In a significant move aimed at distancing himself from the growing controversy surrounding the controversial slogan "batenge to katenge" (if divided, we perish), Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar has firmly stated that he cannot support or endorse such rhetoric, underscoring the need for political discourse that reflects the unique socio-political climate of Maharashtra. His remarks came as a direct response to Maharashtra BJP leader and Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, who had previously defended the controversial slogan, claiming it highlighted the historical consequences of Hindu disunity, where the community allegedly suffered at the hands of their enemies due to a lack of unity.
Pawar’s statement stands as a marked divergence from the stance taken by Fadnavis, who had justified the slogan on the grounds of its symbolic significance for Hindu unity. Fadnavis had argued that slogans like "batenge to katenge" serve as a stark reminder of the violence that Hindus have faced in various historical contexts, particularly in times when they were disorganized and fragmented. According to Fadnavis, it is essential for Hindus to stay united in the face of adversity to prevent further violence and marginalization.
However, Ajit Pawar, in a clear effort to distance himself from the rhetoric championed by BJP leaders like Fadnavis and Yogi Adityanath, took a firm stance. "A Chief Minister from another state (referring to Uttar Pradesh's Yogi Adityanath) came here and said ‘batenge to katenge,’ but I told him that this is not Uttar Pradesh—this kind of rhetoric doesn’t work here," Pawar said, emphasizing that the political dynamics of Maharashtra were quite distinct from those in Uttar Pradesh, and such divisive slogans were not suitable for the state. His comment was seen as a subtle rebuke to Adityanath, suggesting that Maharashtra's political environment requires a more inclusive and conciliatory approach, rather than one based on fear and division.
Pawar's refusal to back the slogan was also accompanied by a careful but pointed clarification when questioned about Fadnavis’s support for the phrase. Responding to concerns about Fadnavis's statement that violence against Hindus has increased when they are not united, Pawar remarked, "Everyone has their own perspective. I do not know what Devendra Fadnavis thinks, but we do not support slogans like ‘batenge to katenge.’” This statement reflects Pawar’s attempt to manage the internal differences within the ruling coalition, as he emphasized that while his colleague may hold a particular view, he personally does not subscribe to the fear-driven narrative associated with the slogan.
The phrase “batenge to katenge” was first coined by Yogi Adityanath during his visit to Bangladesh in August, where he called for Hindu unity in response to rising violence against Hindus. The slogan resonated strongly with Adityanath’s brand of hardline Hindutva politics, which promotes religious unity as a means of protecting the Hindu community from perceived threats. Adityanath repeated the slogan during a recent election rally in Maharashtra, where it was clear that the BJP was trying to galvanize Hindu votes by invoking the specter of unity as a safeguard against external and internal threats.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has also reinforced the sentiment behind the slogan with his own phrase, “ek hain toh safe hain” (we are safe if united), further pushing the narrative of religious solidarity as essential for the safety and well-being of the Hindu community. While these slogans have certainly found resonance among certain sections of the BJP’s base, they have been met with widespread criticism, particularly from opposition parties and secular groups who view such rhetoric as divisive and inflammatory.
Opposition parties, particularly those on the left and center, have heavily criticized the BJP’s use of these slogans, accusing the ruling party of fearmongering and seeking to create a climate of insecurity for Hindus to consolidate their political power. Critics argue that such divisive rhetoric is dangerous, as it seeks to divide communities along religious lines and create a narrative of victimhood, even when no such widespread threat exists. They further assert that there is no evidence to suggest that Hindu disunity is responsible for any recent uptick in violence or insecurity in India.
Pawar’s rejection of the “batenge to katenge” slogan is significant not only in terms of his political stance but also in how it signals a divergence in the Maharashtra government’s approach to handling communal rhetoric. Maharashtra, with its history of pluralism and communal harmony, has long been a state where the political discourse tends to be more inclusive, with emphasis on regional pride, secularism, and social welfare. Pawar's stance appears to reflect a desire to keep that tradition alive, steering away from the polarizing language that has become more prominent in national politics under the BJP's leadership.
The controversy over the slogan also highlights the internal ideological rifts within Maharashtra’s ruling coalition, which includes both the BJP and the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP). As the state prepares for upcoming elections, Pawar’s firm rejection of the slogan could be seen as a strategic attempt to distance himself and his party from the BJP’s hardline approach, while attempting to keep Maharashtra’s political culture grounded in pragmatism and inclusivity.
As this debate rages on, the stakes for Maharashtra’s political future remain high. The use of such divisive rhetoric by leaders like Adityanath and Modi may continue to be a point of contention in the state, with Pawar and other political leaders positioning themselves as champions of a more balanced and harmonious approach to governance. How the people of Maharashtra respond to these contrasting visions of politics could have significant implications for the state’s future political landscape.
