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.

Federal Overreach

India’s Enforcement Directorate (ED) has in recent years acquired a reputation as one of the most feared arms of the state. Empowered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), it has gone after a long list of political opponents, business houses and state agencies. Yet in doing so, it has often invited criticism for its opaque methods, selective targeting and timing that suspiciously coincides with election cycles.


This week, the Supreme Court gave the agency a well-deserved rap on the knuckles. At the same time, it should be careful not to clip its wings entirely. The Court directed the ED to temporarily halt its investigations into the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC), the state-run liquor distribution monopoly, and questioned its sweeping raids on liquor outlets and state offices. In a rebuke laden with constitutional undertones, the bench warned the agency against undermining federal governance.


The message from the judiciary was clear: the Centre must not weaponize national agencies to destabilise state governments. The ED had been investigating alleged corruption involving transport of liquor, bar licences and tender manipulation in collusion with private firms. It claimed to have unearthed unaccounted cash worth Rs. 1,000 crore and manipulated pricing data, but did not name TASMAC as an accused in the predicate offences, a legal prerequisite under the PMLA. The raids, then, seemed both premature and overbroad.


The ruling DMK, which runs Tamil Nadu, predictably cried vindication. It accused the BJP-led central government of unleashing the ED to malign the state’s image and erode public trust ahead of elections.


But this is where nuance is required. The ED is not by definition an instrument of vendetta. While it has certainly been misused for political ends, it also serves a necessary function in unearthing financial crimes that local enforcement bodies are either unwilling or unable to pursue. The Supreme Court, in safeguarding federalism, must also ensure it does not render the ED toothless. To stay investigations is one thing; to issue blanket indictments of the agency’s conduct is quite another.


A more reasoned approach is to insist on procedural rigour. The ED must register predicate offences properly and establish material links before initiating raids. Courts must hold the agency to these standards but not presume malice where there may be incompetence or overenthusiasm. Tamil Nadu’s Excise Minister called the entire operation a “political vendetta.” It may well be, but even vendettas can uncover inconvenient truths. The Supreme Court must continue to be a check on executive excess but it should also nudge the ED to introspect and professionalise. After all, financial malfeasance does not respect political colours, and states are not immune to corruption merely by virtue of opposing the Centre. The ED, if it wishes to retain credibility, must stop behaving like an arm of the ruling party. At the same time, the judiciary must avoid demoralising a crucial investigative agency with unmeasured censure. Balance, in a federal democracy, is not weakness but constitutional strength.

Comments

bottom of page