A new political exchange has surfaced in Maharashtra after BJP leader Ameet Satam launched a sharp attack on Raj Thackeray while defending the ideology and role of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.
In a detailed post on social media platform X, Satam shared lines from the RSS prayer, stating that they reflect the patriotism and dedication that every Sangh worker carries towards the protection of the motherland. He said the organisation was established for national protection, for Hindutva and for humanity, and insisted it has never worked against any language or religion.
Direct Criticism Of MNS Leadership And Political Relevance
Satam alleged that Thackeray’s party has struggled to maintain political relevance and accused it of surviving politically due to alliances such as the Maha Vikas Aghadi. He further claimed that Thackeray uses provocative speeches to stir linguistic and regional divisions and mislead common citizens.
The BJP leader also accused Thackeray of failing to address economic hardships faced by ordinary youth, claiming that political rhetoric was being used to keep social tensions alive rather than focusing on employment and livelihood concerns.
Questions Raised Over Marathi Identity And Personal Choices
In his post, Satam also questioned Thackeray’s stand on Marathi identity. He referred to education choices of Thackeray’s family members and questioned whether those choices aligned with public positions on regional pride and language preservation.
He also made references to past initiatives linked to Marathi youth, questioning their outcomes and financial transparency, and urged Thackeray to publicly clarify those aspects.
Larger Ideological Clash In Maharashtra Politics
The remarks come amid a wider political debate triggered after comments linked to RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat sparked reactions from regional political leaders. The ongoing exchanges highlight deeper ideological differences over nationalism, regional identity and cultural representation.
Political observers believe such sharp public statements may further polarise political discourse in the state, especially as parties increasingly focus on identity and ideological positioning ahead of future electoral battles.
