You first contested and won in Sangamner in 1985. This is your ninth election. Leaders face anti-incumbency in the first or second term. Don’t you sense a similar sentiment?

People often ask me this question: how did you even get elected for the eight terms. Let me tell you the answer to this. If you have direct touch with people, if you work sincerely and honestly for people and bring real change in their life, people continue voting for you.

Almost 40 years have passed since you first contested. What has changed in these decades?

What is the difference between 1985 and 2024? You will see a number of farm lakes. In Sangamner tehsil, you will find 10,000 similar lakes. Forty years ago, there was no water. Today there is a canal. People store the water and use it with micro irrigation facilities for horticulture. This has brought prosperity to the area.  

This is about development. But what about politics? What has changed in politics?

I have seen big changes in the past 40 years. Until 1985, there was a generation of leaders who were ideologically committed. Their speeches on development reflected non-partisanship. But in the past 10 years, this has rapidly declined. Ever since the BJP came into power, everything has changed. There is no ideology left now. All they want is power. Look at the language of many leaders. There is no grace left among many politicians.

What is the agenda of your party for this election?

The Congress has been a party of ideology. We are going into this election with the ideals of the Constitution. What is said in the Preamble, about inclusiveness, secularism, equality, is our agenda. BJP is pushing a communal agenda to get power. This is against the idea of the Constitution. But all our schemes are centred around the common man, his welfare, his development.

You are saying your agenda is based on ideology and development. But Mahayuti leaders are saying the same thing. They have brought in a number of welfare schemes. What is unique about your alliance?

Forget their schemes. First, we need to talk about the way they have formed this government. They misused government machinery and autonomous bodies to break parties. So, people reacted to their work in the Lok Sabha election. That is why they realised they would need some populist schemes where they would be able to shower money on the public. The Ladki Bahin scheme is fine, but many other schemes are aimed at votes. They do not have any vision. This has harmed the basic development of the State.

You are talking about the misuse of autonomous bodies in context of breaking the Shiv Sena and the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP). Are voters really bothered by this?

Yes. There is anger among people. Maharashtra is a progressive State. The thoughts of Shahu Maharaj and Ambedkar are well accepted here. That is why the people of the State want politics to be cultured and ruled-based. That is why BJP’s politics is being rejected by the people.

Do you believe that schemes such as waving off electricity bills or the Ladki Bahin scheme have no effect on the ground? And people are more concerned about ideological decline?

Ladki Bahin is a copy-paste from the Congress manifesto. Rahul Gandhi had promised it. We will also come up with schemes for the farmers. We are not against helping the poor. But under the name of welfare, hundreds of crores are being spent on advertisement. This is loot.

But politically speaking, do you believe that these schemes have brought the Mahayuti into the race?

I don’t think so. They will not be in a race because of these schemes. Because people do not want this government back. They have been against it since its very formation. People call it an illegal government.

What is your positive agenda for the election?

Our agenda is welfare of the common man and upholding the Constitution. All our schemes will be about the last man of society. How we can empower his life is our concern.

The State government claimed that Maharashtra has become number one in industrial development in the past two years. Do you agree?

No. The reality is that industries have gone to Gujarat. You are bringing in Ladki Bahin, but her brother has no job. A recent economic paper (a report of the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister) has shown that the State’s GDP has declined in the past decade. Once Maharashtra was the most developing State. But the BJP has brought it down.

After the Lok Sabha election, BJP has often referred to ‘Vote Jehad’, targetting the Muslim voter. What is your take on this?

They always stoke communal feelings to get into power. They have nothing to show in terms of their work. But I want to ask them: onion farmers voted for us in the Lok Sabha election. Will BJP call it ‘onion jehad’? Unemployed youth voted for us in huge numbers. Is that ‘unemployed jehad’? Women voted for us en bloc because they were against the increasing atrocities against them. What would BJP call it? ‘Women against atrocities jehad’?

The question of the Maratha reservation is being hotly discussed in Maharashtra. Manoj Jarange Patil of Maratha reservation has declared that his movement will not get into electoral politics. How do you see this?

It is the right decision. Because they are not a political party. They are not protesting keeping political power in mind. They are protesting for a large number of youth of one community who are unemployed. So had they come into politics, this protest would have seen setbacks.

Political analysts say that the Jat versus non-Jat polarisation helped the BJP gain power in Haryana and that the same thing is going to happen in Maharashtra. That non–Maratha communities will come together against you. What is your take?

