In an interview occasioned by the fact that it was the first anniversary of the government in the state, Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has said that NCP supremo Sharad Pawar was fully in the know about him forming the government with Ajit Pawar, but said that the senior Pawar had backed off a few days before the unprecedented early morning swearing-in on November 23, 2019.
“Ajit Pawar joined hands with the BJP only after a nod from his uncle Sharad Pawar,” Fadnavis reiterated while replying to questions of Arnab Goswami and added, “If you want to unravel Sharad Pawar’s mystery, then you will have to delve into his history.”
Uddhav was after CM's chair: Fadnavis
“When Uddhavji stopped taking our calls, we understood that he was not coming with us because he was after the CM’s chair. At that time, some NCP people had told us that the NCP wanted to come with us. I want to underline this: we had a meeting with Sharad Pawar, where it was decided that the BJP and the NCP would form the government.
Ajit Pawar and I would head the government, it was decided. Then suddenly, Pawarsaheb backed off,” Fadnavis said.
“What else could Ajit Pawar do? He had to come with me as we had made preparations. He would have been exposed. We took the oath and Ajit Pawar was thinking that Pawar Sahab would be with us because we had held so many meetings. I would reiterate that Sharad Pawar initiated the formation of the government at that time. It was not as though one fine morning, Ajit Pawar and I went to be sworn in all of a sudden,” Fadnavis said.
Further elaborating on the situation, Fadnavis said, “Uddhav betrayed and Sharad Pawar double-played”.
“I won’t say Sharad Pawar backstabbed us because he did not get elected with us. I would say he played a double game. It was Uddhavji who betrayed us,” Fadnavis said.
Misquoted on ‘Aurangzeb ki Aulaadein’
Fadnavis also cleared the air around his “Aurangzeb ki Aulaadein” (Descendants of Aurangzeb) comment, saying, “Aurangzeb was no messiah for Indian Muslims and the Muslims of Maharashtra. Aurangzeb cannot be a hero in India and the Turkic-Mongol Aurangzeb’s relatives are not in India either.”
“The problem is, let me tell you, we give statements in Marathi and the national media does not understand what we said. Then the national media picks it up out of context and puts it out. See, my point is that Aurangzeb was never a hero of this country and may be there is no relative of Aurangzeb in this country. As for Turkic-Mongols, there are 126 families in our country, I read this somewhere. Suddenly in some districts of Maharashtra, people are putting up pictures of Aurangzeb, keeping his picture as their display photo, carrying out processions, raising slogans of ‘Aurangzeb Zindabad’. Which is when I said, suddenly Aurangzeb has so many children in Maharashtra, when were they born. Because Aurangzeb can never be a messiah for the Muslims of Maharashtra. So it means that there is some design behind this, someone or the other is getting this done,” Fadnavis added.
“Prakash Ambedkar says, after going there, Aurangzeb ruled for so long. I tell him that Hitler ruled Germany for a while, but no one goes to Hitler’s grave, Hitler cannot be a hero there. And just as Hitler cannot be a hero, Aurangzeb cannot be our hero,” Fadnavis said, replying to another question.
On Uddhav Thackeray's stand on Hindutva
On the question of the Shiv Sena (UBT) chief Uddhav Thackerays stand on ideology and Hindutva, Fadnavis said, “The question arises that until yesterday, you called Shiv Sena founder Balasaheb Thackeray, ‘Hindu Hriday Samrat’ (emperor of Hindu hearts). Later, you stopped doing so. You (Thackeray) had never published a calendar in Urdu, now you have printed a calendar in Urdu, called Janaab (Urdu word for Mr). Balasaheb Thackeray, neither Hindu Hriday Samraat, nor revered, but Janaab Balasaheb Thackeray. Look, we are not against Muslims, but someone (Uddhav) does so much appeasement and then says I am doing Hindutva.”
“What is our Hindutva, our Hindutva is not against Muslims. All we have to say is don't do appeasement in this country. The country was divided because of the appeasement of one society. Had there been no policy of appeasement at that time, why would the country have been divided. So, we don’t want another Partition, we have no objection to bringing Muslims into the mainstream of development,” Fadnavis said.
SSR not a close chapter
However, some individuals asserted that they possessed substantial evidence regarding the case. In response, we reached out to them and requested that they submit the evidence to the police. Currently, we are in the process of examining the credibility of the presented evidence. The investigation is still in progress, and it would be premature for me to provide any comments on the eventual outcome of the case at this stage,” Fadnavis said on being asked about the CBI in the case.
