Raj Thackeray: Back After a Hiatus

• Analogously, of what use is the party, that offers only the nostalgia of its founder, and seeks to amass sympathy in his name? Had the party been tenacious of his ideas, it might have yet been strong. But the party apparatchiks of today deal only in wealth and sympathy.

• It is thus I had tweeted not long after the crisis in Shiv Sena began, that he who deems his good fortune the result of his industry alone, is fated to fall. Until 2012, Balasaheb’s presence ensured that good fortune. Later, people voted out of respect for Balasaheb’s memory. The Modi momentum of 2014 also added to their fortunes. What factor is there to aid them today? They do as their caprice dictates. Will this be appreciated?
• I recall the fuss (that was made after the 2019 Vidhan Sabha election), concerning Uddhav’s claim that the BJP had promised a rotational arrangement for the position of chief minister (Fadnavis for 2.5 years and Uddhav for 2.5 years). The claim rests on a promise purportedly made in the confines of four walls. This was never public knowledge. There are speeches available from those days, including those of Modi which feature Uddhav in attendance, in which it was unequivocally stated that Fadnavis was to be Chief Minister in case of victory. Amit Shah also is seen and heard stating as much in his speeches. Why did the Shiv Sena not protest then? How convenient that such a claim (of the promise of rotational arrangement) should be remembered only after the election results! Now, the BJP claims it had not promised any such arrangement. Indeed, why would it have promised so?
• I recount an incident from 1989. I do not recall whether this took place in Matoshree or in Centaur Hotel (in Mumbai). Balasaheb, Gopinath Rao, Pramod ji, and many of us were in attendance. We had then decided the formula: the party that wins maximum MLAs would hold the chief ministerial position, or that of leader of opposition, according as the alliance either wins or loses the elections. All of them had agreed. In the 1990 elections, Shiv Sena won, I think, 54 seats, and the BJP around 42. Honouring the agreement, Manohar Joshi (of Shiv Sena) became leader of opposition. It was around that time that Bhujbal defected with a few others, which reduced the MLAs of Shiv Sena. Gopinath Munde (of BJP), therefore, became the new leader of opposition, again honouring the agreement. In 1995, the Shiv Sena won 71 or 72 seats, and the BJP won around 62 or 63. Again honouring the agreement, Manohar Joshi became Chief Minister. Narayan Rane became Chief Minister thereafter. I do not recall the BJP back then having ever made claims that a rotational arrangement had been promised. So, seeing as this formula has long been a settled matter, why make such fanciful claims now? Why did the Shiv Sena want the chief ministerial chair for 2.5 years?
• So, the Shiv Sena breached that agreement and allied with the very parties it had denounced in its campaigns! Surveying the political scene of Maharashtra, I feel the way one might feel during a game of carrom; it gets difficult to tell whose coins fall in what corner. The electorate might end up forgetting who it voted for! Recall the sequence: elections with a determined pre-poll alliance, results, immediate breaking up of the pre-poll alliance, an early morning oath ceremony by Devendra Fadnavis and Ajit Pawar at the Governor’s residence, the fall of the resultant alliance, the rise of the MVA, rebellion by some MLAs in the ruling coalition, and their alliance with BJP. What on Earth is going on in Maharashtra? Never in the history of Maharashtra’s politics has such a thing come to pass.

• The reason behind this is a lack of respect for the votes of the people. I also want to ask of the electorate that casts its votes possibly thinking of honouring Balasaheb, “Where is Balasaheb?” How is it that the concerns of Maharashtra are overlooked with such ease? Is it not ignominious how an MLA, elected as part of a certain alliance, breaks that alliance and goes elsewhere, and then seemingly accepts money to yet again go elsewhere? Is it for such characters that the people must cast their votes, braving the summer heat?

Interviewer: Do you think that Uddhav should fundamentally not have allied with the Congress and the NCP?

Raj Thackeray: Indeed. He fundamentally dishonoured the time-tested arrangement that the chief ministerial chair would vest with the party that has the maximum number of MLAs, did he not? Was this not always the agreement? On what basis, then, did he want the position for 2.5 years?

