AA Edit | Identity Politics Trumps Civic Issues in BMC Polls

As the curtain comes down on campaigns for the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) election, it is evident that what was formally a local contest to govern India’s financial capital has acquired unmistakable national resonance. Unfortunately, the campaign run by the main contenders — the Mahayuti alliance (BJP and Eknath Shinde’s Shiv Sena) and the newly forged alliance between Uddhav Thackeray’s Sena (UBT) and Raj Thackeray’s Maharashtra Navnirman Sena — did not focus on governance challenges like crumbling civic infrastructure and environmental risks. Rather their campaigns were a contest of rhetoric and sentiment. Mumbai’s everyday civic challenges — from cratered roads and unreliable water supply to monsoon preparedness, sanitation, waste disposal, primary schools, pollution control, public health services, urban planning and the upkeep of civic infrastructure — found mention only in passing remarks.

Instead, regional and cultural identity emerged as a central plank. The Shiv Sena (UBT) and the MNS placed the Marathi language and sub-national pride at the heart of their campaigns, warning against alleged “Hindi imposition” and “Gujarati domination” and projecting the BMC election as a decisive battle for the future of the “Marathi manoos”.

The Thackeray cousins have united after 20 years of bitter rivalry, a move clearly born of a shared existential crisis. Yet, they have sought to project this alliance as a historical necessity, citing a purported threat to Mumbai’s Marathi identity. By urging “Marathi unity”, they have called the BMC election the final frontier for protecting Maharashtra’s culture, employment and political voice from what they describe as outside influence — specifically migration from north India. While this is a tried and tested formula used by the Thackerays for nearly 60 years, whether this vintage nativism will resonate with a younger generation of Marathi voters remains a million-dollar question.

The ruling Mahayuti, for its part, claimed that its primary focus was development and efficient administration. Yet its campaign, too, repeatedly invoked culture, faith and community identity. The pledge to “free Mumbai from illegal migrants” was raised as a rallying cry, even though such matters fall largely outside the BMC’s legal mandate and rest with the Union and state governments. The blurring of jurisdictional lines underscored how civic elections are increasingly used as proxies for larger ideological battles.

The Congress, meanwhile, appeared comparatively muted. Its decision to contest independent of its Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) allies in several wards risks fragmenting the Opposition vote — a move that could inadvertently strengthen the Mahayuti. Ground reports and surveys suggest that the Mahayuti currently holds an edge, even as the Uddhav-Raj alliance puts up a spirited fight.

However, the real question is not what the parties have done, but what the electorate should do. Ultimately, the burden of choice falls on the electorate. Should they vote along party and ideological lines, or prioritise the candidate best equipped to resolve local grievances?

On January 15, as Mumbaikars head to the booths, they must decide whether the country’s richest civic institution should be shaped by identity-driven mobilisation and headline-grabbing promises, or by a sober commitment to fixing Mumbai’s persistent urban challenges. The decision is as much about priorities as it is about power. The campaign has ended; the arguments have been made. Now, the silence of the next 48 hours is a chance for reflection. On Thursday, Mumbai must speak — through the ballot.