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.