Interviewer: One of the claims made by the Shiv Sena was also that the very approach of the BJP, as a national party, is dedicated to the purpose of enfeeblement, or of wholesale elimination of regional parties.

Raj Thackeray: We have seen what happened in West Bengal, did we not? We saw the story repeat in Tamil Nadu, too. The existence of one party is not eliminated by reason purely of such intent by another. If you engage in ignominious shenanigans, Parameshwara himself cannot save you. Every political party desires to expand. There is nothing objectionable about this sentiment. Every party hopes that the other be eliminated and that power be vested in itself. But the principal concern of a party is, or ought to be, its own expansion. To use a crude analogy, one’s attempt must not be to cleave another’s stick, but to find a larger one for oneself. But the Shiv Sena seems to have forgotten this rudiment! What is the other party expected to do if your party decides to commit political suicide?

Interviewer: In your speeches and interviews, the importance of ideology is always reflected. Your attempts are to show that the inheritance of thoughts….

Raj Thackeray (interrupting): I am not merely showing. I do what I do with conviction. I do not brandish it as one would an Aadhar Card. All that I have imbibed from Balasaheb from childhood, read and seen from childhood, is integral to what I say and do. And the people are smart enough to tell apart conviction from pageantry.

Interviewer: Of you it is often said that your taking up of Hindutva-centric issues, such as the call to play Hanumāna Chalisa (in front of such mosques as use loudspeakers for azaan), was at the behest of the BJP, or that the BJP used you for it.

Raj Thackeray: Such speculations have become rather easy in this era. I recall someone had alleged that I started my party at the behest of Sharad Pawar. The ludicrousness of it! Could it really have been easy to start my own party while Balasaheb still held the reins? Could anyone specify what association Sharad Pawar had with me back then? People who see the BJP’s brains or Sharad Pawar’s intrigues behind all and sundry seek only to amplify their importance in their own eyes. If it were so important to the BJP, why would it not have taken up such matters itself?

• Recall the recent fiasco in which one of the BJP spokespersons (Nupur Sharma) was dismissed because of her comments on Prophet Mohammed. By the way, she was in fact only repeating what she had herself heard or read. All and sundry began tendering apologies in its aftermath. Now, consider this madman, Owaisi, who utters the most venomous things about Hindu gods and goddesses. Do kindred parties apologize in its aftermath? Have the countries, who raised objections, ever done so after Owaisi’s comments?
• Any momentum gathered by smaller parties is always attributed to larger parties.

Interviewer: I now come to the issues pertaining to Hindu gods and goddesses that you raised. Indeed with reason, because Hindu gods and goddesses can be diagnosed and criticized, whereas a similar activity with regard to any other religion results in lakhs of people taking to the streets, which phenomenon is often not seen with regard to Hindus. Often, the street incidents also result in beheadings.

Raj Thackeray: The reason is that a Hindu identifies himself as such only in events of Hindu-Muslim riots. On 15 August and 26 January, he identifies himself as an Indian. When China attacks, he runs into a confusion of identity: to be a Hindu or to be an Indian is a dilemma he confronts. He also faces the very practical question of what to do after his Chinese car runs into disorder, but there has already been in place a mass boycott (of Chinese goods); calls of which he was a part! In other matters, his identity is that of his language or his state. When he identifies himself as Marathi, his identity morphs into Maratha, or Brahmin, or Mali, and such kindred identities.

