“Uddhav Thackeray needs political acumen, he shouldn’t have resigned as chief minister without putting up a fight”, noted Sharad Pawar, one of the country’s most battle-hardened politicians, in his recently launched biography. Pawar’s observations find an echo in the Supreme Court’s Thursday’s judgment on political developments in Maharashtra, which also marked the boundaries of the three constitutional arms of the state machinery, namely governors, the Election Commission and presiding officers of legislatures. From here onwards, a hostile takeover of state governments with active gubernatorial support will be difficult, if not impossible.
First, about the role of the governor. The SC observation that the Maharashtra governor used powers he doesn’t possess to invite Eknath Shinde-Devendra Fadnavis to form the government is a much-needed shot of adrenaline to recharge the Opposition. The SC’s sharp criticism of the then governor, Bhagat Singh Koshyari, in a way, recognises the Opposition’s criticism of Raj Bhavan’s role in toppling the Uddhav Thackeray-led Maha Vikas Aghadi government. It was in this context that Sharad Pawar wanted Uddhav Thackeray to face the floor test and use the opportunity to expose the governor. Thackeray, a relative novice in power games, who was shaken by his closest aide Eknath Shinde’s defection, tendered his resignation instead.
Thackeray later rushed to the top court, seeking judicial intervention, after Shinde, backed by the BJP, split the Shiv Sena and took away most of the MLAs to form a new government. The governor was only too happy to oblige Shinde. But, according to the SC, “the governor did not have any objective material and the exercise of discretion of the governor in this case was not in accordance with the law.” In the same breath, the SC made it clear that “We cannot squash his resignation” and turned down Thackeray’s demand of status quo ante. However, it minced no words about the role played by the speaker of the state assembly, who hurriedly acknowledged a Shinde faction MLA as party whip, and the Election Commission, which legitimised the Shinde faction as the “original” Shiv Sena.
Thursday’s judgment may have offered a reprieve to the Eknath Shinde-Devendra Fadnavis government, but it’s difficult to believe it will last long. The SC decision has the potential to dent the prospects of the BJP in its efforts to regain lost ground in Maharashtra. Two decisions by two constitutional authorities propelled the BJP-Shiv Sena splinter group to power. The role played by Governor Koshyari and speaker Rahul Narvekar proved decisive in the power game. Both erred in their judgment, the SC notes, thereby, in unambiguous terms, giving credence to the Opposition’s allegations of misuse of power against the BJP bosses in Delhi. Though the SC admitted that the foundation of the Shinde-Fadnavis government is not exactly legitimate, it stopped short of declaring it unconstitutional and reinstating Thackeray in the chief minister’s saddle. How will it impact political parties in Maharashtra?
First, the most significant and powerful player of them all, the BJP, can no longer indulge in its favourite game of engineering defections in rival camps. Of late, the political party circuit was abuzz with yet another political engineering operation wherein a group of NCP MLAs were reported to be readying to cross the fence. This will no longer be as easy. The SC’s harsh words today will also force the BJP to introspect on its decision to hand over the state’s reins to “defector” Eknath Shinde and make Devendra Fadnavis work under him. The arrangement has neither helped the BJP make any inroads in the Shiv Sena’s vote base, nor has it elevated Shinde’s stature. It is a second jolt for the BJP after the SC foiled its attempt to form the government with the NCP’s Ajit Pawar in 2019. That was short-lived and the incumbent one with Sena defectors is far from being stronger.
On the other hand, it will force the Shiv Sena to evolve as a mature political party and leave its days as a rag-tag organisation behind. Jolted by the defection, Uddhav Thackeray continues to carry the boy-next-door image, but it won’t be enough to survive the tough political turmoil that lies ahead. The SC undoubtedly has strengthened popular sympathy for the heir of the fiery Bal Thackeray, but it will have to be fortified with political strategy. For the Congress, another member of the three-party coalition, the ground situation more or less remains the same. Even while in power, the Congress was a weak link and did not have much of a role.
The biggest gainer, however, will be the NCP. Not because its founder Sharad Pawar was the architect of the MVA, but because of the Maratha strongman’s ability to use the Shiv Sena stick to beat the BJP. First, he won over Uddhav Thackeray by convincing him to join hands and later he got him to accept the MVA leadership. Now, ahead of state assembly elections, it’s again Pawar who has been proved wiser with his public advice to Uddhav to not give up.
This makes the battle in Maharashtra even fiercer. In 2019, it was Pawar who stole India’s biggest and richest state away from the BJP. As the state gears up for the 2024 assembly elections, it is again Pawar who is seen to be emerging as the BJP’s immediate challenger. The Pawar-led Opposition parties in Maharashtra are unlikely to waste the opportunity that has come their way, thanks to the SC’s order that has severely censured the governor’s role in toppling the MVA government.
However, should the Opposition succeed this time, Pawar may not be generous enough to hand over the post of chief minister to Uddhav who by now would have realised how costly it was to not pay heed to the veteran’s advice.
The SC judgment poses no immediate danger to the Eknath Shinde-Devendra Fadnavis government, but that is hardly a guarantee of its stability. While the legal battle may have gone the Shinde-Fadnavis government’s way, it will need more than that to win the war ahead. The judgment is important, most of all, because it underlines the limitations of political hubris.
