top of page

By:

Abhijit Joshi

31 August 2024 at 10:09:24 am

The Pawar Paradox Never Ends

As speculation over Sharad Pawar’s equations with the NDA resurfaces, Maharashtra is reminded that its most enduring political constant has always been uncertainty. There is an old Mumbai saying that seasoned political observers have long enjoyed repeating: “Ghode ki laath aur boss ki baat par kabhi bharosa mat karna” (never trust a horse’s kick or a boss’ word; either can come without warning). If Maharashtra’s politicians were updating the proverb today, one more cautionary line would...

The Pawar Paradox Never Ends

As speculation over Sharad Pawar’s equations with the NDA resurfaces, Maharashtra is reminded that its most enduring political constant has always been uncertainty. There is an old Mumbai saying that seasoned political observers have long enjoyed repeating: “Ghode ki laath aur boss ki baat par kabhi bharosa mat karna” (never trust a horse’s kick or a boss’ word; either can come without warning). If Maharashtra’s politicians were updating the proverb today, one more cautionary line would surely be included: “Sharad Pawar ke siyasi faisle par kabhi bharosa mat karna” (never assume you know Sharad Pawar's next political move). Few leaders in independent India have reinvented themselves as often, confounded both allies and adversaries with equal regularity, or remained politically relevant across nearly five decades quite like Sharad Pawar. Every major realignment in Maharashtra has, in one way or another, borne his imprint. Backstairs Intrigue That reputation has once again set the state’s political circles buzzing. A late-night meeting between senior NCP (Sharadchandra Pawar) leader Jayant Patil and Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, followed by indications that Pawar's party could extend conditional support to the Centre's proposed Delimitation Bill, has revived speculation that Maharashtra may be headed towards yet another political reshuffle. Supriya Sule has firmly dismissed suggestions that her party is preparing to join the NDA, insisting that any support for the Delimitation Bill would depend entirely on safeguards ensuring fairness for every state. Yet, the rumours persist. That, perhaps, is the enduring ‘Pawar effect.’ In Maharashtra, a single meeting involving Sharad Pawar is often enough to trigger discussions of an entirely new government. Pawar’s political career has consistently demonstrated that certainty is an illusion. In 1978, barely 38 years old, he engineered one of Maharashtra’s greatest political upsets. Breaking away from the Congress, he toppled the Vasantdada Patil government and stitched together the Progressive Democratic Front, or Pulod, by bringing together parties separated by ideology but united by arithmetic. He became the state’s youngest Chief Minister, a distinction that still defines his public image. That episode also revealed the two principles that have shaped his politics ever since. Ideology, for Pawar, has rarely been an immovable barrier. Political arithmetic has almost always mattered more. Equally, power has never been viewed as permanent. The pattern repeated itself through the decades. Pawar moved between Congress politics and regional politics with remarkable ease, served as India’s Defence Minister, broke away to establish the Nationalist Congress Party in 1999 over Sonia Gandhi's foreign origin, spent nearly fifteen years governing alongside the Congress, and then stunned the political establishment yet again in 2019 by helping construct the Maha Vikas Aghadi. Few believed the Shiv Sena, Congress and NCP could coexist under one roof. Pawar proved otherwise. Even the dramatic dawn swearing-in of Devendra Fadnavis and the late Ajit Pawar in November 2019 ultimately enhanced Sharad Pawar’s reputation. Within days, he had reunited most of his fractured party and succeeded in installing Uddhav Thackeray as Chief Minister. What initially appeared to be his biggest setback became another demonstration of his political resilience. Today, the Sharad Pawar-led NCP is no longer the formidable organisation it was before the split of 2023. While he retains considerable public goodwill, national stature and a respectable parliamentary presence, his legislative strength within Maharashtra has diminished considerably, prompted questions about the party’s future. Reports suggest that sections within the NCP (SP) are increasingly uncomfortable with the prospect of remaining in perpetual opposition and favour exploring some form of understanding with the BJP. Pawar himself is believed to have resisted such suggestions, while Supriya Sule has repeatedly ruled out any immediate shift. Yet the existence of internal debate appears difficult to dismiss. Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has publicly asserted that there is no question of new entrants joining the Mahayuti. His statement reflects political logic. The BJP already enjoys numerical dominance alongside Eknath Shinde’s Shiv Sena and Ajit Pawar’s NCP. Bringing Sharad Pawar into the alliance may strengthen the NDA externally, but it could also generate fresh leadership ambitions, competing centres of influence and unnecessary internal tensions. Issue-Based Cooperation If there is any movement, therefore, it is more likely to begin with issue-based cooperation in Parliament than with an immediate formal alliance. That explains why the Delimitation Bill has assumed such significance. Supriya Sule has indicated that her party could support the legislation provided the Centre guarantees a uniform 50 percent increase in parliamentary seats for every state. The position differs from that adopted by several INDIA bloc partners and has naturally fuelled speculation. Yet issue-based support should not automatically be interpreted as political surrender. Sharad Pawar has rarely subscribed to the idea that opposition requires opposing every government initiative. Throughout his career he has maintained working relationships across party lines, often separating legislative cooperation from electoral competition. That flexibility has repeatedly helped him preserve political relevance even when his party's electoral fortunes fluctuated. If, despite present denials, Pawar eventually chooses to support or formally align with the NDA, the consequences would extend well beyond Maharashtra. For the INDIA bloc, it would represent perhaps the most damaging psychological blow in western India, depriving it of one of its most experienced strategists and consensus-builders. Congress would lose a veteran ally at precisely the moment it is attempting to rebuild its organisational strength in Maharashtra. Uddhav Thackeray’s Shiv Sena (UBT) could find itself increasingly isolated, forcing a reassessment of both alliances and political strategy before the next Assembly election. And for the BJP, it would amount to the political neutralisation of perhaps its most accomplished regional rival. Sharad Pawar’s greatest political strength has always been his refusal to close any door before absolutely necessary. Strategic ambiguity has been one of its principal instruments. At 85, he remains among the last practitioners of an older style of coalition politics, where negotiation often counts for more than confrontation, and where tomorrow’s ally may well have been yesterday’s fiercest opponent. (The writer is a political observer. Views personal.

