The Shiv Sena (UBT)’s decision to back the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Bill, 2026 – in sharp contrast to the move of its Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) allies Congress and NCP (SP) to oppose the legislation – reflects both the Uddhav Thackeray-led party’s political compulsion as well as the growing unease within the Opposition alliance.
For the Sena (UBT), its stance over the anti-conversion Bill is centred on the party’s ideology as well as political calculations. The party has historically opposed forced or fraudulent conversions and, even after breaking ties with the BJP in 2019, has retained a moderate Hindutva identity.
At a time when the Sena (UBT) continues to be engaged in a conflict with the BJP and the Shiv Sena led by Eknath Shinde – the key players of the ruling Mahayuti – its outright opposition to the Bill could have exposed the party to charges of ideological inconsistency. “There is coordination at a political level, but on ideological issues like religion, each party is taking its own position. This was expected,” an MVA insider said.
The Bill, introduced in the Assembly last week, allows the police to act on suspected unlawful religious conversions even without a complaint from the alleged victim or their family. It also widens criminal liability beyond those directly carrying out a conversion to include anyone who executes, endorses or attests documents connected to it, among other provisions.
What did Sena (UBT) legislators say?
The Sena (UBT)’s support for the Bill came with caveats. In the Assembly, Sena (UBT) MLA Bhaskar Jadhav backed the legislation while suggesting corrections to one of its clauses.
In the Legislative Council, senior Sena (UBT) leader Anil Parab said his party would support the Bill, but questioned if it would function as an “anti-conversion Bill or as a defection-type law”. He also sought data on the scale and causes of religious conversion from the government. “Poverty and administrative failures create conditions for conversions. If such instances are on the rise, the government must explain why. Such cases reflect a failure of governance, where state systems do not reach vulnerable sections,” he said.
Outside the House, Uddhav Thackeray took a softer stance: “Freedom of religion should be there for everyone… but if anyone is converting by force or by taking advantage of someone’s helplessness and falsely luring them, we are against it. We support that Bill fully.”
The Bill has since been passed in both the Houses with the Sena (UBT) not opposing it, even as other Opposition parties continued to dissent, demanding that it be referred to a Joint Select Committee.
MVA fissures
The disagreement over the Bill comes amid visible friction within the MVA since the November 2024 Assembly polls, which saw the Mahayuti win 235 of the state’s 288 seats. The Opposition alliance did not contest the recent civic body elections together, including in Mumbai, and post-poll coordination has remained limited.
There has been no joint delegation to the Speaker on the Leader of Opposition post, and even a joint Opposition press conference ahead of the Budget session did not include the NCP (SP) leaders.
The recent Rajya Sabha polls also saw the MVA allies jockey for the lone seat they were set to collectively win, with Sena (UBT) MLA Aaditya Thackeray insisting on fielding his party’s candidate. Eventually, the MVA agreed on NCP(SP) chief Sharad Pawar’s name as its consensus nominee for the Upper House.
Uddhav himself acknowledged the lack of cohesion between the MVA allies in a January interview with The Indian Express. “There is confusion in the MVA. It exists… nothing happens overnight. Why would I deny it? But I hope things will work out,” he had then said.
MVA insiders said there was “nothing new” in the allies taking different positions on various matters. “On issues like Marathi identity, V D Savarkar and Hindutva, there have always been clear differences between the MVA allies. This (anti-conversion legislation) is just the latest instance where differences have surfaced,” a source said.
Ideological conundrum
While many view the Sena (UBT)’s stand on the Bill as a sign of friction within the Opposition alliance, the party functionaries maintain it is consistent with positions it has long held. “We have not compromised on our ideology. This is what the party has always believed,” a party leader said.
They argued that backing the Bill was “politically prudent”, preventing rivals— particularly the Shiv Sena — from accusing the party of abandoning Hindutva and Balasaheb Thackeray’s legacy.
What is the stand of Cong, NCP(SP)?
For the Congress and NCP (SP), the Bill raises concerns over privacy, personal liberty and minority rights. Their leaders such as Congress MLA Aslam Shaikh and NCP(SP)’s Jitendra Awhad have strongly opposed it, arguing that it mandates prior declaration of personal choice and could affect interfaith couples.
Samajwadi Party (SP) MLA Rais Shaikh said the Bill should be discussed more widely, both inside and outside the Assembly, and criticised Jadhav for raising concerns about misuse while still supporting it.
For now, the MVA, driven by electoral arithmetic and a shared opposition to the BJP, is unlikely to break up. But the Sena (UBT)’s stand — and the response from its allies — underscores a broader reality: the MVA is a coalition managing competing political interests and ideological positions, and such faultlines are likely to re-emerge.