• I was recently presented with a book titled “Kayastha”, and the one presenting me requested a foreword written by me. I responded that I never wrote in matters of caste. The gent persisted in his request. I consented, and I wrote therein that we never observed caste in our family; we were not even raised with consciousness concerning caste, which I deem propitious because it then does not demand attention. But I also therein observed that castes had resulted in a variegation of food habits, ancestral deities, and suchlike, and that I had great affinity for food culture, regardless of caste. I think every senior member of every caste must write such books, and must teach such aspects of culture, preserve them, and entrust as patrimony to posterity. ‘Hindu’ entails culture, and the culture must brave the test of time.
• If we analyze the past 1500 years, then barring the period of the rule of the Marathas, we have been, right from Ghazni’s arrival to 1947, subjected to foreign rule and depredation. But did our practices vanish? Have women stopped applying the kunkum, or donning the mangalasutra? Have sarees disappeared? Have festivals disappeared? Have traditional dresses disappeared? Did we forget any of this? We did not, and the reason consists in the practice of culture.

• When decapitations occur in matters of other religions, it testifies to their insecurity, for if their faith vanishes, they vanish accordingly. It is important to be clear as to who we are, and what transpires in our surroundings. And these matters are today coloured by political turmoil.
• The government has applied GST on milk and curd, hasn’t it? I suggest GST must be applied to WhatsApp. Fanciful claims of all shades are passed off as news. We see the same phenomenon in journalism. Journalists of integrity and independence are few and far between; they now pledge allegiance to political parties, or are sympathetic to political ideologies.

Interviewer: Hindutva and Hindutvawaad are often objects of discussion. Should we embrace the latter to preserve the former?

Raj Thackeray: I do not understand this distinction. My own take is that we are Hindus. Hindutva, Hindutvawaad, and kindred names, are but offshoots. I had said, when MNS adopted its new flag, that an attack on my Dharma shall result in my counterattack as a Hindu, and that an attack on my Marathi identity and language shall result in my counterattack as a Marathi. That we are Hindu and Marathi is of importance. The preservation of our cultural inheritance is of importance. We must not be fanatic on pure account of their fanaticism. We are who we are; our values have persisted through millennia, and we must preserve them and entrust them to posterity.

Interviewer: That which is your conception was also the guiding idea of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj.

Raj Thackeray: Indeed.

Interviewer: For he forged 18 castes and subcastes, and even a few Muslims, into a unified whole for Swaraj. You observed that Balasaheb had articulated the idea, and with his departure, so has the idea departed. But the common Marathi feels that if Mumbai has lived, has grown, and if the Marathi people have lived and grown, it is owed to the Shiv Sena.

Raj Thackeray: It is thus that I laid emphasis on ‘idea’. This is the result of that idea. When MNS campaigned for Marathi boards on stores, and initiated a countdown of days whereafter it promised action, the requisite boards were raised across Maharashtra on stores. We did this, did we not? Recall that prior to campaigning by MNS, the automated voices in mobile phones did not use Marathi, and used only Hindi and English. We ensured that Marathi was added to the roster. In the aftermath of our campaign for employment in railways, thousands of Marathi youth benefited.

• Accordingly, that which is important is whether the ‘idea’ is alive, and not so much who carries it forth. The idea of Hindavi Swarajya articulated by Shiva Chhatrapati was carried forth by the Peshwas, so much so that they established a fort at Attock. The people did not object, or ask, “Who are you to lay claim to the idea?”

Interviewer: Do you hold, therefore, that the idea articulated by Balasaheb was imperiled as a result of Shiv Sena’s alliance with the NCP and the Congress?

Raj Thackeray: Conspicuously so. Recall the kind of political posters and billboards that sprang up as a result of this alliance. I recall one particularly hideous instance: Balasaheb was featured on that hoarding; naturally, the phrase ‘Hindu Hriday Samrat’ was missing, which was true of many a billboard, and in Urdu, the title before Balasaheb was “Janaab”! On one hand, we have a renunciation of all principles for power and wealth, and on the other hand, so soon as that power is lost, we have the predictable cantillation of Balasaheb’s good name! Is that all the Marathi commons have the privilege to see? These are charlatans who merely use Balasaheb’s good name to profiteer, and present a morose face to the people when misfortune strikes. I observe, by the way, his rather fast recovery: he was not visiting Mantralaya for many a day, but he was prepared to return to Shiv Sena Bhawan!

