top of page

By:

Abhijit Mulye

21 August 2024 at 11:29:11 am

Shinde dilutes demand

Likely to be content with Deputy Mayor’s post in Mumbai Mumbai: In a decisive shift that redraws the power dynamics of Maharashtra’s urban politics, the standoff over the prestigious Mumbai Mayor’s post has ended with a strategic compromise. Following days of resort politics and intense backroom negotiations, the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena has reportedly diluted its demand for the top job in the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), settling instead for the Deputy Mayor’s post. This...

Shinde dilutes demand

Likely to be content with Deputy Mayor’s post in Mumbai Mumbai: In a decisive shift that redraws the power dynamics of Maharashtra’s urban politics, the standoff over the prestigious Mumbai Mayor’s post has ended with a strategic compromise. Following days of resort politics and intense backroom negotiations, the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena has reportedly diluted its demand for the top job in the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), settling instead for the Deputy Mayor’s post. This development, confirmed by high-ranking party insiders, follows the realization that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) effectively ceded its claims on the Kalyan-Dombivali Municipal Corporation (KDMC) to protect the alliance, facilitating a “Mumbai for BJP, Kalyan for Shinde” power-sharing formula. The compromise marks a complete role reversal between the BJP and the Shiv Sena. Both the political parties were in alliance with each other for over 25 years before 2017 civic polls. Back then the BJP used to get the post of Deputy Mayor while the Shiv Sena always enjoyed the mayor’s position. In 2017 a surging BJP (82 seats) had paused its aggression to support the undivided Shiv Sena (84 seats), preferring to be out of power in the Corporation to keep the saffron alliance intact. Today, the numbers dictate a different reality. In the recently concluded elections BJP emerged as the single largest party in Mumbai with 89 seats, while the Shinde faction secured 29. Although the Shinde faction acted as the “kingmaker”—pushing the alliance past the majority mark of 114—the sheer numerical gap made their claim to the mayor’s post untenable in the long run. KDMC Factor The catalyst for this truce lies 40 kilometers north of Mumbai in Kalyan-Dombivali, a region considered the impregnable fortress of Eknath Shinde and his son, MP Shrikant Shinde. While the BJP performed exceptionally well in KDMC, winning 50 seats compared to the Shinde faction’s 53, the lotter for the reservation of mayor’s post in KDMC turned the tables decisively in favor of Shiv Sena there. In the lottery, the KDMC mayor’ post went to be reserved for the Scheduled Tribe candidate. The BJP doesn’t have any such candidate among elected corporatros in KDMC. This cleared the way for Shiv Sena. Also, the Shiv Sena tied hands with the MNS in the corporation effectively weakening the Shiv Sena (UBT)’s alliance with them. Party insiders suggest that once it became clear the BJP would not pursue the KDMC Mayor’s chair—effectively acknowledging it as Shinde’s fiefdom—he agreed to scale down his demands in the capital. “We have practically no hope of installing a BJP Mayor in Kalyan-Dombivali without shattering the alliance locally,” a Mumbai BJP secretary admitted and added, “Letting the KDMC become Shinde’s home turf is the price for securing the Mumbai Mayor’s bungalow for a BJP corporator for the first time in history.” The formal elections for the Mayoral posts are scheduled for later this month. While the opposition Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi (MVA)—led by the Shiv Sena (UBT)—has vowed to field candidates, the arithmetic heavily favors the ruling alliance. For Eknath Shinde, accepting the Deputy Mayor’s post in Mumbai is a tactical retreat. It allows him to consolidate his power in the MMR belt (Thane and Kalyan) while remaining a partner in Mumbai’s governance. For the BJP, this is a crowning moment; after playing second fiddle in the BMC for decades, they are poised to finally install their own “First Citizen” of Mumbai.

Biomedical Waste: From Neglect to Regulation

The rise of HIV/AIDS and the 'Syringe Tide' of 1987 paved the way for global recognition of the biohazard threat and the need for regulation.

In the early days of healthcare, little attention was paid to the proper disposal of medical waste. Infectious materials, sharps, and other hazardous waste were often mixed with general waste, posing significant risks to both healthcare workers and the environment. The lack of awareness and regulations led to sporadic and unsafe practices.


However, during the 1980s, the rise of HIV/AIDS and other serious health concerns brought the issue into sharper focus. It is reported that, for the first time, the topic of medical waste management was discussed at a meeting convened by the World Health Organization’s regional office for Europe in Bergen, Norway, in 1983.


The ‘Syringe Tide’ episode of 1987, described in last week’s article, further heightened concerns. This incident underlined the urgent need for specialised medical waste management services and appropriate regulations.


In the United States, the Medical Waste Tracking Act of 1988 categorised waste from hospitals as hazardous and required institutions to follow systematic guidelines for handling and disposal. As a result, a new industry of medical waste service providers emerged, offering comprehensive solutions for waste collection, transportation, treatment, and disposal.


The ‘Syringe Tide’ disaster also sent shockwaves across Europe and other Western countries. Eventually, stringent rules and regulations were introduced to govern the handling, transport from the source of generation, treatment, and disposal of medical waste.


Introduction of legislation for managing medical waste in India

In India, the first case of HIV was reported in 1986. At the time, there were no specific rules or regulations to manage medical waste. Due to the absence of legislation and a general lack of awareness among policymakers and other stakeholders, medical waste was not treated as hazardous. It was routinely mixed with general municipal solid waste and dumped in landfills or open dumping grounds.


To compound the growing burden of municipal and hospital waste, disposable plastic items were introduced into the healthcare sector in the 1970s. These items quickly gained popularity due to their convenience and durability. By the 1980s and 1990s, the use of disposable plastic items in hospitals had significantly increased, driven by the broader adoption of plastics in both daily life and medical practice.


The wake-up call: Dr B.L. Wadhera vs Union of India

In the 1990s, several NGOs and individuals in Delhi began drawing attention to the issue of unregulated medical waste management. In 1995, Dr B.L. Wadhera filed a writ petition in the Hon. Supreme Court of India, highlighting the neglected problem of medical waste disposal in Delhi. The petition pointed out that the government had failed to recognise the hazardous impact of openly dumped medical waste on public health and had not classified it appropriately as hazardous waste.


As a result, the Hon. Supreme Court directed the Government of India to appoint a committee of experts and develop a clear legislative framework for the classification and proper management of medical waste. This landmark judgement exposed major regulatory gaps and set the wheels in motion for the creation of medical waste management legislation in India. More on this in my next article. Till then, have a good weekend!


(The writer is an environmentalist.)

Comments

bottom of page