top of page

By:

Rajendra Joshi

3 December 2024 at 3:50:26 am

Pawars are losing the Pune plot

Municipal elections expose the identity crisis within both factions of the Nationalist Congress Party Pune:  Local elections are often treated as administrative skirmishes. But in Pune, they have become something akin to a philosophical debate about loyalty and legitimacy, ideology and expediency, and whether political parties can survive repeated acts of self-contradiction. The week-long turmoil surrounding the city’s municipal polls has laid bare the Nationalist Congress Party’s deepest...

Pawars are losing the Pune plot

Municipal elections expose the identity crisis within both factions of the Nationalist Congress Party Pune:  Local elections are often treated as administrative skirmishes. But in Pune, they have become something akin to a philosophical debate about loyalty and legitimacy, ideology and expediency, and whether political parties can survive repeated acts of self-contradiction. The week-long turmoil surrounding the city’s municipal polls has laid bare the Nationalist Congress Party’s deepest malaise: a party split not merely by factions, but by incompatible ideas of what it stands for. At the heart of the drama lie the two NCPs led respectively by Sharad Pawar, the patriarch who once gave the party its ideological spine, and the other by his nephew Ajit Pawar, now Deputy Chief Minister in the BJP-led Mahayuti. When the election schedule was announced, many that each faction would fight separately, and the Bharatiya Janata Party would keep its distance. Instead, the BJP made clear it would not ally with Ajit Pawar’s NCP faction for the Pune civic polls. That refusal set off a chain reaction. A section within Sharad Pawar’s faction began exploring a local alliance with Ajit Pawar’s group, arguing insistently that municipal elections were about pragmatism and not ideological purity. The proposed move has startled even seasoned observers. More surprising still was the apparent openness of Supriya Sule, Sharad Pawar’s daughter and the party’s most prominent national face, to facilitating talks between the two sides. What followed was not just a tactical disagreement but a revolt of principle. Prashant Jagtap, the NCP’s Pune city president, publicly challenged the idea of any alliance with Ajit Pawar’s faction. His reasoning was that he had fought both the Lok Sabha and Assembly elections on an explicit anti-BJP plank. To now partner with a group that formed part of the BJP government, he argued, would amount to a betrayal of voters. Talking Point Jagtap’s defiance quickly became a state-wide talking point. At 47, a former mayor and a policy-minded local leader with a reputation for mastering civic minutiae, he was hardly an insurgent outsider. Yet by questioning Sharad Pawar’s tactical instincts while remaining within the party, he punctured the aura of unquestioned authority that has long surrounded the Pawar name. Even more awkwardly, BJP leaders maintained an almost studied silence as one of their allies flirted with Sharad Pawar’s camp, highlighting the convenience that define coalition politics in Maharashtra. Supriya Sule attempted damage control, stepping in to mollify Jagtap and to still the speculation about a grand NCP reunion, however temporary. It did not work as Jagtap refused to retreat and soon took a more decisive step by crossing over to the Congress. His exit was an indictment on the nature of the breathtaking contortions that have come to define to Maharashtra’s politics in recent times. In Pune, many saw it as the migration of credibility from a party mired in equivocation to one desperate for organisational revival. Congress leaders privately admitted that Jagtap’s arrival was a windfall: a grounded urban politician with local appeal at a time when the party struggles to find both. For residents weary of endless factional manoeuvres, his stand seemed refreshingly legible. Meanwhile, the much-discussed talks between the two NCP factions quietly collapsed. By Saturday evening, it was clear that the Sharadchandra Pawar-led NCP would contest the municipal elections as part of the Maha Vikas Aghadi, alongside Congress and the Shiv Sena (UBT). The attempted rapprochement had yielded only confusion, bruised authority and one prominent defection. The episode has also cast a shadow over the BJP. In Pune, whispers are growing that dynastic considerations may dominate its candidate selection, potentially provoking internal dissent. The party’s aggressive induction of new entrants, often from rival camps, has generated unease among long-time workers who fear being sidelined. For the NCP, however, the implications are more existential. Once conceived as a party that blended Maratha pragmatism with a secular, reformist outlook, it now risks becoming a vessel defined solely by surnames and split loyalties. The Pune episode suggests that local leaders and voters alike are increasingly impatient with ambiguity masquerading as strategy. Municipal elections rarely rewrite political history. But they do reveal fault lines. In Pune, they have exposed a party struggling to reconcile legacy with coherence and a city electorate alert to the difference.