• I do not intend to pass comments concerning one’s personal life, or anyone’s family. I must say, however, that when a family enters politics, and indeed even assumes an important role, is it not natural to comment on its members? I had echoed this position in my rally on the occasion of Gudi Padwa, too. There are those who say, “Why target my family? Heap calumnies on me”. Why? Why should your family be exempt from official inquiry, seeing as it has assumed an important role, and is involved in a great many things?

Interviewer: Indeed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) initiated an inquiry, and this again generated speculation as an increasing roster of politicians were summoned by it. It was alleged that the ED was being used to enfeeble them.

Raj Thackeray: My stance is quite simple: if you are devoid of stains, why hesitate? Cooperate with the inquiry in full boldness. Why the protests? It is merely an inquiry. I was summoned by the ED, too. I answered the questions posed by its officials. As regards the allegations that these inquiries are politically motivated, such agencies have been used in the past as well. One must be prepared for it in politics. The power equation will someday reverse. Both the Congress and the BJP do this. It is thus that I once said in a speech that should we use power and do something that sets a wrong precedent, the forthcoming powers-that-be would do it with double the intensity; wherefore, our steps must be well-considered, lest they boomerang on us.

Interviewer: Some allege that you have adopted a pro-BJP line ever since the inquiry by ED.

Raj Thackeray: What bearing has the ED had on my positions? I reiterate what I said in the rally at Thane: I will criticize when criticism is due. Must I not praise the nullification of Article 370? Does such praise amount to an alignment with the BJP? Every innocuous move seems to be taken to mean something else. A word exchanged with Pawar results in speculations of an alliance with him. A word exchanged with a BJP functionary results in speculations of an alliance with the BJP. On one occasion, Narendra Modi had come to Baramati, and said “Sharad ji ki ungli pakad kar main rajneeti mein aya” (I entered politics with the guidance of and following the footsteps of Sharad Pawar). Is this to be interpreted as a BJP-NCP alliance?

• It so happens that the media needs content 24×7, and so it adds whatever fuel it deems fit. Not every incident throughout the day is mediagenic or newsworthy. It was recently speculated that Amit Thackeray (Raj’s son) would be inducted into Maharashtra’s cabinet. These are the productions of an idle mind. Of late, idle minds pass off claims as news, and the media reacts!

Interviewer: When speculations concerning Amit Thackeray were rife, it was also speculated that the 40 odd Shiv Sena MLAs that rebelled would join the MNS. Should any such proposal be offered, would you accept?

Raj Thackeray: I must first note that these are old coworkers. I record that I was aware of such speculations, but there were no specifics advanced to me. Should such a proposal be forthcoming, I shall certainly consider it.

Interviewer: Have you felt that such a thing might result in relegating your ground worker to the periphery?

Raj Thackeray: Unequivocally not. My party’s worker, my Maharashtra sainik, is of foremost importance to me. Others are of secondary esteem.

Interviewer: With regard to the rebellion in the Shiv Sena, it must be observed that this is not the first instance. Chhagan Bhujbal had rebelled, as had Rane, as had you…

Raj Thackeray (interrupting): What I did may not be construed as a rebellion. I had informed Balasaheb before leaving the Shiv Sena, and I did not join any other party. There was no political benefit. I established my own party only after talking to Balasaheb. My action may not be likened to their rebellion. Pray continue.

Interviewer: So when you left, you had but one MLA. Shinde left with 40 MLAs. Thus a comparison started…

Raj Thackeray (interrupting): Bala Nandgaonkar came with me. He was a Shiv Sena MLA. Until such time as elections were held, he was with me but never on an MNS platform. He would honour the whip issued by Shiv Sena. It is thus that I belabour that there is no similarity (between my leaving the Shiv Sena and the rebellion of Eknath Shinde).

Interviewer: Sir, conceding that a comparison between Eknath Shinde and Raj Thackeray is unfounded, it is true that the MNS has experienced vicissitudes. There is a point of criticism, however, that has been persistent, namely, that Raj Thackeray adopts a programme but takes a “U-turn”, leaving it half-complete. What could be the reason behind this?

