top of page

By:

Abhijit Joshi

31 August 2024 at 10:09:24 am

Sunetra Pawar’s Trial by Fire

The greatest challenge before Maharashtra’s first Deputy CM is not merely to govern, but to forge a political identity that is unmistakably her own. Politics often rewards the loudest voice. The modern political arena thrives on sharp sound bites, relentless television appearances and instant responses on social media. Yet, some leaders begin their journey not with thunder but with quiet resolve. Maharashtra’s Deputy Chief Minister Sunetra Pawar finds herself at precisely such a moment. In...

Sunetra Pawar’s Trial by Fire

The greatest challenge before Maharashtra’s first Deputy CM is not merely to govern, but to forge a political identity that is unmistakably her own. Politics often rewards the loudest voice. The modern political arena thrives on sharp sound bites, relentless television appearances and instant responses on social media. Yet, some leaders begin their journey not with thunder but with quiet resolve. Maharashtra’s Deputy Chief Minister Sunetra Pawar finds herself at precisely such a moment. In recent days, she has been drawn into an avoidable political controversy after the Maharashtra Congress dubbed her as “Gungi Gudiya” (“mute doll”) following a media interaction in which she chose not to answer journalists' questions. The remark quickly snowballed into a wider debate about the language used against women occupying high constitutional office. It also revived memories of the same epithet once directed at late Congress Prime Minister Indira Gandhi before she went on to become one of India’s most formidable political figures. Until recently, Sunetra Pawar remained largely outside the glare of frontline politics. She was better known in Baramati for her work in education, healthcare and social welfare than for fiery speeches or electoral campaigns. Her public image was that of a composed, private individual who preferred institution-building to political theatre. Political Limelight That changed in 2024 when she entered electoral politics, contesting the Lok Sabha election from Baramati against her sister-in-law, Supriya Sule. Though unsuccessful, she later entered Parliament through the Rajya Sabha, where she quietly focused on organisational responsibilities and social initiatives rather than cultivating a high-profile parliamentary persona. The defining moment came in January this year with the tragic death of her husband, Ajit Pawar, one of the state’s most experienced and influential political leaders. His passing created a political vacuum within the Nationalist Congress Party. At a moment of uncertainty, Sunetra Pawar stepped forward to shoulder responsibilities that few had imagined she would inherit so soon. Within days, she became Maharashtra’s first woman Deputy Chief Minister - a milestone in the state’s political history. But such transitions are rarely straightforward. Political parties often struggle when towering personalities disappear, and observers had predicted that the NCP might witness internal divisions. Maintaining organisational cohesion during a leadership transition is itself a considerable achievement, particularly in a state where political loyalties are often fluid and intensely personalised. However, much of the public conversation around Sunetra Pawar continues to be framed through comparisons with Ajit Pawar. The contrast is obvious. Ajit Pawar was known for his decisiveness, administrative grip and unmistakable public presence. Sunetra Pawar, by contrast, has generally remained soft-spoken, measured and reluctant to engage in unnecessary confrontation. Her supporters see restraint, dignity and maturity but critics see hesitation and insufficient public engagement. Neither assessment is entirely unfair. That is why the recent Beed incident acquired significance beyond a routine press interaction. When reporters sought her comments on law and order and she chose to leave without responding, the political vacuum was quickly filled by her opponents. The Congress’s “Gungi Gudiya” remark predictably provoked protests from the NCP and criticism from leaders across the ruling alliance, many of whom argued that such language diminished the dignity of a woman holding one of the state’s highest offices. Sunetra Pawar’s own response was notably restrained. She said she would offer a “fitting reply at the appropriate time.” The remark was consistent with the temperament she has displayed since entering public life. Leadership is ultimately judged not only by composure but also by visibility. Every major political figure eventually reaches a point where inherited legitimacy must give way to earned authority. Indira Gandhi had to step beyond Jawaharlal Nehru's towering legacy before she was recognised in her own right. Rajiv Gandhi, too, had to emerge from the shadow of Indira Gandhi while navigating extraordinary political circumstances. Their journeys were shaped by vastly different contexts, but they illustrate a universal truth: every successor must eventually become an original. Sunetra Pawar now confronts a similar, though far more modest, challenge. She must cease to be viewed primarily as “Ajit Pawar's wife” and come into her own. Distinct Identity That transformation cannot be achieved through symbolism alone. After all, lasting political stature is built through decisions, administrative outcomes and public confidence. To her credit, she has remained engaged with governance, regularly attending official programmes, reviewing development projects and interacting with citizens instead of chasing daily headlines. Yet the next stage of leadership demands something more. She will need to engage more confidently with the media, articulate her government's priorities in her own voice, and establish an administrative record that reflects independent judgement rather than inherited expectations. These are demanding tasks, but they are neither unusual nor unattainable. It is still too soon to measure Sunetra Pawar’s political legacy. She assumed responsibility at a moment when both her party and the state were adjusting to an unexpected transition, and has so far navigated that passage with composure. Yet political inheritance has a limited shelf life. While quietness, in itself, is neither a virtue nor a weakness, it acquires meaning only when it is accompanied by clarity and conviction. If Sunetra Pawar is to leave an enduring imprint on Maharashtra's politics, it will not be by echoing the style of Ajit Pawar or by answering every taunt from her opponents. It will be by developing a public voice that reflects her own instincts, her own priorities and, ultimately, her own leadership. (The writer is a political observer. Views personal.)

