However, is this sufficient for the Shiv Sena, split into three outfits, to re-emerge as a pre-eminent political force in Maharashtra? The rise of the BJP as the main pole of politics in the state has been at the expense of the Sena. For sure, the latter’s politics enabled that: The undivided Sena was the BJP’s closest ideological ally and partner in the NDA for over a quarter century, parting ways over the question of chief ministership. The same logic drove Eknath Shinde to split the party and ally with the BJP. Raj Thackeray’s decision to leave the Sena and form the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena in 2006 was also over the leadership issue. A Sena weakened by splits yielded space to the BJP.

The choice before the Shiv Sena was to re-imagine itself as a party with an inclusive regional agenda. Under Bal Thackeray, it was aggressively provincial and rejected the diversity in Maharashtra’s social fabric and labour force. In the 1990s, it added Hindutva to its armour, which reduced its distinctiveness vis-a-vis the BJP. Uddhav’s manoeuvring abilities when he chose to ally with the Congress and the NCP were limited by this legacy of Sena: Sena cadres, groomed in Hindutva politics, found it difficult to accept Uddhav’s nuancing of distancing the party from the BJP without abandoning ideological linkages. Contrast this with the Dravidian parties, the flag bearers of regionalism in Indian politics. The DMK and AIADMK were careful to distinguish their ideology from the BJP when they were the latter’s allies. In Maharashtra, the Thackeray cousins, if they come together, will first need to recalibrate the Sena’s identity politics to suit the new situation. Besides, the Shiv Sena legacy has a powerful third contender in Eknath Shinde, who has the party name, symbol, and resources. It remains to be seen if Brand Thackeray is sufficient to reshape the loyalties of the sainiks and confront a resurgent BJP in the upcoming civic body polls in Mumbai.