The standing custom of not to speak ill of the dead has to be waived in the case of Balasaheb Keshav Thackeray: a bigot whose legacy was to make the state of Maharashtra inhospitable to anyone not a Marathi. He and his party, the Shiv Sena, instigated and cheered on violence against Muslims, often taking part in it. Till his dying breath, Thackeray was unrepentant so it would be a great disservice to history to gloss over his crimes. Thackeray’s intent in forming the Shiv Sena was to promote the rights of Marathis but at the expense of denying the rights of other groups. In his 40-year career, he incited violence against Muslims, south Indians, Gujratis and Marwaris. His party thrived on gangsterism, often filling their coffers by taking protection money from businesses in the state.
Thackeray should, at best, have been a regional leader with limited influence. Unfortunately, the rise of the equally extremist Bharatiya Janata Party meant that the Shiv Sena was a part of the government in the mid-2000s. Although Thackeray himself did not take any official position in government, it was well known that he was operating the levers of power from behind the scenes. He was still the man who had called Muslims a “cancer”. He picked fights at whim, including a pointless one with cricketing demigod Sachin Tendulkar for the ‘crime’ of saying that he considered himself an Indian first and a Maharashtrian second.
In Pakistan, Thackeray was best known as the biggest thorn in the side of our cricket team. No tour to India was complete without a few menacing words from the leader and even included thuggish actions like digging up pitches. Here is a man who should have died in disgrace. Instead, he was given a state funeral and effusive praise from every politician, businessman and actor in the country. One would like to think this was motivated by fear rather than genuine admiration. Thackeray may be dead but the violent Shiv Sena lives on, ready to strike all who dare cross its bigoted path.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 20th, 2012.
COMMENTS (22)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Why did a Pakistani "hero" no less than Javed Miandad rub shoulders with this man? Was it because he was "fearful" of him (as obviously implied in this editorial as the reasons why people rubbed shoulders with him)??? One may as well criticize him (JM) in the next editorial if these guys have the guts! And mind you, this despite the fact that Bal Thackeray knew very well of Miandad's links with terrorist Dawood Ibrahim! I am not saying that I agree with everything that Thackeray did or stood for, but as the adage goes: "there is more to things than meets the eye"!! -- yes he was "against Muslims", but only those who had their hearts in Pakistan though in possession of Indian citizenship -- the kind that burst fire-crackers and distribute sweets every time India loses a match to Pakistan, or those who would left-handedly "justify" the attacks by "Muslim militants" in Kashmir or Mumbai in 2008 -- only for that reason, and no other, for these are the sort of things that pain any true Indian be he Hindu or whichever religion. So what is wrong with that? And why then were there so many Muslim mourners at his funeral procession? Was that out of fear as well? And the comparison of him with OBL or Hafiz Saeed is odious to say the least -- for the latter two are designated international terrorists along with their organizations with bounties on their heads. So please guys (editors), give the dead man a break. Else your editorial will become a cartoon funnier than anything that he was ever able to produce!
The Indians commenting here don't understand even the basics of Pakistani political parties but love to make a fool of themselves, trying to comes across as authorities on Pakistan. When they are shown the mirror, they jump to the defence of the most bigoted and extremist of their own people whose only qualification is that they are Hindu.
Ultra right-wing Indians have taken over these pages.
@equally extremist Bharatiya Janata Party
what do you mean by this? If BJP is extremist then who was Vajpayee & Advani. extremist? During Vajpayees tenure in 1998 & 2004 Nawas Sherif & Musharaf was seriously engaged with india to reslove bilateral issues. At that point of time didint you feel that you are engaging with "extremist Bharatiya Janata Party"? Dear Editor, you are writing an editorial not Column. FYI BJP is a secular nationalist party in India. and they have muslim leaders Mukthar Abbas Naqvi & Syed Shahnawaz Hussain.
@Saifuddin Kaul: no he was not. He was a father figure to us.
