Last Updated:
PM Modi’s remarks aren’t merely rhetorical, they carry significant undertones and highlight the nuanced and often contradictory relationship between Congress and Balasaheb Thackeray.
The Congress and Balasaheb shared a political relationship that fluctuated between adversarial and accommodative, depending on the shifting dynamics within Maharashtra and national politics. (File Image: X)
Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent comments taunting the Congress party and Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi to praise the founder of Shiv Sena, Balasaheb Thackeray, have opened a new chapter in the narrative of Maharashtra’s political history. PM Modi’s remarks aren’t merely rhetorical, they carry significant undertones and highlight the nuanced and often contradictory relationship between Congress and Balasaheb Thackeray. Tracing this history offers insight into political realignments, ideological conflicts, and strategies employed by both the Congress and Shiv Sena.
Balasaheb Thackeray, known for his hardline regional and Hindu nationalist views, led Shiv Sena from its inception in 1966 until his death in 2012. His relationship with the Congress has been complex, characterised by both confrontation and cooperation. The Congress and Balasaheb shared a political relationship that fluctuated between adversarial and accommodative, depending on the shifting dynamics within Maharashtra and national politics.
In the 1960s, Maharashtra was experiencing economic hardship and an influx of migrant workers, leading to a strong sentiment of ‘Marathi pride’ among locals. This situation gave birth to the Shiv Sena, which initially positioned itself as a champion of the “Marathi Manoos” (Marathi people) against “outsiders.” This stance aligned with some elements of the Congress party’s political agenda, as they too was concerned about social tensions. Initially, the Congress did not take a strong stand against Shiv Sena, as it viewed the party’s rise as a counterforce to the growing influence of the Communist Party, which had gained considerable traction among Mumbai’s working-class population.
However, as Shiv Sena’s ideological leanings shifted towards Hindutva in the 1980s, the relationship soured. The Congress party’s secular platform increasingly found itself at odds with Thackeray’s overt Hindu nationalism. Thackeray’s unapologetic rhetoric and staunch Hindu identity politics clashed with Congress’s secularism, marking a clear ideological divide.
The relationship reached a critical point under then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, who saw Shiv Sena’s rising influence as a direct threat to Congress’s hold over Maharashtra. During the Emergency (1975-1977), Gandhi imposed stringent controls on dissent, leading to severe consequences for those who opposed her rule. At that time, Shiv Sena had not fully developed its Hindutva agenda, yet Thackeray’s anti-establishment stance was enough for Congress to consider him a potential disruptor. Indira Gandhi is reported to have considered banning Shiv Sena due to Thackeray’s provocative speeches and his ability to mobilise public opinion against the Congress regime.
Gandhi’s push for a ban was partly strategic, as she wanted to curb any political entity that could challenge her rule in Maharashtra. Shiv Sena’s growing influence among Mumbai’s working class and middle class, along with its popularity among Marathi-speaking communities, made it a formidable force. However, despite Indira Gandhi’s efforts, she refrained from an outright ban on Shiv Sena, possibly due to the political backlash it could have provoked in Maharashtra, a Congress stronghold. Instead, Congress resorted to weakening the Sena by nurturing its political rivals in the state.
According to Prakash Akolkar, senior journalist and author of book on Shiv Sena named ‘Jay Maharashtra’, “Shiv Sena party came into existence with the help of Congress. The reason to support Shiv Sena was to curb the impact of Left unions and socialist influence in Mumbai. Shiv Sena was also referred as ‘Vasanat Sena’ due to their close relations with Vasantarao Naik, then Chief Minister of Maharashtra. Many current leaders of Shiv Sena are not aware of the fact that in 1980s, Shiv Sena didn’t nominate any candidate against Congress party in state assembly polls and struck a deal to get two seats of State council. In that election, Balasaheb Thackeray had campaigned for Congress candidate and helped rally for him, which I had covered,” said Akolkar.
