By Kumar Ketkar
The marriage of the Shiv Sena and the BJP may have been blessed by the ideology of Hindutva, but any religious glue has not been able to resolve the ongoing tension between the two parties. Clearly, the "gotras" do not seem to match. Indeed, the marriage had always been on the rocks for all the 15 years of their staying under one roof. But the tension is growing now because both the partners have smelt power.
The latest episode of bullying by Sena members of Parliament in the Maharashtra Sadan, force-feeding a Muslim staff member on his fasting day of Ramzan, is actually a reflection of this brewing tension. As the Maharashtra assembly polls draw closer, the partners will be further alienated from each other.
Both parties have chief ministerial ambitions. According to their agreement, whichever party gets more seats will lead the government. The ugly scene in the Maharashtra Sadan in Delhi would not have acquired political dimensions had the elections not been round the corner. But the subtext of the ruckus is the "status discrimination" between the MPs of the BJP and Shiv Sena. The main complaint of the Sena MPs was not about bad food but that the BJP MPs housed in the same Sadan received a royal treatment while they were getting a raw deal.
The Sena has been feeling marginalised ever since Narendra Modi and his Cabinet were sworn in on May 26. Despite getting 18 members elected, it was given just one ministry, and that too a relatively insignificant one. "Take it or leave it" was believed to be the Prime Minister’s response when Uddhav Thackeray complained. Even the talks between the BJP and the Sena over distribution of seats have entered turbulent waters.
Emboldened by the absolute majority in the Lok Sabha, the BJP is refusing to play second fiddle in Maharashtra.
The Sena always claimed to be a mass party. The BJP was considered a middle class-urban-upper caste party. Even the BJP believed that they did not have a mass base.
As a result, it used to meekly accept amuch lower share of seats compared with the Shiv Sena.
The initial formula was 171 seats to the Sena and 117 seats to the BJP.
With the broadening of the Sena-BJP alliance after the arrival of the Republican Party of India led by Ramdas Athavale and the Swabhiman Shetkari Sanghatana led by Raju Shetty, the distribution of seats became more complicated. Neither the BJP nor the Sena was ready to concede seats to these "latecomers" from their quota.
Now that the BJP feels it was the "Modi wave" that brought even the Sena members to the Lok Sabha, it does not want to give up the advantage.
There is also a feeling in the Shiv Sena leadership that Modi is very cold towards Uddhav. Worse, he is politically and emotionally closer to Raj Thackeray. That is truly unforgivable for the Sena rank and file.
That tension was bound to erupt, if not in Maharashtra Sadan then somewhere else.
There is also a kind of cultural difference between the two partners.
The BJP has pretensions of being a "sophisticated" party: more educated, more middle class, economically better off and traditionally upper caste. There has often been demands within the BJP to distance itself from the Sena as the latter’s riff-raff image may rub on to the former. But asection in the party feels that votes will split, giving the Congress-NCP alliance an advantage.
But the writing on the wall is clear: the Congress-NCP alliance is heading for a disaster in the coming elections.
No opinion poll is needed to predict the fate of the so-called Progressive Front led by Prithviraj Chavan. There is no sign of the saffron wave receding and the Congress-NCP alliance is still clueless. That is why the rebellion of Narayan Rane and the frustration of Sharad Pawar.
Both of them are targeting chief minister Prithviraj Chavan.
Though the Maharashtra Sadan episode has no direct relationship with their own tussles, the Congress-NCP wants to benefit by giving colour to the issue. Meanwhile, the BJP will project its new-found secular image while the Sena will insist that there was nothing communal about the fracas.
The writer is a senior commentator
The marriage of the Shiv Sena and the BJP may have been blessed by the ideology of Hindutva, but any religious glue has not been able to resolve the ongoing tension between the two parties. Clearly, the "gotras" do not seem to match. Indeed, the marriage had always been on the rocks for all the 15 years of their staying under one roof. But the tension is growing now because both the partners have smelt power.
The latest episode of bullying by Sena members of Parliament in the Maharashtra Sadan, force-feeding a Muslim staff member on his fasting day of Ramzan, is actually a reflection of this brewing tension. As the Maharashtra assembly polls draw closer, the partners will be further alienated from each other.
Both parties have chief ministerial ambitions. According to their agreement, whichever party gets more seats will lead the government. The ugly scene in the Maharashtra Sadan in Delhi would not have acquired political dimensions had the elections not been round the corner. But the subtext of the ruckus is the "status discrimination" between the MPs of the BJP and Shiv Sena. The main complaint of the Sena MPs was not about bad food but that the BJP MPs housed in the same Sadan received a royal treatment while they were getting a raw deal.
The Sena has been feeling marginalised ever since Narendra Modi and his Cabinet were sworn in on May 26. Despite getting 18 members elected, it was given just one ministry, and that too a relatively insignificant one. "Take it or leave it" was believed to be the Prime Minister’s response when Uddhav Thackeray complained. Even the talks between the BJP and the Sena over distribution of seats have entered turbulent waters.
Emboldened by the absolute majority in the Lok Sabha, the BJP is refusing to play second fiddle in Maharashtra.
The Sena always claimed to be a mass party. The BJP was considered a middle class-urban-upper caste party. Even the BJP believed that they did not have a mass base.
As a result, it used to meekly accept amuch lower share of seats compared with the Shiv Sena.
The initial formula was 171 seats to the Sena and 117 seats to the BJP.
With the broadening of the Sena-BJP alliance after the arrival of the Republican Party of India led by Ramdas Athavale and the Swabhiman Shetkari Sanghatana led by Raju Shetty, the distribution of seats became more complicated. Neither the BJP nor the Sena was ready to concede seats to these "latecomers" from their quota.
Now that the BJP feels it was the "Modi wave" that brought even the Sena members to the Lok Sabha, it does not want to give up the advantage.
There is also a feeling in the Shiv Sena leadership that Modi is very cold towards Uddhav. Worse, he is politically and emotionally closer to Raj Thackeray. That is truly unforgivable for the Sena rank and file.
That tension was bound to erupt, if not in Maharashtra Sadan then somewhere else.
There is also a kind of cultural difference between the two partners.
The BJP has pretensions of being a "sophisticated" party: more educated, more middle class, economically better off and traditionally upper caste. There has often been demands within the BJP to distance itself from the Sena as the latter’s riff-raff image may rub on to the former. But asection in the party feels that votes will split, giving the Congress-NCP alliance an advantage.
But the writing on the wall is clear: the Congress-NCP alliance is heading for a disaster in the coming elections.
No opinion poll is needed to predict the fate of the so-called Progressive Front led by Prithviraj Chavan. There is no sign of the saffron wave receding and the Congress-NCP alliance is still clueless. That is why the rebellion of Narayan Rane and the frustration of Sharad Pawar.
Both of them are targeting chief minister Prithviraj Chavan.
Though the Maharashtra Sadan episode has no direct relationship with their own tussles, the Congress-NCP wants to benefit by giving colour to the issue. Meanwhile, the BJP will project its new-found secular image while the Sena will insist that there was nothing communal about the fracas.
The writer is a senior commentator
