead, while the injured policeman is still in hospital. On hearing the death of Shinde, local residents in Badlapur distributed sweets, while opposition leaders questioned the circumstances in which he was shot. NCP chief Sharad Pawar demanded a high-level probe, while state Congress chief Nana Patole demanded a judicial probe. Maharahstra deputy CM Devendra Fadnavis said, the accused was killed by police in self-defence. Fadnavis reminded that it was the opposition which was demanding public hanging of Akshay Shinde when news about sexual assault of nursery kids broke out, and now they have changed their tune. Encounter is not new to Mumbai Police. There was a time when ‘encounter specialists’ used to work in Mumbai Police, but their operations were limited to mafia gangsters. The Badlapur case is quite different. Akshay Shinde was facing serious allegations under POCSO act for sexually assaulting nursery kids and there was anger against him in public. There were several other cases against him. Prima facie the police statement that Akshay snatched the revolver and shot rounds, seems to be true. However, more facts will emerge only after a thorough probe. Since assembly elections are due in Maharashtra soon, political parties are bound to make it an issue. The same political parties who were demanding death by hanging for Akshay Shinde, are now questioning the intentions of the government. Their statements are purely political in nature. One will continue to hear similar remarks from both sides. But at least, nobody will allege that Akshay Shinde was killed because of his caste. Because both the Chief Minister of Maharashtra and the accused who was killed have Shinde as their surnames.