PM Modi’s recent jibe that Congress should “praise Balasaheb Thackeray’s work” isn’t merely a nostalgic invocation, it serves multiple political objectives. First, it challenges Congress’s narrative on secularism by pointing out the paradox of its alliance with Shiv Sena UBT (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray faction) in the Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi (MVA) coalition. The Congress party’s alliance with a party founded on Hindutva ideology contradicts its secular principles and puts the party in a difficult spot.
Through his remarks, PM Modi seeks to highlight what he sees as Congress’s inconsistency and ideological compromises. He reminds voters that the Congress party, which once viewed Shiv Sena as a threat to secularism, is now collaborating with the same party’s splinter faction to retain power. This message resonates with BJP’s base, reinforcing the party’s portrayal of Congress as opportunistic and willing to forsake its values for political gain.
Moreover, Modi’s praise for Balasaheb serves as a calculated move to co-opt Thackeray’s legacy. By positioning himself as an admirer of Balasaheb’s work, PM Modi aims to appeal to the traditional Shiv Sena base, especially in light of the split within the party. While the Shiv Sena UBT faction is aligned with Congress in the MVA coalition, Modi’s comments are intended to remind Balasaheb’s followers of his ideological alignment with the BJP’s vision of Hindutva, subtly reinforcing the divide between the original Shiv Sena ideals and the current Uddhav-led faction’s stance.
Akolkar is of the opinion that “PM Modi is trying to create rift between MVA by making such statements, but Congress and Shiv Sena’s love-hate relationship goes back to 1960s when Sena was established in Mumbai and was limited to Mumbai and Thane. For us, BJP-Sena alliance was a kind of shock as Sena was having good equations with Congress party in Mumbai, Sena used to get plum departments in Mumbai Municipal Corporation on the basis of their relations with Congress leadership in the state. It is after the 1980s that Sena, in a bid to expand its wings across Maharashtra, took on the agenda of Hindutva instead of Marathi Manoos, we saw differences surfacing between these two parties as Congress has always advocated secular values and secularism.”
Balasaheb Thackeray’s legacy remains deeply ingrained in Maharashtra’s political psyche. His brand of Hindutva and regional pride inspired an entire generation and reshaped Maharashtra’s politics. For his followers, Thackeray represented a leader who prioritised the interests of Maharashtrians and Hindus, a sentiment that still holds sway in parts of the state.
The irony in today’s political landscape is evident. Congress, which once viewed Shiv Sena’s Hindu nationalist ideals as a threat, now shares a political platform with a faction of the Sena in an effort to challenge the BJP’s influence in Maharashtra. For Congress, this alliance is a necessary compromise to counter the BJP’s political dominance, but it also opens the party up to criticism for aligning with an ideology it historically opposed.
Prime Minister Modi’s comments on Thackeray’s legacy serve as a reminder of this contradiction and highlight the complex web of political alliances in Maharashtra. His taunt isn’t only aimed at exposing Congress’s inconsistency, it also seeks to appeal to the Shiv Sena loyalists who feel alienated by the party’s alliance with Congress.
Modi’s praise of Balasaheb Thackeray and his taunt towards Congress serve a strategic purpose, underscoring the ideological inconsistencies that have emerged within Maharashtra’s political alliances. The historical tension between Congress and Balasaheb reflects the broader challenge Congress faces in reconciling its secular ideology with the pragmatism required for coalition politics in Maharashtra today.
This history provides context for understanding the BJP’s strategy in Maharashtra, where it seeks to capitalise on Thackeray’s legacy and portray itself as the true inheritor of his Hindutva vision. As Maharashtra heads toward another election, this invocation of Balasaheb Thackeray is a calculated reminder of the ideological battle lines that continue to shape the state’s political landscape. The enduring question remains: Can Congress balance its ideological stance with the practicalities of coalition politics, or will it further alienate its traditional voter base? For PM Modi and the BJP, the answer may well determine the outcome of the next electoral contest in Maharashtra.