Bell, Book and Bludgeon: The Politics of the Unverified

The Naravane book episode shows how Opposition politics has slipped from demanding accountability into calculated institutional vandalism.

India’s latest parliamentary rupture did not begin with a bill or a vote of confidence but with a book that officially does not yet exist. Earlier this week, during the Budget Session, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi rose in the Lok Sabha brandishing Four Stars of Destiny, the autobiography of former Army Chief General M.M. Naravane with the intent to corner the Modi government on the Indian Army’s vicious 2020 Galwan Valley clash with Chinese forces.


Naravane’s 448 page-memoir traces a four-decade military career from Sikkim to Galwan, ceasefire negotiations with Pakistan and efforts to modernise the army. While the manuscript has been written and promoted, it has not yet been published. The Ministry of Defence and the Indian Army are still vetting it for sensitive operational details. Following the contretemps with Gandhi in the Lok Sabha, Penguin Random House India, the book’s publisher, has repeatedly and publicly confirmed that no print or digital copies have been released and that any circulation would violate copyright.


That did not prevent the Leader of the Opposition from citing it on the floor of the House. Even more inexplicable is how Rahul Gandhi managed to obtain a hardback copy of a book not ‘officially published.’ (when questioned later, Gandhi claimed it has been published abroad)


When Speaker Om Birla intervened to stop Gandhi, ruling that an unpublished and unverified text especially one under security review could not be used as a parliamentary source, the Congressman protested. He waved the book theatrically, offered it to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, displayed it to cameras and then declined to answer the simplest question: how did he obtain it?


Negativity as Strategy

Within days, the matter escalated from a procedural ruling into a constitutional confrontation with Opposition parties submitting a notice seeking the removal of Om Birla under Article 94(c) of the Constitution. It bore the signatures of 118 MPs from the Congress, the Samajwadi Party, the DMK and others. Notably absent were the signatures of Rahul Gandhi himself and the 28 MPs of the Trinamool Congress.


The charge was familiar: alleged bias against the Opposition and denial of speaking time to Gandhi and the refusal to allow references to the Naravane book to be spoken in Parliament.


The motion became only the fourth attempt in Lok Sabha history to remove a Speaker. The first such motion, in 1954 against G.V. Mavalankar, failed. Jawaharlal Nehru described it as a challenge not merely to an individual but to the dignity of the House. The second, against Sardar Hukam Singh in 1966, and the third, against Balram Jakhar in 1987, were debated and defeated. Parliament understood that procedural disagreements, however sharp, were a poor basis for destabilising the chair.


