Opinion: 3 Mistakes That Damaged Uddhav Thackeray

Can Uddhav Thackeray survive this debacle? That's the big question after he resigned last night as Chief Minister, cornered by his own party, a large faction of which has turned against him.

Many have already written the political epitaph of Uddhav Thackeray, alleging that does not have the talent of his father to fight back, that he is too simple a man to fight the sharks that swim in the political waters of Mumbai. Balasaheb was undoubtedly of a different mettle. He was aggressive, he was a dare-devil, he knew when to bend and when to roar (he was frequently called a lion or a tiger) to threaten opponents, including with street violence.

But the aggression was a development of the 1980s. During the Emergency, when he faced with Indira Gandhi's might and fury, he caved in meekly. He was told by the then Maharashtra Chief Minister that he had only half an hour to either publicly support the Emergency or go to jail; he did not waste time and chose the former. Balasaheb was young and nobody thought at the time that one day, he would rule Mumbai, the absolute power behind successive governments. Uddhav Thackeray, unlike his father, doesn't come across as flexible. If he had read the nature of the Modi regime and character of the BJP after 2014, he would not have been bested. Or at least it would not have caught him so unaware.

There is no doubt that Uddhav Thackeray failed as a leader. In 2019, by dumping the BJP, he ended a trusted relationship of more than three decades. They were natural allies. Both had Hindutva in their hearts. His calculation was that the BJP, which had outperformed the Sena in elections, would have swallowed the regional party. He was right in that. The BJP under Narendra Modi is determined to expand its hold so that it greatly reduces any dependence on allies. Maharashtra is the country's richest state, Mumbai is the financial capital, and the BJP believes it must be able to take charge of the area without needing a partner of significance. In Devendra Fadnavis, it has a leader who is aggressive about winning by hook or by crook, within the party and outside. Uddhav Thackeray found it too intimidating and insulting to play second fiddle to the BJP. But the mistake he made was that he broke Balasaheb's golden rule. Instead of being king-maker, he decided to be the king.

Balasaheb was powerful in Mumbai and in Maharashtra even before he allied with the BJP and formed the government in 1995. It was impossible to ignore him. He had an army of subalterns who were ready to do anything for him - including breaking the law. In a way he was a 'political underworld' who was accountable to none. Balasaheb was clever enough not to become the Chief Minister in 1995; he gave the job to Manohar Joshi. Everybody in Mumbai knew where the real power lay, who was the Sarkar, but this Sarkar was not accountable to the public. He was not responsible for the failures of the government. So when Manohar Joshi failed, he was replaced by Narayan Rane. Easy.

Once Uddhav Thackeray decided to be Chief Minister, he exposed himself to critics, including within his own Sena, of making compromises for power. Instead of being the arbiter for power-hungry Shiv Sena politicians, he was seen as competing with them for power. He was no different...the Thackeray mystique shredded. I don't know if he was guided by Pawar Politics, but he should have been guided by his father's strategy instead. Once Eknath Shinde revolted, Uddhav Thackeray realised his mistake. Leaving the Chief Minister's bungalow much before he resigned as Chief Minister was an attempt at course correction, but the damage was irreversible by then.

Uddhav Thackeray made another mistake - in putting his son in his Cabinet. Like Balasaheb, Kanshi Ram was supremely powerful because he never sought to be Prime Minister or Chief Minister; with this moral authority, those who took office from their teams dared not defy them. In India, moral authority can be more effective than political power. Making son Aaditya a minister allowed allegations of nepotism and dynasty.

The third mistake was that he allowed for perception to build of Sharad Pawar as king-maker. He was the chief negotiator and trouble-shooter of the government, godfather of the three-party alliance. In a way Sharad Pawar replaced Balasaheb. He donned the role of senior Thackeray. The power centre moved away from 'Matoshree'. Instead of Thackeray, Pawar became the Sarkar. Balasaheb and Sharad Pawar were good friends, but Balasaheb was never seen to be dependent on anyone for advice. Even when Sharad Pawar became very powerful in Delhi politics, it was he who used to visit Balasaheb and not the other way around.

Uddhav Thackeray's inexperience in part allowed Sanjay Raut too large a space within the Sena, upsetting other senior leaders, who were already opposed to the new alliance with the Congress and Sharad Pawar.

But Uddhav Thackeray has made three important decisions:

1. He did not let himself be defeated on the floor of the House. He cannot be accused of seeking any unethical deal with the rebels or with the BJP. He showed maturity in his emotional appeals to the rebels to sit across the table and discuss things, he said he was ready to make amends. Sanjay Raut can be faulted for his language during the crisis, but Uddhav Thackeray made no mistakes on this front. 

2. Through the crisis he projected himself as a victim, betrayed by his own men. This will hold sway over his cadre and possibly, the public.

3. He appears to have acknowledged and understood that as Chief Ministrer, he ignored the party. He now seems determined to rebuild the party.

This could help him restructure his party - and his own career. 

(Ashutosh is author of 'Hindu Rashtra' and Editor, satyahindi.com.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author.