This is how BJP politics happens. It is based on strategies. They have think tanks to work on it and implement it. They will try this. But I am of the opinion that this will not be possible in Maharashtra.

The Congress is trying to call itself the Big Brother, but it is a fact that the party is contesting a greater number of seats in the MVA. So, you are already in the role of the Big Brother. Are you happy with the seat-sharing that has taken place in MVA?

The issue is not about who the Big Brother is. The criteria was which party would win a particular seat. We did not first decide the number of the seats. We make a tally of seats after seat-sharing is finalised. The winnability and the presence of the party were the criteria. You asked me, are you happy with the number of seats? So, I would like to tell you that when the Congress was contesting alone, it was contesting in all 288 seats. When we were in an alliance with only NCP, we were contesting for some 145 seats. Now there are three partners. So, it is obvious that we will get one-third of the seats. When you are in an alliance, not everything happens according to your whims. But if we show maturity, and help each other, we can achieve success.

The big issue this time is rebels. They are in both alliances. Would that be a hurdle?

Yes, I accept it. There is rebellion in many places. We tried to convince many rebels. Some listened to us. We are still trying. I am not denying that the rebels will have a negative impact on our success. But Mahayuti contends with the same situation, and their problem is much more severe than ours.

Do you believe the way rebels got elected in 1995—there were 34-35 rebels—a similar situation is developing this time?

No, I don’t think so as of now. Voters are taking a straight decision whether to vote for the MVA or Mahayuti. MVA will have more success this election.

It is believed that when Modi starts campaigning in Maharashtra, it will help the NDA. What is your take?

I really don’t think so. We saw him during the Lok Sabha election. He came here many times but people still voted against the BJP. Earlier the Prime Minister used to address just one or two rallies in each State. There was a negative impact of his speeches. The same thing is going to happen in the Assembly election. Modi’s rallies will have no impact on our success.

In 2019, Congress won only one seat in the Lok Sabha. Today, you have 14 MPs from Maharashtra. In a way, you are the number one party in the State. What do you expect of the Assembly election results?

We won the highest number of seats. I also accept that this was possible because there was a strong alliance. Rahul Gandhi’s yatra also immensely contributed to this success. We, as an alliance, will do well if we stay together.

What do you predict about the seats?

I think, if we implement a good campaign system and control rebels, we will reach 180 (out of 288).

You are calling it a bumper majority.

Yes, we can have a bumper majority.

You are a senior leader of the party. If the Congress gets a greater number of seats in the MVA, will you be the Chief Minister?

My priority right now is to get power for MVA. We will all have to work together. Once we get the numbers, I am sure that MVA leaders will sit together and decide on the Chief Minister.

What is your narrative or agenda for the upcoming election?

For the coming election, we are making just one promise: the development of Maharashtra. Inclusive development of Maharashtra. Our campaign is based on “pragati” [progress]—development with a human face and an inclusive approach. We have designed our campaign for the coming election with this in mind.

For many years, you fought elections in Mumbai with Uddhav Thackeray as an alliance partner. Although this was not the case in the 2014 Assembly election, you were allied before and after that. Right now, you are not on good terms with Uddhav Thackeray—he’s with the Congress and the NCP (Sharad Pawar). Do you see this as a threat or a big challenge?

Let me be clear. In 2014, Mr Thackeray showed his arrogance, so we fought separately. The result was that BJP crossed 120 seats, while Mr Thackeray’s united party couldn’t even reach half that number. Then in 2017, for the [Brihanmumbai Municipal] Corporation [BMC] election, Mr Thackeray again decided to fight separately out of arrogance. The result was that his united party got 84 seats while BJP alone got 82. So whenever Uddhav ji’s arrogance led him to contest separately, Mumbai showed their confidence in BJP, and we gained in those elections. That’s the record of the past two elections.

What about the Lok Sabha election? In Mumbai’s six constituencies, the MVA won four seats, though with very narrow margins. Your alliance, the NDA Mahayuti in Maharashtra, won only two seats. How do you view these Lok Sabha results? Do you see them as a challenge?

We couldn’t meet our expectations in the Lok Sabha election. There were certain shortcomings and issues that we needed to introspect about, and we did. Now we’re fully prepared to counter all kinds of misleading narratives and campaigns. I believe we’re well-equipped to fight this election against MVA and win. While they won four seats and we won two, the total vote count in Mumbai city shows we’re ahead by 2 lakh votes compared to MVA. We’re not satisfied with this—we wanted more seats. But as far as votes are concerned, we have the mandate.

