Terrible twins

Uddhav Thackeray, Shiv Sena leader, and his cousin Raj Thackeray (right), the MNS leader, before the split.-VIVEK BENDRE Uddhav Thackeray, Shiv Sena leader, and his cousin Raj Thackeray (right), the MNS leader, before the split.

THE Lok Sabha elections showcased Raj Thackeray and his Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) as a new force in Maharashtras politics. But the question remains, despite his victories and near victories, whether Raj truly is a rising messiah of the masses or was just the flavour of the season.

Comparisons have been drawn between Raj and his cousin Uddhav Thackeray. Even when Uddhav was not in politics, comments about the differences between the politically astute Raj and the politically uninterested and uninitiated Uddhav abounded. When Uddhav inherited the leadership of the Shiv Sena from his father, Bal Thackeray, the idle commentary took on a sharpness fuelled by their respective supporters. The pitch became shriller when Raj broke away from the Sena to form the MNS.

Raj has several strong points. He has successfully articulated the anxieties and needs of the new Maharashtrian middle class, families that are first-generation educated. He has tapped into this segment of society, which wanted a party grounded in Maharashtrian ethos and interests but had a relatively modern outlook, and also the youth. For this he used a combination of cultural and ethnic pride, conservative populism and a flaky sort of modernism.

In an era of globalisation when the government is unable to keep pace with the economic needs of rising populations, the politics of leaders like Raj flourishes. Feeding off the fears and insecurities of people, he selects targets instead of finding solutions and establishes himself as the voice of the masses. Hence, instead of seeing the link between government policy and unemployment, he chooses to hit out at North Indians, saying they are the reason ethnic Maharashtrians are jobless. It is a cosy situation with the leader and his followers deriving maximum benefit. The masses, unable or unwilling to see the larger reasons for the problem, accept him as the saviour because he has the guts to speak out on their behalf. Still, to believe that North Indians have taken away ethnic Maharashtrians jobs is a crude simplification of the situation.

Rajs politics depends on the terrible see-saw of victimhood where he portrays his people as victims and thereby justifies victimising outsiders. This combination of messianic and extreme right-wing thoughts and language seems to have appealed to some sections of the uneducated and to the newly educated.

When Raj billed himself as the outspoken leader who will protect Maharashtrian interests from outsiders, he also gave a unique twist to what is essentially a Sena platform. His uncle, Bal Thackeray, had started his career by bashing South Indians and progressing to Gujaratis. Raj continues the tradition of attacking outsiders; the crucial difference is that he has projected himself as a benevolent leader who is willing to accept outsiders as long as they remain within the boundaries defined by him. As such Raj has created the impression that he is an Indian nationalist and not the regionalist that he is at the core.

Although he is younger than Uddhav, Raj has had the double advantage of having a natural political inclination and being under Bal Thackerays tutelage ever since he was a teenager. Uddhav has neither. Sena supporters who realised the difference between the two cousins switched allegiance to the MNS. Rajs fighting spirit, extensive knowledge of street politics and a complete understanding of what the voters want stood him in good stead in the Lok Sabha elections. His party contested 12 seats and secured close to 16 lakh votes, that is, 4.1 per cent of the votes polled.

A former Sainik, who is now an MNS social worker, says, Uddhav has inherited the party. He has not earned it. Raj is the natural inheritor. Those who have stayed with Uddhav are those who are interested in politics. They are not interested in being a voice of the people as the Sena once was. Raj has most of the youth on his side and manse [This is how the MNS is referred to in spoken Marathi. Manse also means from the heart.] is far more visible for the man on the street. It was a betrayal when Raj was not given the leadership of the Sena. So caustic was the reaction to the natural inheritance of the Shiv Sena that a street slogan said Uddhav had caged the tiger and with the cunning of a snake taken over the readymade hole.

That Uddhav has not felt the pulse of the street is clear from the political zigzags of the Sena over the past couple of years. For example, it was Uddhav who conceptualised the Mee Mumbaikar campaign. But when Raj split off he was in doubt about the force of the campaign and so dropped it. When Raj picked up the campaign, Uddhav scurried to reclaim it. At that point Raj dropped Mee Mumbaikar to lash out at the North Indian domination of Mumbai. Uddhav followed suit. Right up to the Lok Sabha elections, Uddhav continued to flounder and frantically follow the direction of his cousins politics, reiterating the impression that he was too weak to lead the Sena.