India’s Choice: Compete with China or Create Differently

China’s dramatic rise as a scientific powerhouse has sparked frequent comparisons with India, often leading to calls for increased public spending on research. The disparity is clear. China’s gross R&D expenditure crossed USD 440 billion in 2022 (about 2.55 percent of its GDP) while India’s remains around USD 17 billion, or just over 0.65 percent of GDP. China filed over 85,000 international patents in 2023, compared to approximately 2,000 from India. These figures fuel the belief that India must scale up its investment in science and technology to remain globally competitive.


However, numbers alone do not capture the deeper contrasts between the two countries. China’s scientific surge is the result of tightly coordinated, state-led planning. Mission-mode programs like ‘Made in China 2025’ and the ‘14th Five-Year Plan’ have focused on artificial intelligence, semiconductors, and clean energy. Universities and research institutions are aligned with national strategic goals, and translational research is both encouraged and incentivized through well-integrated public-private mechanisms.


India, by contrast, faces systemic fragmentation. Research institutions often function in silos, industry linkages are weak, and bureaucratic delays hamper innovation. While Technology Transfer Offices are slowly expanding, they lack the agility seen in other innovation-driven economies. Many Indian scientists remain focused on publication counts rather than solving real-world problems. The recently operational Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF) holds promise in addressing these gaps, but its impact will depend on sustained engagement and reform-minded implementation.


China’s system, however, comes at a steep cost. Academic freedom is constrained by political oversight. The restructuring of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in 2023 and the enforcement of ideological conformity across universities are reminders that research there is tightly controlled. While scientists have access to massive funding, their intellectual autonomy is limited. In contrast, Indian researchers, despite working with fewer resources, enjoy considerably greater freedom to choose their research directions, critique policies, and explore basic science without state interference.


That said, this freedom is occasionally interpreted in ways that risk detachment from societal needs. Under the banner of “curiosity-driven research,” some scientists pursue topics with little regard for long-term societal benefit. While open-ended inquiry is vital for scientific advancement, it should not become a pretext for disengagement from pressing public challenges. Scientific freedom must be balanced with responsibility. It is also worth appreciating that the Indian government does not impose ideological or programmatic diktats - a liberty rare in many parts of the world and one that should not be taken for granted.


Research integrity is another domain where both countries face serious challenges. China leads the world in retracted research papers. According to Retraction Watch, it accounts for over 30% of all retractions globally. Many are due to plagiarism, data fabrication, image manipulation, or ghost authorship. A Nature analysis from 2021 noted that nearly 500 Chinese papers are withdrawn annually. The intense pressure to publish for promotions and rewards has led to the proliferation of paper mills and academic fraud.


India is not immune. It ranks among the top 20 countries in terms of retractions, with many cases flagged on platforms like PubPeer. Concerns include plagiarized text, duplicate images, and questionable authorship. The problem is compounded by the persistence of predatory journals, some of which were once even endorsed by regulatory bodies. While India has taken steps to weed out such journals, enforcement remains inconsistent. In both countries, the “publish or perish” culture incentivizes quantity over quality, eroding public trust in scientific literature.


These concerns raise deeper questions about how science is assessed, funded, and rewarded. If India is to strengthen its global position, it must not only spend more, but spend wisely. That means building trust-based funding systems, fostering industry-academia collaboration, supporting long-term research with measurable outcomes, and creating robust checks for ethical conduct. Simultaneously, India must reform the way it evaluates scientific work—moving beyond publication counts and impact factors to reward innovation, reproducibility, and societal relevance.


Would Indian scientists prefer the Chinese model in exchange for more funding? Most would argue that true innovation requires intellectual freedom. The ability to ask inconvenient questions, challenge prevailing norms, and explore unconventional ideas has always driven breakthroughs. India’s pluralistic, democratic, and culturally diverse ecosystem, despite its imperfections, offers a more humane and open foundation for scientific progress.


That said, India cannot afford inertia. Without structural reforms, efficient governance, and accountable institutions, it risks losing talent to systems that offer better infrastructure even if they come with restrictions. India must enhance its public science ecosystem while also incentivizing private sector R&D. Ethical research conduct, transparent peer review, and data openness should become institutional norms, not afterthoughts.


Rather than comparing itself to China or any other country, India would do well to build its own scientific path rooted in autonomy, integrity, and long-term value. Learning from others is both necessary and wise, but replicating foreign models without reflection is not. India’s strength lies in its ability to create differently, not merely compete. The real choice is not between catching up and falling behind, but between replication and reinvention. India has the opportunity to choose wisely.


(Disclaimer: This article is not a criticism of China or any other country. It is a reminder to Indian scientists to make the most of the financial and institutional support available in India and to ensure that their research leads to meaningful outcomes for society)


(The author is the former Director, Agharkar Research Institute, Pune; Visiting Professor, IIT Bombay. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page