@gp65:
The editorial is only correct to the extent that our subcontinent is besotted with religious bigotry and Bal Thackeray & Shiv Sena are prime examples of that. The difference between him and many other terror groups is in degrees to which they went in carrying out their agenda. But, the agenda itself is the same - narrow minded, anti-democratic, fascist, religion/section based totalitarianism.
Regarding BJP - I don't think they even understand it! BJP is more secular than the most secular Pakistani party (if there is one). The only thing that can be accused of is the Sangh Pariwar to which BJP belongs to, indeed has some shady characters, and there is a constant struggle between the moderates within BJP and the RSS (Vajpayee vs RSS was an example), and it continues. The folks that are completely bigotted are the VHP/Bajrang Dal, and it is sad that BJP has a thread that binds it to them - even if very weakly.
However, BJP can never function like a religious party, because it can never come to power on its own by propounding a monolithic religious idea. That's something a religious country can never understand.
I never agreed or approved Balasaheb's politics but I equally disagree with this editorial for several reasons: 1. The bigotry that you accuse Balasaheb of is baked into Pakistan's constitution. So using that as a basis for bad-mouthing someone who is no more is in poor taste. 2. His frustration at lack of justice for 26/11 victims in Pakistan is widely shared by Indians of all hues. 3. To describe BJP as equally extremist is wrong for several reasons. I would like to give a few: a. it is the BJP leader Vajpayee that came to Pakistan in 1999 and went to Minar-e-Pakistan. The peace initiative was derailed by Musharraf through Kargill. So it is incorrect to say that BJP is anti-Pakistan b. Gujarat riots are usually brought up to indicate that BJP is communal. While no one with any humanity would approve of riots - these riots were nither the first nor the largest communal riots in the country. Other bigger riots have occurred under COngress watch. Riots reflect inherent conflict which is resolved in the street and over the years such conflict has drastically reduced and the causes are law enforcement against rioteers, media, vocal civil society. In Gujarat too despite several provocations since 2002 Feb when Gujarat riots occurred there have been no riots in the last 10+ years. Within Gujaarat, BJP has won seats in 2007 elections within Muslim majority areas. c. BJP and COngress have both nominated Muslims as President. But Congress nominated Congress members. BJP nominated Abdul Kalaam who was certainly not a BJP member. d. When Shiv Sena was pushing out Biharis, BJP President spoke out against that and said constitution permits any Indian to live anywhere in India. Likewise when ShivSena threatened to prevent screenings of My Name is Khan due to ShahRUkhs foot in mouth on IPL, BJP leadership arranged for a private screening of the movie for BJP leadership in Mumbai sending a clear signal that they did not support Shiv Sena on the issue. BJP President even spoke about that. Thus the policies of BJP and Shiv Sena are quite different and to equate the 2 parties is unreasonable. e. Finally BJP swears by the secular Indian constitution. There is no party in Pakistan - not one - that even dares to ASK for a secular constitution in Pakistan. Nor does BJP have armed militias or their leaders openly conflagrate with known terrorist parties.So while BJP is center right in the Indian political spectrum is is far far more liberal compared to any political party in Pakistan.
In the article it is said that Bal Thakre is regional/local leader. Then why foreign country like Pakistan is writing about him? Is any one form Muslims talk about bad things in your community, i.e. Islam? What do you know about Bal Thakare? by reading your such crap, I am sorry, ET has failed misreably in its so called secular attitude, which I feel one sane voice there in Pakistan. Bal Thakare never came to your country or send any "KASAB" "Maulanas Azar" to Pakistan or any other country. He never tried to convert any body to hindu. Niether he preached Geeta to anybody any time. Mr Editor please compare Thakare on these standerd and then talk something against him.
Excellent editorial, 100% agreed. Thackeray may be gone but his followers are a living threat and those whom support him like the commenters above reinstate the measurable influence of Hindutvaism on India's national persona.
Excellent article but too much importance perhaps given to a small-time crook and racist bigot, dressed up as a politician. Surely there must be weightier matters that occupy the minds of ET's editorial staff?
Bal Thakare was the Zaid Hamid of India
Could my Indian commentators please tell me of an Indian website where PAKISTANIS can post their hearts out too? We must agree that the Hero of one is the Villain of the other... Point taken... Let's move on and behave like civilised people.. Take criticism together with praise. Dwell peacefully, side by side.
