'If the BJP had contested all 227 seats, they would have managed to secure a majority on their own.'
The municipal corporation elections across Maharashtra have redrawn the state's political landscape, with the Bharatiya Janata Party emerging as the undisputed victor while its alliance partners face an uncertain future.
Devendra Fadnavis has consolidated his position as Maharashtra's most formidable political manager since Sharad Pawar, delivering crushing defeats not merely to the Opposition but to his allies as well.
In Pune and Pimpri-Chinchwad -- traditionally Ajit Pawar's strongholds -- the BJP secured an unprecedented 121 seats out of 165, humiliating Pawar despite his extensive campaigning.
Even Eknath Shinde, who claims the legacy of Bal Thackeray's Shiv Sena, was relegated to third position in Mumbai's Marathi heartland.
Speaking to Prasanna D Zore/Rediff, Sudhir Suryawanshi, senior Maharashtra journalist and author of Checkmate -- the book that offers ringside view of how Uddhav Thackeray became Maharashtra's chief minister with the help of Sharad Pawar and the Congress -- analyses the election results and their implications for Maharashtra's political future.
You have written Checkmate about how Uddhav Thackeray formed the government with the Congress and NCP in 2019. In these municipal corporation elections, who has checkmated whom?
In this election, the BJP has emerged as the king, and Devendra Fadnavis is the king of kings for the BJP.
They've checkmated not only the Opposition but also their alliance partners. If you look at Pune and Pimpri-Chinchwad, which were considered bastions of the Pawar family, they lost in a very shameful and embarrassing manner.
The BJP secured an unprecedented, record-breaking 121 seats out of 165 -- completely unthinkable and unimaginable.
Even though Ajit Pawar put up a big fight, camped there for several days, tried to poach candidates, and deployed all his resources, he couldn't manage any decent numbers. He even attempted to join hands with his uncle Sharad Pawar's party, but that didn't help him defeat the BJP or even secure respectable figures in either civic body.
The road ahead for the Pawar family is troublesome.
The same story unfolded with Eknath Shinde. He tried to expand his base in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region, claiming his faction represents the real Shiv Sena. He camped in Mumbai for at least two days before polling, deployed all resources, and pressured candidates and MLAs. But people outrightly rejected him and voted for the BJP with a massive majority.
The same happened in Navi Mumbai, Kalyan-Dombivli, and Nashik. In Mumbai, Shinde contested almost 90 seats but won only 29. So even in the Marathi areas where he claimed his Sena is the real Shiv Sena, he failed to demonstrate his party's actual strength when it came to the Mumbai municipal corporation.
Uddhav Thackeray might have lost the election in totality against the BJP, but they've shown they can hold their fort in Mumbai's Marathi bastions -- areas like Worli, Shivdi, Dadar, Lalbaug, Parel and Mahim. Shinde has been reduced to number three in this fierce competition.
The opposition (Congress) is feeling happy by winning a handful of municipal corporations like Latur and Malegaon. But this is a big lesson for them and for the BJP's alliance partners.
These partners are power-sucking parasites, frankly. I don't think the BJP will continue providing them power and making them stronger. They've reduced their power and political weight in these civic bodies, and soon in the district panchayat elections, they'll do the same -- trying to make their alliance partners redundant, just as they're trying to make the Opposition redundant.
Will BJP Be Dependant On Shinde?
In Maharashtra, it's accepted now that Devendra Fadnavis has checkmated everybody. However, isn't the BJP still dependent on the Shiv Sena (Shinde faction) in Mumbai?
The BJP had 82 seats in 2017 and has only increased its tally by seven, despite administering the city for four years from 2022.
In this context, Shinde's 29 seats are not insignificant, are they?
I have a different perspective on this. If the BJP had contested all 227 seats, I believe they would have managed to secure a majority on their own. The BJP has a strike rate of 65 per cent.
But there were reasons for the BJP's accommodation of Shinde. He filched almost 60 sitting corporators from the undivided Shiv Sena. The BJP leadership thought that without these 60 sitting corporators, victory would be difficult.
Secondly, they felt that abandoning Shinde would send the wrong message to Marathi voters, particularly in Mumbai. It could have widened the existing divide among Marathi communities.
Mumbai's demography has changed significantly. In the 1960s, the Marathi-speaking population was around 45 per cent. Today, it has reduced to somewhere between 35 and 38 per cent, while the population of non-Marathi speakers -- North Indians and others -- has increased.