We faced setbacks due to appeasement politics in the Lok Sabha election. For instance, in a Lok Sabha constituency with six Assembly segments, we lead in five, but our opponents get ahead in one or two segments where particular voter groups are concentrated. This is what we call vote jehad.

You are referring to vote jehad, which the Election Commission of India has strictly warned your party not to mention. Yet you continue to use the term.

From what I understand, the Election Commission said they would look into it. If any order comes, we will follow it.

So when you say vote jehad, you are specifically indicating that Muslims in Mumbai and Maharashtra tactically voted against you in favour of MVA. Are you suggesting that Muslims voting for MVA is somehow illegal?

The question isn’t about legality. Let me give you an example: if a party designs its programme to appease one class of voters, creates its manifesto to appease that same class, and campaigns on issues that appeal to just that class, that’s problematic. In a democracy, if a party only thinks about one class, religion, or sect of people and practices appeasement politics, that’s not welcome. That’s our argument.

So you are saying your push of this “vote jehad” campaign, this polarisation campaign, is going to correct your course in the Assembly election?

I haven’t said that. We’ve done introspection on many issues. I cited an example of how we should have handled the “400 seats” slogan differently. There are many factors, and appeasement politics is just one of them.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently inaugurated the Atal Setu and Aqua [Metro] Line in Mumbai. Your government, both at the State and Central levels, has announced multiple mega projects for Mumbai and its suburban region. Do you think this will impact voters? Do they see this as important for Mumbai’s development?

We certainly need to communicate it better. But when these projects are completed and people use them, they realise this is what we’ve needed for many years. When you can reach Panvel quickly or get to Andheri and further to Dahisar by Metro in limited time—when you use these facilities, you realise what you’ve been deprived of. That’s why development is our agenda, and we’ll continue with it.

So, you are saying the earlier governments completely deprived Mumbai of development?

Especially under Uddhav’s leadership.

But Uddhav Thackeray was your ally then?

The issue is that he and his party colleagues were leading the Corporation. He headed the standing committee, which makes all financial decisions. In the last 25 years, we were never given the opportunity to become Mayor or standing committee chairman.

But you were part of the standing committee. You raised issues yourself.

Yes, we stopped them from giving a one-rupee lease to a builder for Crawford Market. We stopped their mismanagement of the SAP e-model system. Our colleague Gopal Shetty fought for water treatment issues. We fought for land management and the protection of open spaces. I can cite many examples of how we fought for Mumbai’s citizens.

But Uddhav ji always showed arrogance, especially when he used the slogan “Karun Dakhvla” [We’ve done it]. What exactly has been done in these 25 years?

“Karun Dakhvla” was Uddhav Thackeray’s campaign slogan in 2017 and earlier. It seems the BJP’s full-throttle attack in Maharashtra and Mumbai is focussed on Uddhav Thackeray. Is he the central target of your criticism?

We’re not against individuals; we’re focussed on issues. We question Mr Thackeray because he was Chief Minister and led the most profitable municipal corporation in the country. The BMC had reserves of Rs.60,000 crore. In any market, if you show Rs.10,000 crore, you can grow it tenfold with others’ investment. Mumbaikars were ready to pay taxes, you had the money, but what stopped you? There was no vision.

They didn’t utilise those deposits?

Look, if you have Rs.10,000 crores, you can attract Rs.1 lakh crore in investment. And Mumbaikars are honest taxpayers, whether it’s road tax or water tax.

The MVA’s main campaign narrative is that if the BJP returns to power in Maharashtra, Mumbai will become weaker compared with Ahmedabad and Gujarat. They keep drawing this comparison, pointing to the Prime Minister’s Gujarat connection.

They tried this in 2017 too. What was the result? People clearly said they won’t be fooled by such sentimental or false talks.

So Marathi subnationalism is not an issue in Mumbai?

I never said that. These emotional appeals about Marathi manoos [people] are an issue—I’m not denying that. I’m saying false propaganda for votes hasn’t worked. We care about Marathi manoos. We’ve implemented housing schemes, and Mr Fadnavis has said that housing under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana should be given to those in Dharavi, even if they’re technically ineligible. Why? Because they should remain in Mumbai. During Uddhav Thackeray’s 25-year tenure, many had to leave Mumbai—he needs to answer for that.

