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.

Capital Dreams

Maharashtra has become the first Indian state to set up an Infrastructure Investment Trust (InvIT) of its own. Dubbed ‘MahaInvIT, the initiative will transfer selected assets from the Public Works Department, the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation and the Maharashtra Infrastructure Corporation into a new financial structure. The goal is bold: to unlock future revenues today and use them to fund new infrastructure such as roads and bridges.


In theory, the move makes sense. The state is adopting a model successfully used elsewhere. Infrastructure Investment Trusts, pioneered in the United States in 1960, offer a way to securitise infrastructure income and attract both private and public investors. India’s National Highways Authority (NHAI) embraced the idea in 2020, raising funds through its own National Highway InvIT. Maharashtra’s version mirrors that template.


It is meant to act as a bridge between the state’s infrastructure ambitions and its capital constraints. The state is no stranger to fiscal pressure, and the MahaInvIT could serve as a clever workaround: instead of burdening the exchequer with more borrowing, it turns predictable revenue streams from existing public assets into an investable product.


However, for all its innovation, the trust’s success will depend less on structure and more on execution. India has long suffered from the malaise of announcement-heavy, delivery-light governance. Grand plans stumble over bureaucratic inertia, delayed clearances and capacity constraints. Consider the NHAI InvIT itself. While it did manage to raise over Rs. 5,000 crore initially, questions persist about project quality, investor appetite and the time taken to bring assets on stream. Similar bottlenecks await MahaInvIT if the state does not ensure efficient execution and transparent governance.


InvITs are not magic wands. They require steady, reliable income from underlying assets, not something every public infrastructure project in India can guarantee. Revenue models for many roads and bridges depend on toll collections or annuity payments which can be susceptible to political interference or poor compliance. If investor returns fall short of expectations, confidence in the model could erode quickly.


Then there is the question of accountability. What happens if the trust fails to attract sufficient investment? Or if the projects it funds underperform? The governance framework must not only comply with SEBI norms but also go beyond them, ensuring transparency, performance benchmarks and independent audits. Maharashtra’s record on this front is mixed.


Still, the state deserves credit for stepping ahead of the curve. As India embarks on its next wave of urbanisation and infrastructure expansion, states will need to think creatively about financing. That, ultimately, is the question. Ambition is not in short supply. But will there be ground results? Without swift project clearances, robust governance and investor confidence, the trust merely remains a gesture of financial engineering rather than a catalyst for bulldozers and backhoes.


Comments

bottom of page