Raj Thackeray: The reason is simply the claims of my detractors. There is not a single instance of me abandoning an issue. It was us who fundamentally started campaigns. What were those political parties that level such accusations against me, themselves doing in course of these campaigns? One of the promises of the BJP-Shiv Sena alliance was that Maharashtra would be free of toll tax. It was Raj Thackeray’s campaign that led to the closure of 66 to 68 toll booths. Will the media not credit me for that? It was their (alliance’s) promise that the extant toll booths in Mumbai and nearby areas would be shut. Would the media not direct so much as one question at them?

Interviewer: A press conference would have been an occasion to direct a question, but they did not conduct one; they did not even meet us one-on-one.

Raj Thackeray: Exactly! They refuse to answer and avoid accountability, and do not even campaign on these issues. I challenge that I be shown one instance of a campaign that I have abandoned half-way through. Take the instance of the loudspeaker issue I had raised. A police report notes that about 93% of mosques have stopped using loudspeakers for azaan. Has this not happened?

Interviewer: Indeed it has. At least, the phenomenon of early morning azaan has ended.

Raj Thackeray: And the decibels of azaan for other durations of the day have reduced, haven’t they?

Interviewer: So they have.

Raj Thackeray: The vital point is that these people take no action at all, and their singular occupation is heaping calumnies on him who does take action, lest he amass much success. And should he indeed amass success, they claim that their support to him had always been in existence.

Interviewer: But it must be conceded that you have been successful on various occasions. This was also in terms of MLAs and Nagarsevaks. You had thirteen MLAs, but you have now only one MLA. In the Municipal Corporation of Mumbai, 7 Nagarsevaks were elected, and 6 were of Shiv Sena. Why, do you think, such things happen to you?

Raj Thackeray: I am not singular in regard to political vicissitudes. Sharad Pawar had himself recounted once, of an instance when he had 54 MLAs, and they travelled abroad, and by the time they had returned, 52 of them had disassociated. It must be remembered that when such sweeping judgments are passed in regard to the MNS, the histories of other parties are either forgotten or deliberately ignored. These changes in fortunes occur in the journey of all political parties, especially when they are in the period of growth. Much the same happened to Balasaheb, and to Pawar Saheb. Indira Gandhi was once defeated by Raj Narain of all people. Atal Bihari Bajpayee and Advani tasted defeat in 1984.

• We see the BJP of today as a hegemon, but it came into inception in 1952 in the form of Jan Sangh. It was rechristened as BJP in the 1980s. It was in 2014 that it won a majority on its own. Should its political journey from 1952 to 2014 be forgotten? The Shiv Sena came into being in 1966. It won the Municipal Corporation of Mumbai only in 1985. It secured its party symbol in 1989. Similarly, we look at the Congress from 1947, but should we overlook its journey from 1885 onwards?
• I am clear as regards my principles. I pledge fidelity to the principles I have learnt from my grandfather, from my father, and from Balasaheb.

Interviewer: Thoughts and ideas are indeed important, for they form the basis of movements. But it appears that ideas and movements no longer exist in politics. Such politics as we see is limited to semantics. And then MLAs rebel. How do you see this?

Raj Thackeray: Everyone loses one’s people to money and to power. Bhujbal crossed over by reason of considerations of power.

Interviewer: So, of this change in politics…

Raj Thackeray (interrupting): I think it is the people who must discipline political opportunists. In times of elections, on experiencing blows from the ballot, they shall fall in line, and not until then. They take the people for granted, and on ascending to power, behave as their caprice dictates. When they again implore the people for votes, the people cast their votes owing to some sentiment or the other, and they are re-elected, and as a result, think of their errors as right. And so the people are not the ones who rule. They vote for those who do not work for them, as was the case with us in Nashik. I have political differences with Ajit Pawar, but I must concede that he did work in the Pimpri-Chinchwad area. Yet, he lost that area. It has become a trend to punish those who work, and to vote for those who do not work and who betray the people. Manifestoes have been issued forever. No one reads them, and no one holds the parties in power accountable.

