The BJP owes much of its march into the Maharashtra assembly to Vidarbha’s voters, who gave the party 44 of its 122 seats — the region has 62. And it has now designated a chief minister whom few can match in the demand for the region’s statehood. Devendra Fadnavis, known for his cool and winner of a best parliamentarian award, once lost his temper in the assembly over the emotive issue, telling MLAs from western Maharashtra, “Chalte va!”, effectively giving them marching orders. Over the years, the state BJP chief has conducted end-to-end yatras across Vidarbha and been part of an all-party forum launched in 2010. The party’s victory and Fadnavis’s appointment having come in the wake of a renewed debate on statehood, and when the BJP remains the only major party to unequivocally support the movement, two questions follow naturally. Why couldn’t the BJP do as well earlier as it has done now? And what course will its government, once installed, take on Vidarbha? It is now 25 years since the BJP formally resolved at its national convention in Bhubaneswar to create a Vidarbha state. Considering it has swept the region only now, it might suggest that the electoral success should not be seen so much as a referendum in favour of statehood as an effect of Narendra Modi’s popularity. There is, however, also an argument that it is indeed due to the statehood sentiment. The performance has been strengthened by the Modi effect, but that too has a statehood connection. Historically, the statehood sentiment has remained largely unseen because there weren’t as many public protests and as much participation as in, say, Telangana. Many pro-Vidarbha leaders gave the impression that they were taking up the cause only to further their political ambitions rather than being serious about statehood. The debate was revived strongly with the BJP having come to power at the Centre. Just ahead of the Lok Sabha polls, Nitin Gadkari explicitly promised to carve out Vidarbha state. This charged up pro-Vidarbha non-political fronts. Besides their usual seminars, protests, debates, padyatras and rallies, they moved on to holding “referendums” in various cities and declared that over 90 per cent had voted in favour of a separate state. For the first time, the campaign by non-political organisations was a sustained one, especially with use of new media. Ahead of the assembly elections, many of these organisations released appeals to elect pro-Vidarbha parties’ nominees. The Shiv Sena, traditionally against dividing the state, called the BJP “a party out to balkanise Maharashtra”. Now with the BJP in power both at the Centre and in the state, the hopes of statehood supporters are higher than ever. It is possible, however, that the new government will feel the need to keep them waiting. Fadnavis and his party may be strong supporters of statehood, but being in power robs them of the very premise on which that demand is based — lack of development. An avowedly pro-Vidarbha party having come to power, its voters will expect it to take care of their grievances. If the BJP does embark on creating a new state, it will risk creating an impression that it cannot guarantee the region’s growth even when in power in Mumbai. Besides, the BJP cannot be sure yet how creating a state will play out politically in the rest of Maharashtra. It will tread a fine balance between an image of efficiency and one of credibility after having gained so much on a promise.
