By Vinod Raghavan*
Ink, Power and Mumbai: Inside the BMC Election Battle
Mumbai: The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) elections, conducted on January 15 after a prolonged hiatus, were meant to reset the political balance in India’s richest civic body. Instead, as votes were counted the following day, the process itself came under intense scrutiny, with debate over the indelible ink used during polling unfolding alongside the declaration of results that confirmed a decisive shift in Mumbai’s civic power structure.
Polling day passed largely without violence, according to officials of the Maharashtra State Election Commission, but as voting concluded, social media platforms began to fill with videos and images purporting to show voters wiping off the ink mark applied to their fingers after casting ballots. The mark, traditionally associated with permanence and deterrence, appeared in some cases to fade or disappear with sanitiser, soap or rubbing. While election authorities said individual clips could not be independently verified, the allegations gained rapid political traction, particularly because the election carried unusually high stakes: control of a municipal corporation with an annual budget exceeding ₹74,000 crore, as per BMC budget documents, and jurisdiction over infrastructure, public health, transport and education in a city of more than 20 million people.
The controversy unfolded even as counting began under tight security on January 16 at designated centres across Mumbai, election officials said. Provisional data released by the State Election Commission recorded a voter turnout of approximately 52.9 per cent, marginally lower than participation in the 2017 civic polls, reflecting a moderate level of engagement in an election held after a gap of nearly nine years. As ward-wise trends were released through the day, official counting data showed the Bharatiya Janata Party BJP) –led Mahayuti alliance taking a commanding lead, confirming exit poll projections aired by multiple television news channels in the days preceding the vote. By the end of the counting, the results marked a decisive consolidation of power by the alliance in the 227-member civic body, signalling a major reconfiguration of Mumbai’s municipal politics.
Opposition parties, including Shiv Sena (UBT) and the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena, raised concerns over the ink issue through public statements and posts on their official social media handles, arguing that the apparent ease with which the mark could be removed undermined a basic safeguard of the electoral process and risked eroding public confidence. Demonstrations by opposition leaders, some of whom publicly rubbed off the ink during press interactions, amplified the debate. The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and the State Election Commission responded with clarifications issued during polling and counting, stating that reports of large-scale ink removal were inaccurate and that safeguards such as voter rolls, identity verification and marked registers ensured that repeat voting was not possible. Any attempt at impersonation or multiple voting, officials stressed, would constitute an electoral offence.
The dispute drew attention to the distinction between the traditional indelible ink long used in Indian elections and the marker-style applicators seen at several polling booths in Mumbai. Election experts and long-time observers noted that conventional indelible ink is based on a silver nitrate compound that chemically reacts with the skin, binding with proteins in the epidermis and darkening upon exposure to light, typically remaining visible for up to two weeks, as documented in earlier Election Commission guidelines. Marker-based inks, by contrast, adhere more superficially to the skin and can fade with friction or solvents depending on conditions such as drying time and handling. While election authorities said the method used complied with existing rules, and that ink was not the primary safeguard against double voting, the visible difference heightened public unease in a closely watched contest.
Election officials clarified that procurement of polling materials, including ink applicators, was carried out under the authority of the Maharashtra State Election Commission through approved vendors, following existing norms for local body elections. Officials said no deviation from prescribed procedures had been flagged before polling day, though they acknowledged that concerns raised after voting would be examined. The State Election Commission said it had sought a report from civic election officers on the quality and application of the ink used and would review whether traditional silver nitrate–based ink should be reinstated uniformly for future municipal elections to avoid similar controversies.
The Commission also confirmed that the results declared after counting on January 16 were final, subject only to routine statutory challenges, and that no complaints alleging repeat voting had been substantiated during scrutiny of polling station records. Senior election officials reiterated that marked electoral rolls, voter identification checks and booth-level documentation remained the primary safeguards against impersonation, regardless of the type of ink used.
Beyond the immediate controversy, the election unfolded against a deeper backdrop of Mumbai’s social and political transformation. Often described as a city that never allows anyone to sleep on an empty stomach, Mumbai’s reputation has been shaped by generations of working-class residents living in chawls and ageing buildings—tight rooms opening onto long corridors, common washrooms and shared open spaces that served as meeting points where daily struggles were discussed and collective resilience forged. Popular culture captured this ethos in films such as Raj Kapoor’s Awara, where a fruit seller offers food and shelter to a penniless newcomer, and in Saeed Mirza’s mid-1980s television series Nukkad, which portrayed the solidarities of urban working life. For many residents and observers, these shared spaces and practices came to symbolise a city sustained by labour, kindness and informal support networks.
Much of that landscape has been reshaped in recent decades by large-scale redevelopment. Chawls and old buildings have increasingly given way to high-rise complexes with gated security and modern amenities, a process driven by government policy and private developers. Critics argue that former residents were often offered compensation that failed to match the social value of the communities they lost, even as public spaces diminished. Issues such as the redevelopment of Dharavi, the handover of key infrastructure projects to private conglomerates, the reduction of BEST bus services and the conversion of bus depots and open land for commercial use became prominent themes during the campaign, particularly among opposition parties seeking to frame the election as a choice between development with or without what they described as Mumbai’s soul.
The political stakes were sharpened by the long and complex relationship between the BJP and the Shiv Sena. From the mid-1980s, when the Sena under Bal Thackeray first extended support to a then-marginal BJP in municipal politics, the alliance played a decisive role in shaping Mumbai and Maharashtra’s political trajectory. Over nearly 25 years, the partnership evolved from a shared Hindutva platform into one of the longest-running alliances in Indian politics, with an informal understanding of power-sharing between the state and the Centre. That relationship fractured after 2014 amid disputes over leadership and ambition, culminating in a split within the Sena, the fall of the Uddhav Thackeray-led government through defections, and the eventual formation of the BJP-backed government in the state. The delayed BMC elections, originally due in 2022, were held after this period of political upheaval, adding to their symbolic weight.
For the BJP-led alliance, the civic poll outcome was framed as a mandate for accelerated infrastructure-led development, citing projects inaugurated during the extended interregnum, including metro lines, the coastal road, Atal Setu and the upcoming Navi Mumbai airport. For the reunited Thackeray cousins and other opposition forces, the contest was presented as a fight to protect Mumbai from what they described as unchecked developer-driven growth. Official turnout data, however, showed that nearly half of the city’s eligible voters did not participate, underscoring a degree of public disengagement even as political rhetoric intensified.
As results were confirmed, election authorities reiterated that no verified cases of repeat voting linked to the ink issue had been detected. Yet the controversy lingered as a reminder that in elections, perception can matter as much as procedure. In a city whose identity has been shaped by shared spaces, labour and political contestation, the fading of a mark meant to endure became a metaphor for broader anxieties about trust, representation and the direction of change. The 2026 BMC election, decisive in outcome, left behind questions not only about who governs Mumbai, but about how democratic processes are seen and believed in by those who live and work in the city.
*Senior journalist
