The Sena-led alliance is a marriage of convenience

The Sena-NCP-Congress coalition has little in common other than a fear of getting decimated by the BJP

Ideologically diverse parties like the Congress, the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) and the Shiv Sena have come together out of sheer political necessity to form the government in Maharashtra under the leadership of Sena chief, Uddhav Thackeray. They are driven by their fear of being destroyed by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and this is what will in all probability keep them together for the next five years.

The Sena has been fretting for a while now that despite its long alliance with the BJP, it would not be able to emerge from the latter’s shadow. It also must have felt that sooner or later, given that the BJP and Sena are ideologically similar, the BJP would overpower the Sena much as it has done in states like Goa and Manipur.

The Congress and the NCP clearly felt that if they did not make a stab at power now, the BJP would dominate both state and Central politics, and they would be all but eliminated. The BJP has a track record of chipping away at the opposition and making it irrelevant.

The Congress’ elected members of Maharashtra legislative assembly convinced the party president Sonia Gandhi that the grand old party would have to put aside its ideological differences with the Sena and enter into a marriage of convenience to prevent the BJP encroaching on it.

The farmers’ issue proved a boon for the Congress and the NCP, both of which have a significant rural footprint. Farmers as a community have considerable influence in more than two-thirds of the assembly constituencies in the state. While the Sena is urban-centric, the Congress despite long years in power both at the Centre and the state has not been able to win even the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) elections in the last 30 years. The NCP, too, has not been able to extend its influence in Mumbai and adjoining urban pockets.

The NCP chief Sharad Pawar knows his party’s limitations which is why he went in for an alliance with the Sena. The Pawar and Thackeray families may have criticised each other during the elections, but their personal equations have always been good.

The late Bal Thackeray had extended his party’s unconditional support to Sharad Pawar’s daughter Supriya Sule in the Rajya Sabha polls despite being from an opposing camp. Sharad Pawar has now paid the Sena back by conceding the chief minister’s post to the party.

Sharad Pawar has run a coalition comprising parties with varying ideologies in the 1980s. As the chief minister, he led a government supported by the Janata Party (part of which later became the BJP), the Socialist Party, the Peasant and Workers Party, and others.

Pawar also convinced Sonia Gandhi to be part of the government, rather than extending support from outside. This ensures that the power pie is shared by everyone, and, so, will contribute to the stability of the alliance. As long as Pawar is the at the helm of affairs, the coalition government will survive as he has the stature and ability to iron out differences as they arise, an example being the drafting of the common minimum programme (CMP).

Former chief minister Devendra Fadnavis, in his first term, cut several mass leaders like Eknath Khadse, Prakash Mehta, Pankaja Munde, Vinod Tawde, Chandrashekhar Bawankule and Raj Purohit down to size. This not only reduced the BJP’s numbers from 122 MLAs in 2014 to 105 in 2019, it halted the growth of the party in the state.

In 2014, many small communities had rallied behind the BJP, but 2019 turned out to be different. The OBC and MarathaKunbi communities were put off by the Enforcement Directorate’s notice to Sharad Pawar. Then Fadnavis’ campaign slogan “Mi punna yeiel” (I will come back again as CM) sent out the wrong signals. It showed him as self-centred, arrogant and greedy for power.

Fadnavis’ overconfidence underestimated Pawar’s political ability. He set a wrong narrative, such as saying that the state has “no opposition”. The BJP’s strategy of targeting Pawar backfired. Before the polls, it actively poached Pawar’s close associates and relatives by hook and crook.

Their desertion sent a message to the electorate that the 78-year-old Pawar is fighting a lonely battle like an injured tiger. It generated much sympathy for him — and an NCP, which was not sure of getting even 20 seats before the polls, ended up winning 54.

Fadnavis punched way above his weight by claiming that Pawar’s (Maratha-Bahujan) political era is over, and Fadnavis’ (Brahmin) political era has begun. It irked the Maratha-Kunbi backward community voters, leading them to consolidate behind Pawar.

The BJP tried to destroy the co-operative network, which is the rural economy’s backbone. The anger against Fadnavis was palpable in rural areas. It damaged the BJP in a big way in the rural MarathaKunbi dominated constituencies. And, of course, Pawar’s speech in the pouring rain was the final blow to the BJP.

Fadnavis had created his own coterie of advisers and loyalists in both the media and the party. This grouping built a virtual wall between the masses and Fadnavis. He also seemed to convey the impression that he might well move to a much bigger role at the Centre. In the end, it was a humiliating exit for a man who once held out so much promise. Sudhir Suryawanshi is a Mumbai-based political journalist The views expressed are personal

THE CONGRESS AND THE NCP CLEARLY FELT THAT IF THEY DID NOT MAKE A STAB AT POWER NOW, THE BJP WOULD DOMINATE BOTH STATE AND CENTRAL POLITICS, AND THEY WOULD BE ALL BUT ELIMINATED