• So long as we treat politics as a game and a joke, and until such time as we take it seriously, things cannot change. Remember that the water supply to our homes is controlled by the Nagarsevak. The cost of the milk reaching your homes is decided by the Mantralaya. The flow of electricity to your homes is controlled by politicians. The whole of your day is intimately associated with politics. How are we not serious as to who occupies these important positions? It is for the people to ensure that they do not punish those who work for them. Vote for them, so that their own lives may be improved.

Interviewer: Speaking of voting, it must be noted that Raj Thackeray is a powerful orator. The audience for Raj Thackeray’s speeches numbers in lakhs. The question presents itself, “Why do these lakhs not express themselves through the ballot?”

Raj Thackeray: Whence the 13 MLAs that I had? There are phases. In 2014, there was the Modi momentum. We shall be slated for the future.

Interviewer: Should the BJP offer to ally with you, would you accept?

Raj Thackeray: I find myself unable to answer this question at this stage. These are questions of hypothetical situations. I shall, for the foreseeable future, focus on expanding the footprint of my party, and on winning elections. He who desires to build a party by means of an alliance shall not succeed. Alliances must only be considered when the moment is opportune. Such questions, therefore, are of no consequence at the moment.

Interviewer: Indeed. However, a question in a similar vein: twice, once in 2014 and once in 2017, you had attempted reconciliation with Uddhav Thackeray. Or at least, he had attempted.

Raj Thackeray: When, you said?

Interviewer: In 2014 and in 2017…

Raj Thackeray: I must record that the man (Uddhav) says one thing and does quite something else. He is untrustworthy. I feel bad for the others, but he is not worthy of trust.

Interviewer: Consider that Balasaheb had called you, with regard to hospitalization of “Dadu”, and you had gone to see him forthwith…

Raj Thackeray: These are matters of health; they are altogether different. But I know the man with such familiarity as none in Maharashtra and the country at large possess.

Interviewer: But you certainly honour sentiments in such matters. In such matters, the common Marathi, and the average Shiv Sena voter…

Raj Thackeray (interrupting): As regards your reference to the common Marathi, I must say that the Congress, the NCP, the BJP are not voted in by Kannadigas or Tamilians; these are also voted in by Marathi people in Maharashtra. So it is not as if Marathi peoples must be referenced only in regard to the Shiv Sena. This construct must thus be renounced. All of those who vote in Maharashtra are Marathi.

Interviewer: Sir, everyone in Maharashtra feels that Matoshree is in quite a quandary. In such a situation, the Thackerays are also in a quandary, so would you go to help?

Raj Thackeray: Matoshree is a place of residence, and is known for a certain organization. The place of residence is in no trouble. As regards the organization, the man who once looked after it is no more, nor do his thoughts have any place in it anymore. There is no point in fretting over it.

Interviewer: Now, to deviate from politics, I veer to questions concerning the Thackeray family. You were quite close to your grandfather, Prabodhankar Thackeray, and now you, too, are a grandfather. How do you look at the generations succeeding you in the current political milieu?

Raj Thackeray: My grandson is too young at the moment.

Interviewer: It does seem that the generation succeeding you is prepared for politics.

Raj Thackeray: I do feel that Maharashtra, the Marathi language, our Dharma, and our country, should be observed and understood (by them) with graveness, and they must honour the inheritance of principles.

Interviewer: Indeed the principles are important throughout the journey. We see now the results of abandoning principles. Would these principles find success? Should the MNS ascend to power, should it win the Municipal Corporation of Mumbai, what novel service would you render unto Mumbai?

Raj Thackeray: In one sentence: I shall do such things as have not so far been seen. And those things shall reflect in my manifesto.

Interviewer: Sir, you have answered questions quite candidly. I thank you for that. Zee 24 Taas wishes you all the best,

Raj Thackeray: Thank You.