Satam, a three-term member of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from Andheri West and appointed president of the Mumbai unit of his party in August 2025, took to social media to frame his warning in a post referencing Mamdani’s win. He wrote that “the way the political colour of some international cities is changing, after seeing the surnames of a few mayors and witnessing the Maha Vikas Aghadi’s vote jihad, it seems necessary to stay cautious in the context of Mumbai..! If someone tries to impose a ‘Khan’ on Mumbai, it will not be tolerated! Wake up, Mumbaikars..!”
Satam defended his stance by stating that his concern lay with protecting the city from “political forces that divide society” and alleged appeals to vote‐bank politics instead of development agendas. He emphasised his belief in religious harmony but argued that if groups engaged in antinational stances, they would be opposed.
The backlash was swift. Anand Dubey, spokesperson for Shiv Sena — the faction of the Shiv Sena opposed to the current BJP alliance in the state — accused Satam of suffering a decline in his “mental state” since his appointment. Dubey declared: “Ameet Satam’s mental state has deteriorated. From the day he became president, he realised he was about to be wiped out… That’s why he’s been making bizarre statements about the mayor of Mumbai from day one.” He added that his party would fund Satam’s “treatment at Agra’s Pagal Khana”.
Dubey went further to declare confidently that a “Marathi Hindu” will become the next mayor of Mumbai and that the saffron flag will triumph in the civic polls. He accused the BJP of engaging in Hindu–Muslim polarisation and raised questions about the distribution of the party’s “Saugat-e-Modi” kits among Muslim communities in Uttar Pradesh earlier this year. He asked Satam whether those kits were intended for Mamdani, or for Pakistan or Bangladesh, urging him not to “prove PM Modi wrong”.
Other figures have chimed into the debate. Retired Lieutenant-General HS Panag, father of Bollywood actor Gul Panag, criticised the use of the word “impose” in Satam’s statement, questioning how someone could be “imposed” if elected. He said the reference undermined the democratic process and was out of step with constitutional norms.
Political analysts point out that the controversy arrives at a critical juncture. The civic body elections in Mumbai will determine the composition of one of India’s richest local governments and set the tone for future state and national contests. Satam’s comments signal a shift away from development-oriented messaging towards identity politics and cultural preservation. Observers note that such rhetoric has become increasingly prominent across urban centres where local traditions and migrant inflows are seen as tension points.
Opposition figures say the remarks highlight an effort by the BJP leadership to rally its base by framing the poll battle as one of indigenous citizens versus outsiders. Critics argue that this fosters communal divisions and distracts from pressing urban governance issues such as infrastructure, water supply, sanitation and affordable housing. They also point out that linking downtown Mumbai to the electoral outcome of a foreign city’s mayoral contest is an unusual rhetorical turn and may reflect a strategy of national “brand echo” rather than local articulation.
Satam’s camp, by contrast, insists that the city’s cultural identity and public peace merit vigilance, and that “change of colour” in urban leadership — as he described it — should act as an early warning rather than evidence of bias. His supporters say in an era of rapid demographic shifts, clarifying who represents the citizenry in civic chambers is a valid electoral question.