Thackeray Unity: A Promise to Maharashtra or Mere Optics?

Brothers Reunited, Maharashtra Awaits

After decades of estrangement, Uddhav Thackeray and Raj Thackeray — once political allies, later ideological rivals — have come together in a public display of reconciliation. Their reunion has stirred a mixture of nostalgia, hope, and political curiosity across Maharashtra. In an exclusive interview with Saamana, the Shiv Sena (UBT) mouthpiece, Uddhav Thackeray addressed this development, choosing symbolism over strategy, while also launching a sharp attack on the BJP-led central government and asserting his unwavering commitment to Marathi pride and secular governance.

Their shared surname carries both legacy and expectation. Uddhav, son of Shiv Sena founder Balasaheb Thackeray, and Raj, his nephew, were once comrades under a common ideological banner before parting ways. Their reunion, even if not yet political, may reshape Maharashtra’s emotional and political landscape.

A Reunion of Symbolism, Not Strategy — Yet

Uddhav Thackeray was candid when asked about the political implications of his reunion with Raj. "We have come together after 20 years. This is not even a little — this is very big," he said, choosing to highlight the emotional impact of their appearance together over immediate political calculations.

While he stopped short of announcing a formal alliance with Raj Thackeray’s Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS), Uddhav made it clear that the reunion transcends political arithmetic. “Even our Muslim brothers were happy… Gujarati and Hindi-speaking citizens said, ‘Achcha kiya aapne.’” This response reflects a conscious effort to position the Thackeray reunion as an inclusive cultural moment, rather than a mere electoral tactic.

He dismissed critics who questioned the timing and purpose of the reunion, stating, “If someone has a stomach-ache, it’s their stomach-ache. I ignore that.” The message is clear: the Thackeray cousins are reconnecting on their own terms, with politics possibly taking a backseat — for now.

Marathi Identity, Multilingual Ethos

A core theme of Uddhav Thackeray’s rhetoric was linguistic and cultural autonomy. He fiercely opposed the imposition of Hindi in Maharashtra, asserting that the unity of Marathi-speaking people remains “unbreakable.” In his words, “We do not hate any language, but Marathi people will not tolerate any language compulsion.”

Recalling Balasaheb Thackeray’s advocacy for multilingualism, Uddhav reinforced that Maharashtra's identity does not rest on linguistic exclusion, but on cultural self-respect. “Learn as many languages as you want, but don’t force anyone,” he said, lamenting how cultural staples like the Maruti Stotra are being overshadowed by religious chants with political motives.

This linguistic stance isn’t merely about language — it’s about asserting Maharashtra’s distinctiveness in the face of a perceived homogenization under BJP-led centralism.

A Scathing Rebuke of National Security Failures

In a sharp pivot from regional issues, Thackeray took aim at the Modi government’s handling of the Pahalgam terrorist attack in Kashmir, in which 26 civilians lost their lives. Calling it a “failure of the government,” he questioned how such an attack could occur when the Centre claimed Kashmir had returned to normalcy after the abrogation of Article 370.

He raised serious concerns over security breaches: “Tourists… were suddenly fired upon. The area is far from the border. How did terrorists get so far inside?” Adding to the gravity of his accusations, he questioned the withdrawal of ‘Operation Sindoor’, asking whether it was halted due to foreign pressure.

Pointing directly at former U.S. President Donald Trump’s repeated assertions that he pressured India and Pakistan into a ceasefire, Thackeray’s critique turned international. “Trump has said 27 times that he stopped the war… and our brave Prime Minister is silent.” His accusation: that India’s security and soldiers’ lives are being traded for economic diplomacy and foreign appeasement.

Corporate Interests Over People?

Uddhav did not spare the Modi government’s domestic policy either. He criticized the alleged misuse of laws like the Public Safety Act to suppress dissent against corporate land acquisition. “If you stand against Adani… you will go to jail for endangering public safety,” he warned, arguing that democratic protest is being criminalized to favor industrial giants.

This narrative ties back to his broader political message — that the government’s priorities lie not with common people but with elite interests, even at the cost of civil liberties and state rights.

Secular Governance and Inclusive Hindutva

Thackeray also used the interview to reaffirm his brand of Hindutva — one that he claims is inclusive, not exclusionary. “I am a Hindutva supporter, but did I treat Muslims differently during the pandemic?” he asked. He emphasized that his tenure as Chief Minister and earlier in the Mumbai municipal corporation was defined by equal treatment regardless of religion or language.

His invocation of “Maharashtra Dharma” was framed not as religious doctrine but as an ethos of compassion, fairness, and cultural pride. “It does not mean hatred of any state or language,” he concluded, distancing his ideology from the more militant narratives often associated with the BJP.

A Reunion of Legacies, a Test of Intentions

The reunion of Uddhav and Raj Thackeray may have started as a symbolic gesture, but in the emotionally charged political arena of Maharashtra, such symbols carry weight. Uddhav’s interview reveals a man reasserting his political voice, sharpening his critique of national leadership, and standing firm on Marathi identity and inclusive governance.

Yet the real test lies ahead. Will this Thackeray thaw develop into a formidable political front, or remain a nostalgic footnote? Will inclusive Hindutva and regional pride offer a credible alternative to the centralised, majoritarian narrative? As Maharashtra approaches a new electoral cycle, the answers to these questions will shape not just the state’s politics — but its soul.