You mentioned Dharavi, which will be a contentious election issue. The Congress and the Shiv Sena (UBT) are targeting the BJP, saying Dharavi has been handed over to one particular industrialist who, along with the State government, is exploiting Mumbai’s real estate. Your response?

I ask them: Who drafted the tender? Who gave the concessions? Who set the TDR [Transferable Development Rights] rates? All this was done when Mr Thackeray was Chief Minister. In the Dharavi redevelopment, even those considered ineligible are getting houses in Mumbai itself. My mill workers haven’t gotten houses in Mumbai. Those who are eligible for rehabilitation housing by paying a certain amount are getting houses in Dharavi itself. The project involves developing 200 acres, with larger houses and more beneficiaries. This urban renewal scheme will transform the area, and we haven’t collected a single rupee yet, though we could collect multiple crores.

So the basic objection to the Dharavi project is about giving land in various parts of Mumbai?

I share the opinion that Mulund and other such areas shouldn’t be given away. But since some of this land was a dumping ground that’s been reclaimed for rehousing people, what’s wrong with that?

This is significant because you are the first BJP leader I have heard saying on record that you also believe lands in Mulund and other parts should not be given for Dharavi development.

Yes, Mulund shouldn’t be given. But regarding Deonar, if that land, which unfortunately became a dumping ground, can be cleaned and developed for housing, that’s good. Let me explain the density equation in Dharavi: Out of 200 acres, 35 per cent will go for infrastructure development—roads, recreation grounds, and other facilities. Of the remaining 65 per cent, 37 acres is Maharashtra Nature Park. So we have approximately 150 acres where we’ll rehabilitate those eligible from before 2000, which is legally correct. We’re also rehabilitating those from 2000 to 2011. Though the policy doesn’t require in situ rehabilitation, we’re still doing it.

The land hasn’t been given to Adani—I’ve challenged Aaditya Thackeray to show me one document proving it has. It will be given to DRP [Dharavi Redevelopment Project], a State government company. Yes, Adani has an 80 per cent stake in DRPPL [Dharavi Redevelopment Project Private Limited], and the government will get 20 per cent of profits. The government retains land ownership and will receive rental income. What’s the problem if urban renewal is happening while maintaining government ownership and income? The Thackerays are just bothered by Adani’s name, while our concern is rehabilitating the poor.

Let me ask you this political question: by defending the Dharavi project, BJP is being seen as defending…

Let me make two points. First, what about Mr Thackeray defending corrupt contractors in the BMC for years, with that officer Sachin appointed to collect bribes from them? Second, look at the court order about that project near Pune—Lavasa. Can anyone say we’re advocating for some contractor? If a bidder wins fairly, fine. If not, go to court. I could say Uddhav Thackeray and his MVA are pushing for some other bidder—that’s why they’re opposing Adani. For me, Adani isn’t the issue. Every rehabilitation project involves development because it’s a PPP model.

So looking at the upcoming election: in Mumbai’s scenario, there are 36 seats, an important chunk where BJP and its alliance are targeting big gains. Where do you see the numbers landing?

I can’t give specific numbers, but it will be difficult for MVA to reach double digits in Mumbai. Given the current candidates, this is very clear.

And how do you see Maharashtra overall?

Frankly, the situation has changed dramatically from 4-5 months ago. Earlier, we were answering MVA’s questions. Now they’re just opposing our schemes and the people’s interests. They’re not united—there’s confusion, with press conferences happening where the Congress isn’t present, making it only a two-party alliance. There’s no agenda, just infighting. Uddhav Thackeray keeps asking who’s the chief ministerial face—we don’t have that confusion in Mahayuti.

But there are differences in Mahayuti too. BJP workers are pushing for Devendra Fadnavis, while Amit Shah has said Eknath Shinde is your face for the election.

The difference is that none of our leaders are making demands about the position of Chief Minister. Yes, some followers might want their leader as Chief Minister, that’s natural. But it’s not part of our alliance’s agenda.

What about the differences within your alliance regarding Nawab Malik’s candidature? Your party has repeatedly said it will support the Shiv Sena (Shinde faction) candidate in that constituency.

Let me be frank: Mr Ajit Pawar’s party has to decide about Nawab Malik’s candidature. Our position has been clear from day one, even when he was in opposition and when Ajit Pawar joined our alliance. We made it clear we would not support his candidate.

But you are still in alliance with Ajit Pawar?

Yes, but we won’t take responsibility if he does something wrong.