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.

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