top of page

By:

Abhijit Mulye

21 August 2024 at 11:29:11 am

NDA power matrix reshaped after success

AI generated image Mumbai: A quiet coup in the state has triggered a loud shift in the power dynamics of the nation’s capital. By engineering the defection of six additional MPs, Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde has nearly doubled his parliamentary muscle, transforming his Shiv Sena faction from a junior regional partner into an indispensable pillar of the NDA. Now sitting on a commanding 13 seats, Shinde has dramatically increased his political leverage—leaving a cautious BJP to weigh the...

NDA power matrix reshaped after success

AI generated image Mumbai: A quiet coup in the state has triggered a loud shift in the power dynamics of the nation’s capital. By engineering the defection of six additional MPs, Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde has nearly doubled his parliamentary muscle, transforming his Shiv Sena faction from a junior regional partner into an indispensable pillar of the NDA. Now sitting on a commanding 13 seats, Shinde has dramatically increased his political leverage—leaving a cautious BJP to weigh the cost of an emboldened ally demanding a bigger slice of the pie in both the Union and state cabinets. In a masterstroke of political engineering that has profoundly jolted political landscape, Shinde has once again demonstrated his formidable capacity for disruption. The rebellion of six out of nine Lok Sabha Members of Parliament from the Uddhav Thackeray-led Shiv Sena (UBT), ostensibly joining Shinde’s ranks under the banner of “Operation Tiger,” is not merely a regional skirmish. It is a calculated power play that reverberates through the highest corridors of power in New Delhi. By nearly doubling his party’s strength in the lower house from seven to thirteen MPs, Shinde has dramatically altered his own political trajectory, elevating his faction from a helpful regional ally to an indispensable pillar of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA). Shinde’s Stature The immediate consequence of this crossover is a massive surge in Shinde’s stature within the NDA hierarchy. With thirteen parliamentarians, his Shiv Sena is now poised to become the fourth-largest bloc in the ruling national coalition, sitting just behind the Bharatiya Janata Party, the Telugu Desam Party, and the newly formed Nationalist Citizens Party of India. This numerical leap is of immense strategic value to the BJP-led central government. In a parliamentary environment where the ruling coalition possesses only a modest majority, every single seat counts. The central leadership is acutely aware of upcoming legislative hurdles, particularly ambitious constitutional amendments like the proposed delimitation bill, which will require a formidable two-thirds majority. By acting as the architect of this crucial numerical boost, Shinde has cemented his reputation as a reliable and highly effective operator for the NDA, significantly increasing his bargaining power and political leverage. National Relief For the BJP, this development evokes a complex mixture of profound national relief and acute regional anxiety. From the vantage point of PM Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah, Shinde’s successful poaching operation is a clear windfall. It simultaneously fortifies the NDA’s numerical strength in New Delhi while severely crippling a vocal opposition force in Maharashtra. The central BJP leadership views Shinde as a vital asset capable of bridging the gap between their current numbers and the overwhelming mandates of the past. However, the perspective from the Maharashtra BJP headquarters is noticeably more apprehensive. State BJP leaders openly acknowledge Shinde’s soaring political equity, but they are increasingly wary of his expanding ambitions. They recognize that an emboldened Shinde, eager to fill the political vacuum left by Uddhav Thackeray and a fragmented Nationalist Congress Party, will aggressively attempt to expand his footprint across the state, potentially encroaching upon the BJP’s own traditional support bases. Power Sharing This dramatically enhanced political heft immediately raises pressing questions regarding power-sharing arrangements, both at the Centre and in the state. Armed with thirteen MPs, Shinde’s camp is undoubtedly preparing to seek greater political rewards. In the Union Cabinet, his demand for an additional, high-profile ministerial berth is now backed by solid arithmetic. Given his heightened utility to the national coalition, the BJP high command is highly likely to accommodate this request during the next cabinet reshuffle. However, the power struggle within the Maharashtra state cabinet promises to be far more contentious. Shinde, who had to settle for the Deputy Chief Ministership behind Devendra Fadnavis following the last assembly elections, may now feel emboldened to petition the BJP leadership for the top job. The BJP’s state unit is actively preparing to fiercely resist any such demand. Senior BJP leaders are quick to emphasize that despite his parliamentary gains, Shinde’s legislative strength in the state assembly hovers around 57 MLAs, dwarfed by the BJP’s commanding 132 legislators. Consequently, conceding the Chief Minister’s chair remains highly improbable. Instead, the BJP will be forced into a delicate balancing act, likely appeasing Shinde by granting his faction a larger share of influential, heavyweight portfolios within the state government to keep the alliance stable. Ultimately, through sheer political audacity, Eknath Shinde has ensured that neither New Delhi nor Mumbai can afford to govern without catering to his increasingly formidable political weight.

