top of page

By:

Rajendra Joshi

3 December 2024 at 3:50:26 am

Has politics of convenience caused ideology to collapse in Maharashtra?

In the political churn that followed the Emergency (1975–77), one of Maharashtra’s most defining moments came in 1978 when the joint government of the Reddy Congress and the Indira Congress collapsed. A young Sharad Pawar, then just 38, walked out with 40 MLAs and brought down the government. He soon returned to power via the ‘Pulod’ alliance, only to move back into the Congress fold in 1986 — and then break away again in 1999 to float the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) over the issue of...

Has politics of convenience caused ideology to collapse in Maharashtra?

In the political churn that followed the Emergency (1975–77), one of Maharashtra’s most defining moments came in 1978 when the joint government of the Reddy Congress and the Indira Congress collapsed. A young Sharad Pawar, then just 38, walked out with 40 MLAs and brought down the government. He soon returned to power via the ‘Pulod’ alliance, only to move back into the Congress fold in 1986 — and then break away again in 1999 to float the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) over the issue of Sonia Gandhi’s foreign origins.   Ironically, the same Pawar later partnered with the Congress for a decade at the Centre, switching between Left allies and the erstwhile Jan Sangh with equal ease to retain power. Yet the questions remain: Where were ideology and loyalty in this long trajectory? His admirers and political commentators routinely called it statesmanship, but for Maharashtra, it marked the beginning of a political culture where ideology and party loyalty became dispensable. That seed has now grown into a full-fledged tree: in today’s politics, ideology is optional, loyalty negotiable.   Shiv Sena, founded in 1966 by Balasaheb Thackeray to assert Marathi identity, was first split in 1991 — a move widely attributed to Pawar, who backed Chhagan Bhujbal’s exit. Years later, the same Pawar shared power with the Sena in the state and even installed Uddhav Thackeray as Chief Minister. The Sena later splintered again, this time under Narayan Rane, and most dramatically under Eknath Shinde. Meanwhile, Raj Thackeray’s MNS took shape as a revolt against his uncle’s party.   More recently, the Baramati family feud saw Ajit Pawar walk into the BJP camp. Now talk of a rapprochement between Uddhav and Raj Thackeray, and between Sharad and Ajit Pawar, is gaining momentum. The churn has spread. Across districts and talukas, defections and homecomings are routine. Ideology and loyalty are honoured more in rhetoric than reality.   But it is the workers who bear the brunt. While leaders exchange sweet words and political comfort, it is party cadres who crack heads on the street, face police cases by the hundreds, and wage bitter battles in the name of leaders who may reunite the next day. The real question haunting Maharashtra today is: Who is fighting for whom — and against whom?   Power, as they say, is honey on the finger. Compromises existed earlier too, but there was once some hesitation in abandoning ideology and loyalty. Party-switching was an exception; today it is a norm.   Kolhapur has witnessed some of the most dramatic political rivalries — none more iconic than the decades-long clash between Sadashivrao Mandlik and Vikramsinh Ghatge. Their workers were so fiercely loyal that even inter-family social ties were avoided. After nearly 30 years of conflict, the two leaders reconciled — leaving party cadres bewildered.   The pattern repeats in Kagal today. Hasan Mushrif, once Mandlik’s trusted lieutenant and later his fiercest rival, and Samarsinh Ghatge, son of Vikramsinh, have come together. For years, Mushrif and Samarsinh fought pitched electoral and street battles. The BJP backed Samarsinh to unseat Mushrif. When power equations shifted, the BJP embraced Mushrif, leaving Samarsinh isolated. He crossed over to the NCP but continued to be uneasy under Devendra Fadnavis’s influence. Now rumours of reconciliation are again in the air — and once more, it is the workers who are left directionless.   Political battles in Maharashtra have always been fierce. In the 1970s, the Peasants and Workers  Party of India produced workers so committed that some vowed never to remove their red caps even in death. Congress stalwart Shripat Rao Bondre carried a Gandhi cap discreetly in his pocket in ShKP strongholds, but never abandoned the Congress ideology after winning municipal power.   Over the decades, thousands of workers have suffered fractured skulls, broken homes, lost generations, children dragged into police cases, and families ruined in local rivalries. Leaders switched parties, but workers continued visiting courts.   Which brings us back to the central question: In progressive Maharashtra, who exactly is fighting for whom — and against whom?

Pakistan an old sinner

Mumbai: The ongoing ‘Operation Sindoor’ has been punctuated by fresh instances of cease-fire violations (CFVs) along the Line of Control (LoC) by Pakistan in specific border areas, as revealed by the Indian Army this week.


The trend is not new and Pakistan has been adept at CFVs with official data showing an average 13 daily breaches of truce during 10 years from 2010-2021.


During that period, the LoC in the erstwhile state Jammu & Kashmir suffered some 14,411 CFVs, with the figures dramatically shooting up after 2014 when the NDA government headed by PM Narendra Modi took office.


The eye-popping data was revealed to Pune activist Prafful Sarda in a RTI reply, showing 593 CFVs during the erstwhile UPA’s former PM Dr. Manmohan Singh’s tenure, and 13,818 under the NDA regimes post-2014 – totaling to 14,411 in 10 years.


Interestingly, the figure of border infringement was just one (01) in 2004 – when Dr. Singh’s government came to power - which shot up to an astronomical 4,645 in 2020.


This was despite the admirable surgical air-strikes in Balakot (Feb. 2019) and the country acquiring a sleek fleet of Rafale fighter jets (July 2020).


As per the RTI reply, the truce violations pertained to the LoC, and the government had categorically refused to divulge details of CFVs along the India-China borders, including specifics like the Doklam deadlock (June-Aug. 2017).


“The government invoked Sec. 8 (1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005 to deny the Doklam details. The officialdom feels that such disclosure could affect India’s sovereignty and integrity, her security, strategic, scientific or economic interests, relations with foreign states, et al,” Sarda told 'The Perfect Voice'.


Starting with one CFV in 2004, it climbed to 6 (2005), 3 (2006), 21 (2007), 77 (2008), down to 28 (2009), and thereafter kept soaring each year – 44 (2010), 51 (2011), 93 (2012) and 199 (2013), at the fag end of the UPA’s second tenure.


Under the NDA, things appeared bright as CFV dropped to 153 (2014) and 152 (2015), and after PM Modi’s surprise visit to Pakistan to meet and greet ex-PM Nawaz Sharif on his birthday in Dec. 2015, the truce was flouted a whopping 228 times (2016).


In 2017, after Nirmala Sitharaman became Defence Minister, the rumblings on the borders increased with a staggering 860 CFVs – almost quadrupling over the previous year which also saw the Uri attacks by Pakistan and India’s retaliatory surgical strikes.


The CFV’s kept shooting up – 1,629 (2018), 3,233 (2019), and as NDA 2.0 was settling down in office, there were 4,645 truce violations (2020), and 524 (Jan-Feb. 2021) – the last two at the height of the Coronavirus Pandemic when the country remained under different lockdowns.

Comments

bottom of page