Lingua Pragmatica

Updated: Mar 20

As Southern leaders like M.K. Stalin rage against Hindi, Andhra Pradesh’s Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu offers a model of pragmatism over parochialism.

Chandrababu Naidu
Andhra Pradesh

Amid the cacophony of opposition in southern states to Hindi, Andhra Pradesh CM N. Chandrababu Naidu has taken a markedly pragmatic stance by remarking recently in the state Assembly that there was no harm in learning other languages. Hindi, Naidu noted, was useful for communication across India, particularly in political and commercial hubs like Delhi. His remarks, though avoiding explicit mention of the NEP, were widely seen as an endorsement of multilingualism and a rebuke to the linguistic chauvinism that has gripped parts of the South.


Few issues in India stir political passions quite like language. It is not merely a means of communication but a marker of identity, a relic of colonial resistance, and a source of political mobilization. In the southern states, where anti-Hindi sentiment has long been entrenched, the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and its three-language formula have reignited old tensions. No state embodies this defiance more than Tamil Nadu, where the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) led by M.K. Stalin has framed the policy as an assault on its linguistic autonomy.


Naidu’s words, welcomed by his ally and Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan, mark a sharp contrast with the DMK’s position. Tamil Nadu’s hostility towards Hindi dates back to the 1930s, when C. Rajagopalachari’s attempt to introduce it in schools met with fierce resistance. The anti-Hindi agitations of the 1960s cemented the DMK’s ideological stance, with its first Chief Minister, C.N. Annadurai, famously warning that Hindi imposition could push Tamil Nadu towards secession.


The question, however, is whether this rigid opposition serves Tamil Nadu’s interests. While Stalin, with an eye to the upcoming Tamil Nadu Assembly polls, has been relentlessly portraying Hindi as a threat to his state’s regional identity, Naidu, a partner of the BJP-led Centre, is framing it as a tool for economic mobility. His argument is not that Hindi should replace Telugu or English but that it offers a competitive advantage.


The economic case for multilingualism is compelling. Indians who speak multiple languages tend to have better job prospects, higher earnings and greater geographic mobility. Andhra Pradesh’s Telugu-speaking diaspora is a case in point. Telugus make up a significant proportion of Indian-origin professionals in the United States, the Gulf, and Southeast Asia as Naidu pointed out, hinting that this success story was built not on linguistic rigidity but on adaptability.


In a country where inter-state migration is rising and where Hindi remains the most widely spoken language, refusing to learn it amounts to self-imposed isolation. Tamil Nadu’s approach, by contrast, risks limiting its youth. The DMK government has refused to implement the three-language policy, keeping schools strictly bilingual with Tamil and English. Its justification that Hindi is not necessary for global success could be true in a narrow sense but ignores the domestic context. If Tamil filmmakers can dub their movies into Hindi to expand their audience, why should Tamil students be denied access to the language that could open more doors for them within India?


The DMK has accused successive central governments, particularly under the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), of pushing Hindi at the expense of regional languages. Yet, rejecting Hindi outright is an overcorrection. The reality is that Hindi is an important language in India’s economic and political landscape. Naidu’s position, one of accommodation rather than confrontation, offers a middle ground that other Southern leaders would do well to consider.


Some states already recognize this. Karnataka, despite its own history of linguistic pride, has allowed Hindi to be taught as an optional language. Kerala, whose migrants work in Hindi-speaking regions and the Gulf, has been less hostile to Hindi education. Naidu’s model, balancing regional identity with practical necessity, offers a way forward. Languages should be embraced, not politicized. Southern leaders would do well to listen to him.

Comments

bottom of page