The Naravane episode is not an aberration. It fits a longer pattern in which confrontation, disruption and de-legitimisation have become central to the Congress’s parliamentary strategy under Rahul Gandhi. The objective has appeared less about shaping legislation than about sustaining a permanent crisis atmosphere around the prime minister and the institutions associated with him.


Gandhi’s method is consistent. An issue is raised before a session begins. Allegations are amplified through press conferences and proceedings are disrupted. Walkouts follow. By the time claims are tested - often disproved - the political objective which is to stall Parliament has already been achieved.


From the Budget Session of 2025 through the Winter Session of that year, proceedings were repeatedly disrupted over demands for a caste census, opposition to the Waqf Bill and attacks on the Election Commission. The Winter Session of 2024 was paralysed by claims that industrialist Gautam Adani had allegedly bribed American officials to the tune of $2 billion and should be jailed.


Recurring Pattern

The pattern stretches further back. The first session of the 18th Lok Sabha and the Monsoon Session of July 2024 were consumed by protests over Adani and SEBI, citing reports by the American short-seller Hindenburg. These were debunked when Hindenburg itself folded later.  The Budget Session of early 2024 saw repeated disruptions over Agniveer recruitment reforms and the familiar Adani-Ambani refrain. The Winter Session of 2023 collapsed amid protests over OBC issues and the suspension of MPs.


Likewise, the Manipur violence dominated the Monsoon Session of July 2023, along with opposition to Enforcement Directorate and CBI raids on leaders accused of corruption. A special session in September 2023 was disrupted over opposition to the new Parliament building, objections to the Sengol, Manipur again and the same investigative agencies.


Earlier still, Pegasus spyware allegations paralysed sessions in 2021 and 2022. Rafale aircraft purchases dominated disruptions from 2018 through 2022. Farmers’ protests halted the Budget Session of 2021. Protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act and NRC derailed the Budget Session of 2020.


According to PRS Legislative Research, parliamentary productivity has averaged just 25–30 percent since 2018. Bills on economic reform, internal security and governance have routinely been delayed or rushed through amid din.


Some episodes have crossed from obstruction into the realm of pure farce. In December 2023, protests over a Parliament security breach spiralled into chaos, leading to the suspension of 15 MPs for the remainder of the session precisely as three landmark criminal-justice bills were nearing passage. Opposition MPs marched through the complex carrying placards proclaiming ‘Save Democracy’ and ‘Parliament Shut, Democracy Ejected!’


A year later, during protests within the Parliament premises, Gandhi and his colleagues were accused of pushing two BJP MPs -Mukesh Rajput and Pratap Sarangi - both of whom were hospitalised.


At the inauguration of the new Parliament building, a Trinamool Congress MP mocked Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar through a mimicry act. Opposition MPs laughed. Gandhi recorded it on his phone. When elected representatives trivialise offices in such a crass manner, they corrode the very legitimacy of Parliament they claim to defend.


Costly Disruption

But Parliamentary disruption is extremely expensive as well. A single smooth working day of Parliament costs roughly Rs. 27 crore, covering security, staff salaries, utilities, allowances and live broadcasts. The Lok Sabha alone costs about Rs 2.5 lakh per minute. Every forced adjournment burns public money without producing public accountability.


This cost is borne not by ministers or MPs, but by ordinary taxpayers who watch the proceedings hoping for debate, legislation and solutions rather than shrill sloganeering and repeated disruptions.


Agreed that parliamentary democracy depends on dissent and scrutiny. But it also depends on agreed standards of evidence and restraint.


Using an unpublished book under active security review as a parliamentary weapon crosses a red line. Turning a procedural ruling into a removal motion crosses another. When negativity becomes a worldview rather than a tactic, it corrodes the institutions it claims to defend.


History suggests that such strategies eventually backfire. No Speaker has ever been removed by a no-confidence motion and persistent disruption dulls outrage and weakens the credibility of those who deploy it.


India’s Parliament has survived wars, emergencies and ideological convulsions. Its dignity has been strained before and restored. Whether today’s Opposition wishes to be remembered as a guardian of that dignity, or as its most inventive saboteur, remains the unanswered question.

Comments

bottom of page