Maharashtra’s Political Divide Deepens After Malegaon Ruling

The political landscape in Maharashtra has intensified following the recent court ruling that acquitted all seven accused in the 2008 Malegaon bomb blasts. The ruling parties, primarily the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Shiv Sena, have positioned themselves against what they describe as “appeasement politics,” responding to the Opposition’s shift from the term “saffron terror” to “Sanatani terror.” This change in narrative comes as the state prepares for local body elections, providing both ruling parties an opportunity to bolster their Hindutva agenda.

Political analyst Abhay Deshpande noted that the court’s decisions regarding both the Malegaon and Mumbai train blast cases were issued in close proximity, highlighting contrasting responses from the BJP and the Opposition. While the BJP welcomed the Malegaon ruling, it sought to appeal the decision regarding the Mumbai blasts, reflecting a strategic divergence in narrative and political tactics.

Deshpande emphasized that this ruling enables the BJP to polarize voter sentiment in the lead-up to elections. He stated, “This gives a chance for the BJP to polarise the elections ahead of the elections in the wake of the linguistic issue. It is better to draw attention to religious polarisation than the Marathi versus non-Marathi issue.” The BJP is expected to leverage this recent verdict to further entrench its position within the electorate, framing the narrative around “Sanatana terror” as a targeted critique of specific organizations rather than Hinduism as a whole.

Historically, the term “saffron terror” was coined by senior Congress leaders such as P. Chidambaram and Digvijaya Singh to describe terrorism linked to Hindutva groups. In a recent statement, senior Congress leader Prithviraj Chavan suggested shifting from “saffron terrorism” to “Sanatani or Hindu terrorist,” arguing that terrorism transcends caste and religion. He stated, “I request, don’t use the term ‘saffron terrorism’. If you must, then say ‘Sanatani terrorist’ or ‘Hindu terrorist’.”

The opposition’s framing of “Sanatana terrorism” aims to delineate its focus from Hindus at large, associating the term more closely with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and its affiliates. This distinction seeks to clarify that their critique targets specific ideologies rather than the broader Hindu community, which they argue promotes peace and unity.

In response to the controversies surrounding these terms, Jitendra Awhad, a legislator from the Nationalist Congress Party, called for a reevaluation of the historical connotations associated with Sanatana Dharma, asserting that the ideology advocates for harmony rather than division. Awhad’s remarks have spurred backlash from the BJP, with spokesperson Keshav Upadhye accusing the opposition of engaging in “Hindu hatred and appeasement politics.”

Additionally, Sambit Patra, a BJP Member of Parliament, added to the criticisms directed at Awhad, questioning the opposition’s motives and past endorsements of controversial figures. The Shiv Sena has also mobilized protests against Congress, demanding apologies for perceived derogatory remarks made by its leaders.

The ongoing political discourse encapsulates a wider battle over the interpretation of Hindu identity and the implications of terrorism associated with religious ideologies. With the local body elections on the horizon, the ruling alliance is likely to further emphasize their stance on these issues to galvanize their support base.

In this charged political environment, the use of terms like “Sanatana terror” and the subsequent reactions from various political factions illustrate the complexities of identity, ideology, and electoral strategy in contemporary Maharashtra. As both sides prepare for the upcoming elections, the narrative surrounding the Malegaon ruling will likely play a significant role in shaping voter perceptions and allegiances.