Mumbai is now truly a cosmopolitan city demographically.
The BJP has realised that relying solely on North Indian, Gujarati and Marwari votes won't be enough to form the government or secure a majority in the BMC. They need Marathi voters because, while the Marathi population may have reduced, they still influence around 140 seats out of 227 in Mumbai.
At the same time, for the Thackerays, while the Marathi population may have supported Uddhav Thackeray's faction, their aggressive Marathi chauvinist agenda caused reverse polarisation among North Indian, South Indian and non-Marathi voters, who felt completely alienated.
The deciding factor was the minority Muslim vote, which helped them in the Lok Sabha elections.
The Shiv Sena (UBT) benefited from three seats (in the Lok Sabha) and lost one by just 34 votes -- they nearly won four out of six seats. The Congress won one seat as well.
Did Raj Thackeray's Speeches Alienate Non Marathi Voters?
You've made an important point about Raj Thackeray's speeches leading to reverse polarisation, affecting not just North Indians but South Indians as well. He was quite harsh this time.
I think those remarks ('hatao lungi, bajao pungi') were uncalled for and unnecessary. He could have criticised (BJP leader Kuppusamy) Annamalai for his comments alone, but he should not have taken such cinematic liberties in his political speech. He shouldn't have extended his criticism the way he did. That has backfired.
My observation is that most South Indians were somewhat sympathetic towards Uddhav Thackeray when his government was toppled and his party split. But that speech did not go down well with South Indian voters, and they may have become alienated from Uddhav as well.
At the same time, because of Uddhav's alignment with Raj Thackeray, the minority Muslim voters -- who had earlier voted for Uddhav en bloc (in the Lok Sabha and assembly) -- only voted for him partially (in the BMC election).
Uddhav secured 20 MLAs out of his total, and 10 of those are from Mumbai itself, which means Marathi plus Muslim voters supported him. But I think he miscalculated by aligning with his brother.
Raj brought only about 7 per cent vote share, but in doing so, Uddhav distanced himself from the Congress, which has nearly double that -- around 15 to 18 per cent vote share.
If the Congress had been with him during this election, the scenario and the end result might have been quite different.
What explains the MNS' poor showing, even in Marathi-dominated areas? The MNS won just 6 seats out of 53 they contested.
Raj Thackeray is a good orator. He definitely galvanises people, energises them, and creates narratives and perspectives. He certainly catches eyeballs in the media. But the problem is that his party doesn't have the organisational structure to capitalise on the votes or his charisma. His party structure cannot pull voters from their houses to the polling booths, and this is reflected in the results.
While Uddhav Thackeray's cadre was able to capitalise and bring their voters to the polling booth, Raj Thackeray's cadre could not because it's limited and simply not there.
This is a structural problem with his party. That's why he always gets good eyeballs and media attention, but when it comes to delivering performance, he consecutively fails. It's the same story every time.
'Marathi Voter Has Shown That Thackeray Is Their First Priority'
The Shiv Sena (Shinde) has 29 corporators and the BJP has 89. Won't the BJP remain dependent on the Shiv Sena (Shinde) in the BMC? The BJP hasn't swept the BMC elections, which is the richest and most prestigious municipal corporation in Maharashtra.
The way the BJP deployed resources in 2017 and secured 82 seats -- this time, it was expected they would cross at least 100 seats.
They had all the resources, all the money power, the entire state administration at their disposal. You just name a person, and that person would join their party -- whether from the Shiv Sena, MNS, or Congress. They recruited everyone and used every trick in the book.
Despite all that, they haven't crossed 100. This forces the BJP to go back to the drawing board and redesign their strategy.
The Marathi voter has shown them that Thackeray is their first priority, even though Devendra Fadnavis claims to be a Marathi leader despite coming from Nagpur.
For Mumbai's Marathi population, Thackeray remains the first priority, and the BJP or somebody else comes second.
As you asked, will they continue to depend on Shinde? As long as the BJP's agenda remains concentrated on North Indian and Gujarati voters and they don't have an effective outreach programme for Marathi voters -- and don't offer themselves genuinely as a Marathi party -- people won't shift towards the BJP. They'll have to depend on Shinde or another faction to secure a majority.
- Part II of the Interview: Is BJP Planning Op Kamal Against Eknath Shinde, Ajit Pawar?
© 2026