Maharashtra Assembly Election: Will BJP-Shiv Sena's bittersweet relationship yield results?

Weeks ahead of the Assembly elections in Maharashtra, the seat-sharing arrangement between the Shiv Sena and the BJP has yet not been officially finalized.

There are many reports which have suggested that the BJP is expected to get more number of seats and that Sena will play second fiddle. At this point, the BJP has released its first list of 125 candidates from the state, and the Sena has followed it up with a list of 124 candidates without giving out any names.

Although it is clear that both the saffron parties will enter into a pre-poll alliance, the quantum of seats is yet to be unveiled.

This is not the first time that the parties are caught wrangling over the number of seats, displaying their bittersweet relationship. Shiv Sena leader Sanjay Raut even said the division of seats seemed to be “a tougher task than the partition of India and Pakistan”.

To understand the anatomy of the BJP-Shiv Sena alliance, let’s delve into a little history.

When did the two become allies?

The BJP-Shiv Sena alliance, what is popularly known as Yuti, was formed in 1989, courtesy the efforts of late Pramod Mahajan, the then BJP General Secretary who reached out to Bal Thackeray. The ideology of Hindutva bound the two parties together, as both realized the need of the other to survive in Indian politics.

Before this, Thackeray had publicly declared his support to the Emergency and subsequently supported the Congress in the 1977 elections. In 1979, he had also pledged his alliance with the Muslim League, and in 1980, Thackeray supported the Congress because of excellent personal relations with then chief minister AR Antulay.

In 1984, the BJP entered the picture, when two Shiv Sena members, including Manohar Joshi, unsuccessfully contested the Lok Sabha polls under the BJP symbol.

In 1990, both the saffron parties witnessed growth – as the BJP expanded its footprint across India, the Shiv Sena unfurled saffron flags in Nashik and Marathwada, beyond the regions that it already dominated (Mumbai, Thane and the Konkan belt).

In the 1990 Maharashtra Assembly elections, Shiv Sena played the senior partner contesting on 183 of the 288 seats and leaving the rest for the BJP.

The early events of the 1990s – the 1992 Mumbai blasts and 1993 riots – and the incumbent government’s inadequate handling of the issue propelled the saffron alliance into power in 1995, with Sena’s Manohar Joshi as the chief minister and BJP’s Gopinath Munde as his deputy.

An unhappy marriage

The relationship between the BJP and Shiv Sena is often described as a complex marriage – where each is aware of the other’s strengths and weaknesses, and yet they are often seen bickering in public over petty issues.

The fault lines were apparent ahead of the Lok Sabha elections this year too, with Sena’s mouthpiece ‘Saamna’ regularly carrying pieces critical of PM Modi and BJP President Amit Shah. Even though Uddhav Thackeray demanded Sena’s ‘elder brother’ status back in Maharashtra, Shah persuaded him to accept the position of an ‘equal partner’, agreeing to a 50:50 seat-sharing arrangement.

Despite Sena winning 18 seats, BJP offered only one ministerial berth to it, that too the insignificant portfolio of Heavy Industries. Uddhav blinked and Sena had to eat the humble pie.

In 2014, the two allies had contested separately for the first time in 25 years. While the BJP won 122 seats, Sena was left just 63. Since the BJP was still short of the majority mark, the two parties got into a post-poll alliance to form the government.

The issue of Belgaum and its sensitive boundary with Karnataka has been a bone of contention between the two parties. In 2009, when the BS Yediyurappa-led BJP government was in power in Karnataka, Saamna carried an editorial alleging “atrocities against the Marathis” in Karnataka. It read, “We implore L.K. Advani to save the Marathi people from the ‘kamlabai’ gone wild in Karnataka". The Sena mouthpiece refers to the BJP as Kamlabai, as a dig to the party’s lotus symbol.

In 1999, the rift between the two parties had become evident when the NDA government, led by late Atal Bihari Vajpayee, had allowed a cricket tour between India and Pakistan. At that time, the Sena had threatened to disrupt the matches if the tour was allowed to go on.

Another discord between the allies is Vidharbha – with the BJP in favour of carving it out of Maharashtra and making it a separate state, and Sena opposing it. The BJP’s inclination is largely attributed to its performance in the region, which was once considered to be a Congress bastion.

To add to Sena’s woes, BJP is occasionally seen flirting with Raj Thackeray’s Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS), which had put up a spectacular debut show in 2009. MNS’ performance not only dented the prospects of the BJP-Sena alliance by dividing the Marathi vote, but played a major role in driving Congress-NCP to the throne for the third term.

This makes the duo the classic case of a couple that ‘can’t live with each other, and unfortunately, can’t live without each other’.

Million Dollar Question

Will the alliance stay afloat? Even though the prospects of the ‘yuti’ seem brighter in the absence of a solid Opposition, the BJP-Shiv Sena alliance does face minor threats.

Many Opposition leaders have been in a beeline to join the two saffron parties ahead of the elections. While this has definitely strengthened their confidence, it has to be seen whether second and third rung Sena-BJP cadres work with the same enthusiasm and honesty for turncoats. A tangible example of this was the resignation of 200 Sena workers to protest against the Navi Mumbai ticket being offered to BJP’s Ganesh Naik, who defected from the NCP just last month.

Besides, an edgy Sena facing intimidation from Modi-Shah duo, has given a ticket to 29-year-old Aaditya Thackeray (Uddhav’s son) from Worli in order to remain relevant and legitimate within the alliance. This would ensure active participation in the government and establishing a clout that could circumvent tight control over the party apparatus.