Like the Sena, the MNS is also a one-man show and Raj knows that to have full control over the party affairs he will need finances. In exactly the same way as his uncle had done four decades ago, Raj, too, has been systematically attempting to increase his influence over trade unions, student bodies and industrial associations.

To a great extent, the rah-rah around Raj could very easily be hype. His comparative success in the Lok Sabha elections was assisted by an unusual anti-incumbency sentiment, that is to say, not against the ruling party but against the Sena. Sena voters, turned off by the direction in which the party was heading, thought the elections provided a good opportunity to give the MNS a chance. Interestingly, at the grassroots level the Sena shakhas continue to be more active than the MNS. So it was not so much a grassroots failure as a failure of Sena policy.

Another blow to the Shiv Sena was the loss of a number of stalwarts such as Pramod Nawalkar, Datta Salvi, Narayan Rane and Chhagan Bhujbal. The death of Nawalkar and Salvi (both warhorses who had been with Bal Thackeray from the start and had evolved into more mature politicians) left Thackeray with men of a different calibre. Thackerays own relationship with the old guard changed. The former Sainik said, Smart people surrounded him, flattered him and isolated him for their own convenience. He got fooled. I am not blaming him it happens when you are up there but the fact is that the Sena forgot about the people. The accusation that the Sena has abandoned the people has been growing for the past decade.

Ironically, the Senas downfall began when it came to power in 1995 in alliance with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Once in power, the Sena had to bow to pressures and learn some form of political correctness. In doing so, it had hoped to move beyond its State-level status and enter national politics. Actually what happened was that it unwittingly laid the groundwork for Raj Thackeray.

Sainiks have little in common with the BJP and are unwilling to transfer their vote to that party even if they are unhappy with the Sena. The BJP has made it clear that the partnership is one of convenience. The Senas aim is regional and employment-oriented. The BJPs aim is national and Hindutva-oriented. When Bal Thackeray took on the Hindutva cause the State BJP distanced itself even more from the Sena, thereby making the average Sainik voter become more wary of the BJP. So when Raj formed the MNS there were enough disgruntled Sainiks ready to follow him and enough voters ready to give him a chance.

Another factor that contributed significantly to the MNS rise was the intervention of other political parties. Rajs success would be their success too because he would defeat their more serious rival, the Sena, while not being big enough to stand in the way of their victory. The State government deliberately soft-pedalled on Raj after his attack on North Indians, all the while seeming to take action against him. This move resulted in Marathi manus viewing the Congress-Nationalist Congress Party combine favourably. There was also the third advantage of attracting North Indian votes. Thus, the ruling party managed to use the MNS to bolster its own sagging votes and to subdue the Sena. (Post election statistics show that the Senas vote share fell by 3.1 per cent.)

As much as they would not like to believe it, the MNS and the Sena are joined at the hip. Politics and their interpretation of it aside, even in their very creation and rise there are similarities. Just as the MNS was given a leg-up by the Congress, the Sena too had been nurtured by the Congress. The Sena came into existence in 1966 with the mandate of fighting for the rights of Maharashtrians, particularly in matters of employment. It chose not to see the problem as one of government policy and unregulated capitalism of the Congress government. The Sena preferred to place the blame on outsiders, and South Indians were the victims of this convenient politics. Convenient because the Sena was supported and encouraged by the Congress, which used it as a foil against the Left parties.

The Left, which was fighting for the rights of labour, opposed the rampant capitalism of Mumbais industrialists, and the Congress, which benefited from its link with industry, saw this as a hindrance. The Sena was the perfect foil and was used by the Congress to break up trade unions. Before the Sena, the Samyukta Maharashtra movement had opposed the separation of Bombay from the rest of the State. The Left was in the forefront of the opposition. The Congress began to feel the loss of political ground. It set the Sena against the Left and thus gained a double advantage of regaining lost political ground and fending off the Left.

Of course, the Senas rise soon after became a thorn in the side of the Congress. History is repeating itself with the Congress trying to destabilise the Sena by using the MNS. But, the Congress today may have to exercise caution as there is a crucial difference in the situation that presents itself now from what prevailed four decades ago. When Bal Thackeray was assisted by the Congress he had not tasted power and was, therefore, more compliant. Raj has witnessed the Sena in power and may not be as malleable as his uncle once was.

It would be in the best interests of the Sena and the MNS to merge, but the self-image that characterises the leaderships of both the parties will probably prevent any such move. The dip and rise in the fortunes of the Sena and the MNS clearly demonstrate that regional chauvinistic politics really does come around to bite the hand that feeds it.