Edit

Polarisation tactics may not work in Maha polls

Herald Team

As Maharashtra’s Assembly election approaches on November 20, political activity across the state is intensifying. Leading parties are revving up their campaigns, and the BJP, which saw unexpected setbacks in the recent Lok Sabha elections, is determined to reclaim its foothold.

In a bold move, the BJP has launched its high-profile “star campaigner” and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath to lead the charge with his provocative slogan, “Batenge To Katenge” (“If divided, we will be cut”), which generated a significant buzz during the Haryana elections.

Hoardings displaying this slogan, alongside images of Adityanath, have already surfaced in Mumbai and Thane, signalling BJP’s strategy of employing strong rhetoric to appeal to the Hindu vote base. Adityanath, who has a notable following in Maharashtra, is expected to hold around 15 rallies across the state in the coming days. The BJP was the dominant party in Maharashtra’s 2019 assembly elections, winning the most seats and solidifying its presence in the state. However, the recent Lok Sabha results did not meet the party’s expectations, especially in Maharashtra.

To address this, the BJP has devised a fresh approach, using Adityanath’s rallies as a rallying point for Hindu unity. Party leaders and supporters have publicly endorsed Adityanath’s slogan, intending it to resonate with local Hindu communities.

A Mumbai BJP member, Vishwabandhu Rai, confirmed that the slogan’s purpose is to unify the Hindu vote, a significant strategy given Maharashtra’s complex social landscape. Yet, many question whether polarising language can effectively counter the issues facing the electorate, including economic concerns, unemployment, and regional discontent.

Samajwadi Party President, Akhilesh Yadav condemned the slogan as the most divisive campaign slogan in the country’s history, while Asaduddin Owaisi of MIM pointed to Adityanath’s track record of inflammatory remarks. Owaisi went so far as to accuse Adityanath of supporting actions that target Muslim communities in Uttar Pradesh, a sentiment that has spurred concern among Maharashtra’s Opposition leaders about similar tactics in their state.

Local leaders, including Shiv Sena MP Sanjay Raut, have voiced their opposition to the BJP’s messaging. Raut pointedly reminded Adityanath that Maharashtra, the land of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, does not accept divisive language, criticising him for failing to deliver seats for BJP even in his home state of Uttar Pradesh.

Meanwhile, Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) MP Amol Kolhe questioned why Maharashtra’s economic issues, such as youth unemployment and the transfer of key industries to Gujarat, have not been prioritized in BJP’s campaigns. Instead of addressing these pressing matters, Kolhe argued, BJP is focusing on religious messaging.

The BJP’s reliance on Adityanath’s campaign reflects both a sense of urgency and an attempt to replicate tactics used in recent elections in northern states. However, Maharashtra’s electoral landscape differs significantly from other states where communal rhetoric may have found traction. The State’s political fabric is woven with competing interests from OBC, Maratha, Adivasi, and Dhangar communities.

These groups have been engaged in their own battles for social and economic equity, making religious polarisation a challenging sell. Issues such as the reservation conflict continue to drive the narrative in Maharashtra, suggesting that appeals to Hindu unity alone may fall short.

The BJP’s recalibrated approach in Maharashtra comes at a critical juncture as it seeks to regain lost ground. However, given the backlash from opposition parties and the sensitivity of Maharashtra’s caste and community-based politics, Adityanath’s message may have limited impact.

In recent elections, polarisation tactics have faced mixed outcomes, and Maharashtra’s electorate may demand more tangible responses to pressing issues like employment, economic development, infrastructure, security and farmers’ welfare.

SCROLL FOR NEXT