How Trump Could Answer Palestinian Question?

Donald Trump

The re-election of Donald Trump as the next US President was greeted in the Middle East with a mixture of rapture and dread, especially among Palestinians.


While it is impossible to know exactly how a second Trump Presidency will act toward the Palestinian people and their demands for statehood, his first Presidency provides a guide to what they might expect.


Like all his predecessors, in his first term, President Trump's dealings with Israelis and Palestinians were overwhelmingly influenced by domestic political pressures, which meant unwavering support for Israel. However, true to the nature of his norm-breaking first term, Trump often dismissed long-held diplomatic norms in search of a resolution to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.


By doing so, his Administration sought to remove any obstacles to “peace” between Palestinians and Israelis – a “peace” that would paradoxically see the end of any hope for a Palestinian state.


Jerusalem divided

The 1948 War of Independence divided Jerusalem, with East Jerusalem controlled by Jordan and West Jerusalem by Israel. When Israel captured East Jerusalem in 1967, it was hugely symbolic because it meant that for the first time in almost two millennia, Jews controlled all the ideologically, religiously, politically, and culturally significant city of Jerusalem.


Nevertheless, the international community refused to accept Israel's occupation nor its subsequent annexation of East Jerusalem in 1980, declaring that the negotiations concerning the two-state solution would decide the fate of Jerusalem. Consequently, most states have their embassies in Tel Aviv. Palestinians and Israelis interpreted the Trump administration's decision as US recognition of Israeli sovereignty of all Jerusalem.


Settlements expanding

According to Peace Now, in 2023, approximately 465,000 Israeli settlers were living in the West Bank, located in over 350 settlements and outposts. There were also an additional 230,000 Israelis living in settlements in East Jerusalem.


The administration's decision mirrored the long-held Israeli legal argument that the settlements are not illegal because the international community never deemed Jordan's occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem as legal. As these territories were not part of Jordan's sovereign territory, they could not be “occupied” by Israel, meaning it could settle the land as it wished.


Nevertheless, this position ran contrary to Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which states that: “the Occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its civilian population into the territory it occupied.” Consequently, the international community, including the United Nations, the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), has consistently deemed Israeli settlements as illegal and as impediments to any peace agreement between Palestinians and Israelis.


However, the administration's rationale for its decision was that declaring the settlements illegal only restrains and impedes the negotiation process and, thus, any progress towards a successful resolution of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.


Around the same time, the Trump administration announced that it would no longer contribute funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), the principal UN aid agency for Palestinians.


What followed was a budget cut of 30%, culminating in profound humanitarian effects on Palestinians, especially for Gazans, who relied heavily on UNRWA's provision of essential services to survive after Israel placed the Strip under siege following Hamas's election victory in 2006.


Trump's “Deal of the Century”

In 2020, the Trump Administration published its so-called “Deal of the Century”, intending to resolve the Palestinian/Israeli conflict finally. However, Palestinians rejected the plan outright, incensed by proposals to rescind Jordanian custody of Haram al-Sharif and transfer control to Israel.


Haram al-Sharif, or the Dome of the Rock mosque, is the third holiest site in Islam. When Jordan signed a peace agreement with Israel in 1994, Israel agreed to recognise Jordan's custodianship of the Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem, specifically Haram al-Sharif. Rescinding control of Haram al-Sharif to Israel meant it would control all the disputed city.


Importantly, for Palestinians in any peace agreement with Israel, East Jerusalem would become the capital of the future Palestinian state — without East Jerusalem, there can be no Palestine.


How far does Trump's support for Israel go?

During the Presidential campaign, Trump stated on several occasions that he wanted Israel to win the war quickly. On 3 December, Trump posted on social media that Hamas needed to release all remaining hostages before he took office on 20 January 2025. Otherwise, there would be “hell to pay in the Middle East, and for those in charge…”.


Whether President Trump would risk such a calamity by supporting Israel's ultra-nationalist agenda is again uncertain. What is more certain is that the President holds little respect for diplomatic conventions and considers himself a deal-maker, meaning that he could indeed gamble on being able to make the Arab world bend to his diplomatic will without having to compromise too much on US support for Israel.

-AP

Comments

bottom of page