The Maratha community, which makes up a significant portion of Maharashtra’s population, has been demanding reservation in education and government jobs for years. Jarange-Patil, a farmer-activist from Jalna, emerged as a prominent voice in the movement, and his hunger strikes have repeatedly brought the issue into the public eye. His sixth hunger strike, launched after what he termed insufficient action by the government, has taken the stakes to a new level, placing immense pressure on the ruling Mahayuti alliance.
As Maharashtra’s state elections loom, this hunger strike could not have come at a worse time for the Mahayuti government. The alliance, led by chief minister Eknath Shinde and deputy CM Devendra Fadnavis, is already battling political instability and opposition attacks. Now, with Jarange-Patil refusing to back down until concrete measures are put in place, the Maratha reservation issue has the potential to influence voter sentiment in a significant way.
For the government, the key challenge lies in striking a balance between delivering a solution that satisfies the Maratha community without violating constitutional provisions. Previous attempts to grant reservations to Marathas have faced legal hurdles and any move perceived as unconstitutional could be struck down by the courts, further complicating matters. The Supreme Court has already ruled that reservations cannot exceed 50 per cent of the total available seats, which puts the Mahayuti government in a bind.
Jarange-Patil’s latest set of demands for Maratha reservations presents several complexities. While the activist remains steadfast in his push for immediate quota implementation, the technicalities surrounding such a reservation are not straightforward. The Supreme Court’s ruling on the 50 per cent reservation cap, the need for accurate data on the socio-economic status of Marathas, and the legal definition of “backwardness” all pose hurdles for the government.
Jarange-Patil has demanded that the government classify Marathas under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category, which would provide them with the benefits of reservation. However, this move faces significant legal challenges. The OBC category already includes numerous communities that fear their existing share of the pie will shrink if Marathas are included. The government is caught between satisfying the Maratha demand and preventing backlash from existing OBC groups.
Moreover, any alteration to reservation laws will require extensive documentation, research, and possibly constitutional amendments. The timeline for such changes is not favourable for an administration heading into elections. The government would need to provide clear data justifying Maratha inclusion in the OBC category, which could take months or even years to collect and present convincingly in court.
Unlike previous hunger strikes, Jarange-Patil’s current protest comes at a time when both the political and social landscapes are particularly volatile. The Mahayuti government cannot afford to lose the support of the Maratha community, which holds significant sway in rural areas. This time, Jarange-Patil is not alone. Several influential Maratha leaders, politicians, and community organisations are rallying behind him, increasing the political pressure. His popularity and reach have grown, with many sections of society now closely following the developments. The growing support for his cause makes it harder for the government to ignore his demands or employ half-measures.
At the same time, the Mahayuti government is acutely aware of the risks of not acting. Ignoring the Maratha demand could alienate a large voting bloc, but pushing forward with an unconstitutional or hasty solution could result in legal battles and public outrage from other communities. For the Mahayuti government, navigating this political minefield will require a careful balancing act. A long-term solution to the Maratha reservation issue must be rooted in legality and backed by solid data. While Jarange-Patil’s demands are emotionally charged and enjoy significant public support, they need to be addressed through legislative processes that respect constitutional limits.
In the short term, the government might look at alternative approaches, such as creating a separate category within existing frameworks or providing financial and educational support specifically tailored to Maratha youth. However, any short-term solutions would likely be seen as insufficient by Jarange-Patil and his supporters, who are calling for nothing less than full reservation status. Moreover, the government needs to manage the expectations of other communities, particularly the OBCs, to avoid stoking resentment or clashes. Open dialogue, transparency in decision-making, and concrete steps toward a long-term plan could help diffuse tensions.
Jarange-Patil’s sixth hunger strike represents more than just another protest—it symbolises the deep-rooted frustration and aspirations of the Maratha community. The Mahayuti government’s response in the coming days will have significant repercussions, not only for the upcoming state elections but also for the social and political fabric of Maharashtra. While Jarange-Patil’s demands may not be easily or quickly fulfilled, the government must navigate these troubled waters with caution, balancing legal frameworks and public sentiment to avoid further unrest.
