It’s do-or-die for Shiv Sena, MNS as break-ups widen voters’ choice

MUMBAI: Politicians have done their best to make this election spicier than the bland, two-way fights we have had for 25 years. It's now up to Mumbaikars — notoriously hard to find inside a polling station — to at least repeat, if not better, their April Lok Sabha performance, when a 10%-plus rise over the 2009 turnout helped Mumbai cross the halfway mark.

Several factors have contributed to making this the most intriguing electoral battle in Maharashtra in recent times. For one, voters are spoilt for choice. Used to having two real options for so long—three if you add MNS in 2009—they will be playing judge in a four- or five-cornered fight this time. The twin divorces—between Congress and NCP on one hand and BJP and Shiv Sena on the other—plus the presence of strong MNS candidates in a few seats make this contest more open than anything we have seen in decades.

What adds to the importance of October 19 in Maharashtra politics is what the parties have staked in this election. A lot rides on how you vote—both regionally and nationally—for all five parties and their mascots. But it's the Sena that has upped the ante the most by consciously escalating its fight with the BJP even when the latter has chosen not to return fire.

Not that it had an option; playing second fiddle to BJP in Maharashtra would be suicidal for a state party. BJP has Delhi if it cannot have Mumbai. What does Sena have if it does not have Mumbai? This loser-loses-all fear makes maintaining a distinct identity much more important for Sena than attempting the 15-km journey from Matoshree to Mantralaya.

The other two Maharashtra parties, too, have a lot at stake. Raj Thackeray's MNS faces irrelevance in case of a washout. NCP would be optimistic about Sharad Pawar again playing the kingmaker, a role he revels in; conversely, a stint out of office exposes its top leaders to inquiries and inquisition by an unsympathetic government.

The five parties' pre- and post-divorce posturing has made this election a season of open relationships and added to the edge-of-the-seat excitement. Any verdict that does not give an absolute majority to one party will lead to alignments between former allies who are now foes (like Sena and BJP) or former foes looking for allies (Sena and MNS) or even former foes who have, officially, remained foes (BJP and NCP).

The Maharashtra voter only has to deliver an ambiguous result to get a ringside view of a few more days of intrigue and drama.

MNS would not mind such a scenario. The party, written off five months ago, would be hoping Sena (preferably) or BJP (less preferably) falls short of a majority and it has enough seats to make up that shortfall. But don't discount even the improbable, like a BJP-Sena-MNS tie-up, if the numbers don't add up. Congress looks like the odd party out; its 'secular' credentials limit its options to only its ally-turned-rival, the NCP, as of now.

The national parties, BJP and Congress, will worry about the ripples that a bad result will create in Delhi. Bypoll results from some states have made BJP's LS win seem a little more distant than the 150 days since May 16. The prime minister himself has invested a lot of time and energy in this election, almost like other parties' chief ministerial candidates. So a win will help the Narendra Modi-Amit Shah combo within and outside the party; but the deliberate exposure to a state poll means a poor score will leave them more vulnerable in Delhi politics.

Ditto for Congress: India's GOP fights with its back to the wall; so does its chief minister, Prithviraj Chavan. A better-than-expected result can give the party and its state mascot a breather but another general election-like rout will mean delayed recovery nationally. How it loses—with or without a fight—could be as important as a win or loss.

Several sub-texts add to the spice, like the supposed Marathi-Gujarati wedge that politicians have tried to exploit. The uncertainty over the minority vote—conventionally thought to be there for the Congress's picking—is another. The Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM) can cause serious damage to 'secular' parties in tight, multi-cornered fights. Adding to Congress's unease are voices from the Christian community that have questioned why 'secularism' is more important than 'development' (though no one has raised or answered a more fundamental question: why cannot a party be both secular and pro-development?).

This Sunday will answer some of these questions but may also raise a few more.

http://ift.tt/1sE86xs

Stay updated on the go with The Times of India’s mobile apps. Click here to download it for your device.