Mumbai is close to Fadnavis’ heart, but he let it down

and poorer areas of Mumbai are not on his radar.

Mumbai, he told a journalist recently, was very close to his heart. One of the first things he did as chief minister was to set up a “war room” in his office to monitor major projects he initiated in the city. The “war room” nomenclature signifies his aggressive approach. It pushes departments into fast action and ensures that projects are not stalled. With this micromanagement of the city’s projects, you could say Fadnavis is a minister for Mumbai, hands-on and girded up.

But beyond the bridges and metros are the social, political and creative infrastructures of the city. And Fadnavis dealt them a body blow when he mediated between a representative body of Bollywood filmmakers and Raj Thackeray who threatened violence if the film Ae Dil Hai Mushkil was released. Powerful filmmaker Karan Johar was apologetic.

Always in search of emotional issues to whip up sentiments around elections, Thackeray objected to the film because it had a Pakistani actor which he said was unacceptable after the Uri attacks. Fadnavis allowed this enterprise of hate, chauvinism and pseudo-nationalism a free run initially when he could have sent a strong message to Thackeray’s boys. Then, he played broker to an extortion deal when Thackeray “allowed” the film’s release after filmmakers agreed to pay Rs 5crore to the Army Welfare Fund.

The minister of Mumbai had become, in a jiffy, the broker for Mumbai who used the authority of the chief minister’s office to legitimise the threat of violence and an extortion deal. Getting the CM on his side in so brazen a manner is Thackeray’s “victory”. It may have a political quid pro quo for Fadnavis who is trying hard to marginalise the Shiv Sena. But in these cynical games, Mumbai lost out.

This coupled with the fact that the Mumbai Film Festival pulled down an old Pakistani film, Jago Hua Savera, because it was threatened by a non-descript organisation meant that some of the most powerful people of Mumbai caved in to bullying. And the chief minister helped bullies.

What could be worse for Mumbai that the Constitutional care-taker was unable or unwilling to put the entire might of the State against those who threaten, bully and disrupt?