I hope you will write similar editorials when people like Hafiz Saeed dies or are assassinated.
"Unfortunately, the rise of the equally extremist Bharatiya Janata Party". BJP can be considered extremist when compared to other political parties in Indian political system, but when compared relative to political parties (all of them) in Pakistan it is decades ahead in modernity, tolerance and concept of coexistence!!! I have never been a supporter of Shivsena nor have i ever liked any of the Thackeray's but, unfortunately, as sinclair has already pointed out, you see everything from the prism of Islam and very often come up with a distorted world view.I bet, you would not have been this harsh if he would have targeted everyone else in the world but appeased Muslims.
Really bad editorial from ET. Many wrong doing you have mentioned here are frequently done by most of the politicians in India (unfortunate but true). And if you go by the selective quotes, many of the politicians in india will be found guilty of inciting hatred. Who can forget the kind of hatred Lalu Yadav (I think most loved indian politician in pakistan), Mulayam and Mayawati created during their initial polical career.
Really pathetic article, you should not despise a man who is dead and cannot speak for himself. Bal Thackeray might have had nationalist or fascist tendencies, he was still a human being. No body's death is justified, ET should re-evaluate its editorial standards.....
Article written by some one based on hearsay on Bal Thackeray and not based on researched facts. This article may be appropriate for the traget readers of Pakistan but is highly biased and based on misrepresting facts. He never said Muslims as cancer but Muslims or rather that matter any Indian who shows affiliations towards pakistan is a cancer. Maharashtrian marathi muslims belonging to coastal belts were his supporters. Agreed that his main concern was for locals and ensured drive against outsiders but one need to be based in maharashtra as a local to understand his actions and reactions. What about Likes of Hafeez Saeed, Maulana Masood Azar and Mullah omar who constantly spew venom against mankind ?
Thackeray .He was still the man who had called Muslims a “cancer”. asma jahangir can you enlighten us on why you went and paid homage wearing an orange outfit to this bigot.
Would ET mind me showing the mirror - I apologize beforehand. If Thackeray had intimidated all of those groups - except muslims, would this editorial have been here? Will ET write about Raj Thackeray while he lives and does his dirty work (rather than after his death, whenever it happens) in the coming years? I think that matters more.
even if pakistan considers bal thakeray bigot. the biggest bigot of the world osama was protected by pakistan . what do you call that?
People living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
obviously what can we expect from our loyal neighbour's newspaper? "the person's actions are swiftly spoken when he is dead" among them only his bad qualities are highlighted!!! balthackrey was indeed a pro maharastrian! pro hindutwa leader!, he considerd non maharashtrian as a foreigner! anti muslim etc etc.... i dont like him for this... but wait let me show u his good deeds... Gave protection and education to kashmiri panditis, whom u muslims have kicked them out of kashmir, which was their homeland from centuries..... Gave protection to sikh community in bombay during anti sikh riots... Had set up numerous helping aids to poor, ex; ambulances,charity etc... Gave underworld of bombay a shiver in their spines... a nonpolitical, non monetary leader setsup lacks of followers..... I RESPECT HIM FOR THIS.....
" One would like to think this was motivated by fear rather than genuine admiration." You are welcome to your views on Bala Saheb, with which most Mumbaikars evidently do not agree as evidenced by mammoth crowds at his funeral. Your tacit, if slanted, admission that motivation of all Mumbaikars was not fear is the ultimate tribute to a man who is considered a hard-core patriot in India. Just as Pakistanis like you look at every thing through the Muslim prism, he looked at everything through the Hindu prism. Then, on what grounds except shallow subjectivity, can you blame his prism to be not as pure as yours?
The standard of this paper has become really low. I have not seen this paper condemning scum like Osama or Hafeez using the words such as in this article.
Infact ur paper was criticizing americans when they cheered when thenews of Osama's death was out. Why is the paper so gleefully cheering on Bal Thackrey's death. Is it because he is a hindu?