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.

Engineering Trust in an Age of Uncertainty

In a world of brittle alliances, Paris and New Delhi are testing whether middle powers can still build enduring partnerships.

The latest reset in India–France relations marked a clear departure from diplomatic routine. President Emmanuel Macron’s visit went beyond diplomatic reassurance, aiming instead to convert shared values into strategic leverage by linking defence production, advanced technology, energy security and Indo-Pacific geopolitics.


In an era of fraying global alliances and increasingly transactional diplomacy, there was a clear sense that Paris and New Delhi are testing whether middle powers can still construct partnerships that endure.


The significance lies less in the 21 memoranda of understanding signed, or the 52-point joint statement issued, than in their underlying logic. India is no longer looking for patrons or preferred vendors. It wants partners willing to share risk, technology and manufacturing responsibility. France, increasingly sceptical of rigid bloc politics and uncomfortable with excessive dependence on Washington, sees in India a like-minded power that is autonomous enough to resist capture.


Longstanding Ties

History supplies the emotional ballast for ties between the two countries, but strategy now drives the agenda. France’s sympathy for India’s anti-colonial struggle, manifest in the intellectual refuge offered to figures such as Sri Aurobindo in French-controlled Pondicherry, created a residue of goodwill that outlived empire. More consequential was the ideological inheritance. The French Revolution’s creed of liberty, equality and fraternity left a discernible imprint on India’s constitutional imagination. Few European states can claim such philosophical intimacy with the world’s largest democracy.


Yet sentiment alone does not explain why France has emerged as India’s most trusted partner in Europe. That distinction rests on defence. For two decades, Paris has shown an unusual willingness to treat India as a strategic equal rather than a market. The sale of Rafale fighter jets was important less for the aircraft than for the fact that France was prepared to defy pressure, share sensitive technology with India and maintain discretion.


This matters because India’s defence doctrine has shifted decisively. ‘Make in India’ is no longer a slogan but a strategic imperative, driven by supply-chain vulnerability and the hard lessons of dependence. France, with its tradition of strategic autonomy, fits this worldview better than most Western powers. The emphasis on co-development, participation of third-country manufacturers, and export-oriented production suggests that the Indo-French defence relationship is being repositioned as an Indo-Pacific capability hub rather than a bilateral arrangement. Because France is not merely a European power but an Indo-Pacific one as well, with territories, bases and citizens stretching from the western Indian Ocean to the Pacific.


India, confronting a more assertive China and an uncertain American security umbrella, sees value in working with a country that combines military reach with diplomatic restraint. The joint commitment to maritime security, freedom of navigation and regional capacity-building reflects a shared preference for influence without hegemony.


Shared Ambitions

Technology is the second pillar. Cooperation has expanded rapidly into artificial intelligence, cyber-security, critical minerals and advanced materials - areas that will determine economic and military power in the coming decades. French support for India’s human spaceflight programme, Gaganyaan, exemplifies this shift from transactional exchange to shared ambition. So do joint projects in earth observation, water monitoring and climate analytics, where French precision meets Indian scale.


Energy cooperation reveals similar pragmatism. India’s development trajectory demands reliable, low-carbon power at scale; France brings unmatched expertise in nuclear energy and a renewed interest in small modular reactors. Discussions on large nuclear plants, modular systems and grid integration indicate a willingness to think beyond pilot projects. Parallel collaboration on renewables and sustainable infrastructure suggests that both sides view climate policy less as moral theatre and more as industrial strategy.


Economics provides the connective tissue. Trade and investment flows remain modest relative to potential, but the direction is clear: sustainable manufacturing, urban infrastructure and MSME integration. France’s interest lies in embedding itself in India’s growth story; India’s interest is in capital that brings technology and jobs rather than mere market access. Human capital sits at the centre. The ambition to host 30,000 Indian students in France by 2030, supported by young-professional mobility schemes, reflects a belief that strategic partnerships endure only when people circulate as freely as ideas.


Education and research cooperation may yet prove the most transformative. Joint laboratories, university partnerships and the prospect of French campuses in India point to a long-term bet on knowledge ecosystems. Unlike defence contracts, these ties compound quietly, shaping elites, institutions and habits of cooperation over decades.


On global issues, alignment is unusually consistent. Both countries favour a multipolar order tempered by rules, negotiation and institutional reform rather than confrontation. France’s long-standing support for India’s claim to permanent membership of the UN Security Council is not altruism; it reflects a calculation that legitimacy in global governance requires demographic and geopolitical realism. Counter-terrorism cooperation, rooted in intelligence-sharing and financial tracking, reflects shared experience rather than abstract doctrine.


Climate diplomacy completes the picture. Through initiatives such as the International Solar Alliance, Paris and New Delhi have demonstrated that middle powers can shape global agendas when they focus on delivery rather than declarations. The joint statement reinforces this emphasis on practical cooperation over performative commitments.The architecture now in place suggests that both sides understand the stakes.


As India and France mark 25 years of strategic partnership this year, and look ahead to a ‘Horizon 2047’ vision aligned with India’s centenary of independence, the relationship has acquired ballast. It is sustained by a convergence of interests in a world where trust is scarce and dependable partners rarer still.


In an era of brittle alliances and transactional diplomacy, the Indo-French experiment stands out for its ambition and restraint. It seeks influence without dominance, autonomy without isolation. If it succeeds, it may offer a template not just for Europe and India, but for a multipolar world still searching for stable arrangements.


(The author is a researcher and expert in foreign affairs. Views personal.)

 

 

 

 


Comments

bottom of page