Saamana riddle: Why is the Shiv Sena mouthpiece suddenly pro-progressives?

Saamana, the Marathi morning newspaper, the mouthpiece of the Shiv Sena has all along been predictable in its views promoting hardline Hindutva that other newspapers refused to promote. That is after all why the newspaper was founded 27 years ago. And it has done a fine job of it, full of fire and brimstone. It appropriated the right to criticise anyone and everyone, and spared none with adjectives not normally seen in newspapers. The party of which Saamana is the mouthpiece, had used all kinds of measures — muscle and blackening faces included — to have its way. Mild criticism of the Sena evoked anger in both the party and the newspaper’s columns. As its founding editor, Bal Thackeray had donned two hats — one of the party leader, and the other of a fearless editor, juggling both with ease as long as it served the purpose of the party. Nothing else mattered, and with its Hindutva platform, the paper even claimed that its cadre brought down Ayodhya’s domes. If they did, they were never paraded before the public. The Sangh Parivar and Bharatiya Janata Party, brushing aside the claim, continued to glow in their own achievement. [caption id=“attachment_2425826” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] Shiv Sena president and Saamana editor Uddhav Thackeray. PTI[/caption] As its masthead proclaims, the newspaper is a proponent of fierce Hindutva. The party’s platform, apart from the advocacy of the sons of the soil and Marathi identity, is so trenchant that in Maharashtra, the BJP had opted to tie-up with Sena for precisely that reason. Even before it could bring the Ram Temple issue to its manifesto in the 1980s, an alliance with Sena was seen as a signal of the BJP’s intent. Then why did the Saamana suddenly follow a new tack, and advocate sobriety among the country’s fundamentalists? And in doing so, focus exclusively on Hindu fundamentalists? Its executive editor, Sanjay Raut wrote a signed piece on Sunday in which he faulted the hardline Hindu extremists after the killing of MM Kalburgi, a scholar. It argued that any assault on freedom of expression was an assault on the soul of the country’s freedom. The use of foul language did not sit well with “religious culture”. It just so happens that Saamana is known for its colourful language. Before proceeding further, the salient points of the signed article by Raut in newspaper’s Sunday section: One, after the slayings of Narendra Dhabolkar and Govind Pansare — both progressives, and the latter a Communist, an ideology for which the party has professed its visceral dislike — Kalburgi has been killed and death threats to KS Bhagwan soon followed, which indicated an intolerance towards progressive thought. Two, were such intolerance — as is evident in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh — to persist in India, there would hardly be any room to criticise hardliners like the Taliban. The Hindu fundamentalists that killed Kalburgi are a mere pretence to being protectors of religion. Three, he wondered what would happen if social reformers like Gadge Baba — the man who cleaned villages with a broom he carried and said there was no religion better than cleanliness — also met the same fate, pointing out that SA Dange and Prabodhankar Thackeray — Bal Thackeray’s father — had been trenchant in their criticism of social ills, and were noble. Four, religion did not allow for attacking an unarmed man, which all the recently slain progressives were. Killing such people was a manifestation of cowardice. Above all, the actions of the fundamentalists brought shame to the Hindu religion and as the headline said, they were mercenaries of ‘dharma’. The view by Raut was not an editorial. But if it had been, it would have been seen as the views of the party, its chief, and the newspaper’s editor, who is Uddhav Thackeray. A signed article puts it on a different plane. And as the article canvasses freedom of expression, it would have been seen as a manifestation of precisely that within the newspaper. Most liberal newspapers allow diverse opinions. But this one was by its editor, no less. However, it is not a liberal newspaper accommodating all shades of opinion, even though in its coverage of general news, it is quite nippy. It is hard to say if the newspaper was changing its stance because the editorial views, advocated on behalf of its editor and party chief, have sometimes fallen out of line. Raut, an MP and a spokesperson, has had to explain to Uddhav his enthusiasm in toeing some line or the other that did not have the party’s approval. This party has one line and that is the line the party chief provides. A signed article is easier to withdraw than recanting an editorial. Is it a one-off deviation into sobriety? It could be. Time alone will tell. Is it part of some game plan to equate Hindu fundamentalists with the Sangh Parivar, because the Shiv Sena is in an uncomfortable relationship with the BJP in Maharashtra? It’s possible, because the party has to distinguish itself from the BJP, because at stake are the several civic body elections in offing. Neither can seek nor offer an alliance since civic bodies are part of the brick and mortar of the political power structure. The BJP is playing hard to wrest the street-level dominance of the Sena in preparation for Mumbai’s civic elections. The various dahi handi that the BJP organised were far more than it had thought ever possible. The BJP did not try to match the scale in terms of bigger rewards or taller pyramids because of court and government stipulations. Instead it chose to spread them across as many localities as possible. The Sena, uncomfortable — it cannot imagine a minuscule 20-foot-tall pyramid given the its style — with this development, chose to give away onions as prizes in some places, underlining how the state government of which it is a part, was unable to control its price. The least Raut did was to set tongues wagging among the tribe of political observers. And he brought Saamana back into the limelight, albeit for an odd reason.