Uddhavrao, the baron of Leftover Sena, made a comeback on television screens through a press conference the other day. Speaking on this occasion, he once again took a dig at the Bharatiya Janata Party over the Ayodhya firing incident on kar sevaks almost over 30 years ago. Uddhav Thackeray reiterated how Balasaheb Thackeray’s legacy of Hindutva is only with him and that the BJP and the Sangh Parivar had not shown bravery even then. First and foremost, I am glad and I appreciate that he still remembers Balasaheb’s fierce Hinduism because one can easily cite several instances where Uddhav Thackeray had conveniently forgotten his venerable father’s Hindutva ideologies only to quench his thirst for power, to bag the position of chief minister and later to retain it.
The Modi government decided to implement the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) for the Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Parsis, Buddhists and Christians who were suffering from religious injustice while staying in minorities in the neighbouring countries. This actfacilitated their entry to the country if they so desired. The act made sure that if the Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Parsis, Buddhists and Christians,residing in minorities under extreme violent conditions in countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and other such nations, asked for Indian citizenship, the Modi government made sure that they could come to India. This is because these Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Parsis, Buddhists and Christians who are now residing in the neighbouring countries were earlier citizens of India only.And hence, the Modi government took this decision to accommodate them in their motherland. Singer Adnan Sami took up Indian citizenship under this act only.
However, Uddhav Thackeray, who was the chief minister, had, at that time declared that this law will not be implemented in the state. The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) was opposed by the Congress and the Nationalist Congress Party. And hence, Uddhav Thackeray also took the stance that this law will not be implemented in Maharashtra. By doing this, he exhibited how he had sacrificed Hindutva only to retain power. Had Shiv Sena supremo Balasaheb Thackeray been alive, he would have welcomed this law.
It may be recalled how students of Jamia Millia Islamia university took out a march in Delhi on December 17, 2019 to oppose this law. These students had even attacked the police. But when the police took action against these violent students, Uddhav Thackeray came down strongly against the police and made an open statement that ‘the police action in Jamia Millia was as merciless as the British firing at the Jallianwala Bagh’. Did Uddhav Thackeray feel take the violent rioters of Jamia Millia were pacifist or did he remark only so that he could retain power here in Maharashtra. Again, had Balasaheb been alive he would have supported police’s action. He would have also said, ‘these traitorous green snakes must be crushed at the right time only.’
People also witnessed how a conspiracy was hatched to create violence in Delhi against this law. Fierce riots took place in Delhi during six days between February 23 and 29. A picture of a young man named Shahrukh who fired pistol at the police in that riot had also made rounds. At that time also Uddhav Thackeray could not shoulder the strong legacy of Balasaheb’s Hindutva. However, Maharashtra hasn’t forgotten how venerable Balasaheb had taken a stance during Mumbai riots in 1992-93. People would flock to read the news stories, articles and editorials that used to get published in Balasaheb’s daily ‘Saamna’.
However, during the Delhi riots of 2020, this is what Sanjay Raut had to say in his ‘Rokhthok’ column in Saamna – ‘Seeing the violence in Delhi, Yamraj will also resign’. Raut saheb did not stop at this. He also demanded resignation of union home minister Amit Shah. Even the then Congress president Smt. Sonia Gandhi had publicly supported the anti-CAA movement. Also, on February 23, when rioters took law into their hands and started violence against this act, Sonia Gandhi remained a mute spectator. However, when these rioters began getting a befitting reply, these people who had been supporters of the rioters began talking about humanitarianism and how the state must be run by law. Again, fearing the removal of support from Congress high command and thus fearing loss of hard-earned chief ministership, these ‘rokhthok’ columnistsbowed down before the anti-Hindutva forces and began singing their tunes.
The agitation to protest the Citizenship Amendment Act at Shaheen Bagh where Delhi roads were blocked and citizens were tortured was also tolerated by Uddhav Thackeray only to make sure that his position was retained. At that time, he had conveniently forgotten about Balasaheb’s Hindutva ideologies. Uddhav Thackeray also did not mind and feel Sharjeel Usmani’s disparaging remarks against Hindus as anti-Hindutva. During the 1992-93 riots in Mumbai, the Congress was in power both at the Centre and the state. At that time Balasaheb Thackeray used to come down strongly against the Congress through his speeches and his editorials. This was Balasaheb’s legacy of thoughts.
As Swatantryaveer Savarkar has penned in one of his poems,
की घेतले न हे व्रत अंधतेने । लब्धप्रकाश इतिहास निसर्ग माने । जे दिव्य,
दाहक म्हणूनी असावयाचे । बुद्ध्याची वाण धरिले करी हे सतीचे
(‘Blindly have we not made this resolve, But in the light of history and the laws of nature Whatever is luminous, and scorching Have we purposefully held the robes of a sati in our hands)
Likewise, Balasaheb had competently held the robes of
Hindutva but Uddhavrao miserably failed to shoulder this legacy only for his
thirst for power.
(Article Pre-Published in Times of India Online –17 April 2023)
Keshav Upadhye, Chief Spokesperson
No comments:
Post a Comment