At Dussehra rally, Eknath Shinde turns ‘vote theft’ charge on Uddhav Thackeray

At the rally, Eknath Shinde combined farmer relief with a political counterattack. He said Shiv Sainiks should help farmers during drought instead of focusing only on festival celebrations. He also rejected the Opposition’s criticism of the ₹5,000 payment made before Diwali, calling it seasonal assistance rather than the final compensation.

The relief effort included 100 trucks sent to drought-hit districts. Shinde said the party had distributed 25,000 sewing machines to women in farming families and 25,000 bicycles to girls travelling to school in Parbhani. He also promised funding for group weddings for farmers’ daughters. The State’s budget, he said, included ₹32,000 crore for a loan waiver.

Shinde then turned the Opposition’s “vote theft” charge against Uddhav Thackeray’s faction. He said the mandate was actually overturned in 2019, when the Thackeray faction left the Shiv Sena-BJP alliance and formed the Maha Vikas Aghadi government. He also defended EVMs and questioned how protesting MPs had won their seats if machines were tampered with.

“Vote theft” is being used here as a political accusation about mandate and representation. Shinde argued that voters had supported the Shiv Sena-BJP alliance in 2019, but the Thackeray faction later joined other parties to form the Maha Vikas Aghadi government. In his framing, that decision took power away from the alliance voters had chosen.

The accusation was therefore aimed at Uddhav Thackeray’s faction rather than at counting officials. Shinde described the 2019 change as the largest robbery of democracy. He made the argument while responding to the Opposition’s campaign against electronic voting machines and the Chief Election Commissioner.

The article presents this as a clash between two competing political narratives. The Thackeray faction and its allies raised concerns about elections and voter processes. Shinde answered that the more serious betrayal occurred when the post-election alliance changed who governed Maharashtra. The charge remains a political claim made at the rally, not an established finding in the article.

For Shinde, the 2019 episode is the foundation of his “vote theft” argument. He says voters gave a mandate to the Shiv Sena-BJP alliance. After the election, the Thackeray faction did not continue with that alliance and instead helped form the Maha Vikas Aghadi government. Shinde treats that shift as a reversal of what voters had authorised.

The mechanism he describes is political rather than electronic. The dispute concerns how elected parties used their seats after voting ended. By joining with new partners, the Thackeray faction helped create a different governing coalition. Shinde called this the largest robbery of democracy and used it to answer current criticism of EVMs.

This history still shapes the rivalry between the two Shiv Sena factions. Shinde’s speech presented the 2019 government formation as the original breach of trust. The article does not independently assess whether the alliance change violated any legal rule. It reports Shinde’s interpretation and his effort to turn the Opposition’s charge back on Thackeray.

There were separate rallies because the Shiv Sena was divided into rival factions led by Eknath Shinde and Uddhav Thackeray. The article describes Shinde’s faction staging its own event in Goregaon. It also refers to a separate Shiv Sena (UBT) Dussehra rally associated with Uddhav Thackeray.

The split shaped the messages at both gatherings. Shinde used his rally to announce drought assistance and attack the Opposition’s arguments about EVMs, voter theft, and the 2019 government. Reports from the other rally described concerns about rising crime, farmers’ problems, paper leaks, voter deletions, and a police crackdown on youth protesters.

The two events therefore served as competing displays of organisation and political identity. Supporters gathered behind different leaders while each side presented its own account of Maharashtra’s problems. The article does not give attendance figures or explain the legal history of the split. It does show that the factions operated separately and used Dussehra rallies to address one another publicly.

The article describes relief at several levels. Farmers received ₹5,000 in their accounts before Diwali, although Shinde said this was only a festival-season payment. He said further government concessions and drought compensation would follow under existing rules. The package also included a proposed ₹32,000-crore loan waiver in the budget.

The party’s immediate campaign involved 100 trucks of aid sent to drought-affected districts. In Parbhani, Shinde said it had distributed 25,000 sewing machines to women in farming families and 25,000 bicycles to girls travelling to school. He also promised group-wedding support for farmers’ daughters whose marriages had been delayed by drought.

Together, these figures show a mix of direct payments, material support, debt relief, and community assistance. Shinde said the Centre gives farmers ₹6,000 annually and the State gives another ₹6,000. He also said ₹6,000 crore had reached farmers directly, while the article does not explain that figure’s exact programme or period.

Electronic voting machines, or EVMs, are devices used to record voters’ choices and help count votes electronically. In the article, Opposition criticism of EVMs forms part of a wider campaign that also targets the Chief Election Commissioner. Shinde rejects the criticism and asks how MPs protesting today won their seats if machines had been tampered with.

His argument is a challenge about consistency. If EVMs were systematically manipulated, he asks whether the protesting MPs also benefited from stolen votes. This does not itself prove that every machine worked correctly. It shows how the machines became a central subject in the political dispute over election legitimacy.

Accusations of tampering can have a serious effect on public trust. If voters believe results cannot be relied on, confidence in elections and elected governments may decline. If claims are unsupported, repeated allegations can still deepen doubt; if evidence exists, investigations and safeguards become important. The article reports the accusation and Shinde’s response, but does not establish that tampering occurred.

Elections give representatives their seats, while a party mandate describes the political support voters appear to have given a party or alliance. After results, the group able to command a majority in the legislature is normally invited to form the government. That group may be a single party or a coalition whose members agree to govern together.

The 2019 dispute illustrates the difference between an election alliance and a later coalition. Shinde says voters supported the Shiv Sena-BJP alliance, while the Thackeray faction formed the Maha Vikas Aghadi government afterward. In a party split, rival groups may both claim the party’s identity and political inheritance. Legal and constitutional authorities then determine relevant recognition and legislative authority.

The practical test for a government is whether it can retain majority support in the legislature. A coalition can govern if its partners provide that support. If support is lost, a confidence vote, resignation, or another constitutional process may follow. The article focuses on Shinde’s political interpretation and does not detail the legal decisions governing the split.