top of page

By:

Abhijit Mulye

21 August 2024 at 11:29:11 am

Shinde dilutes demand

Likely to be content with Deputy Mayor’s post in Mumbai Mumbai: In a decisive shift that redraws the power dynamics of Maharashtra’s urban politics, the standoff over the prestigious Mumbai Mayor’s post has ended with a strategic compromise. Following days of resort politics and intense backroom negotiations, the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena has reportedly diluted its demand for the top job in the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), settling instead for the Deputy Mayor’s post. This...

Shinde dilutes demand

Likely to be content with Deputy Mayor’s post in Mumbai Mumbai: In a decisive shift that redraws the power dynamics of Maharashtra’s urban politics, the standoff over the prestigious Mumbai Mayor’s post has ended with a strategic compromise. Following days of resort politics and intense backroom negotiations, the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena has reportedly diluted its demand for the top job in the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), settling instead for the Deputy Mayor’s post. This development, confirmed by high-ranking party insiders, follows the realization that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) effectively ceded its claims on the Kalyan-Dombivali Municipal Corporation (KDMC) to protect the alliance, facilitating a “Mumbai for BJP, Kalyan for Shinde” power-sharing formula. The compromise marks a complete role reversal between the BJP and the Shiv Sena. Both the political parties were in alliance with each other for over 25 years before 2017 civic polls. Back then the BJP used to get the post of Deputy Mayor while the Shiv Sena always enjoyed the mayor’s position. In 2017 a surging BJP (82 seats) had paused its aggression to support the undivided Shiv Sena (84 seats), preferring to be out of power in the Corporation to keep the saffron alliance intact. Today, the numbers dictate a different reality. In the recently concluded elections BJP emerged as the single largest party in Mumbai with 89 seats, while the Shinde faction secured 29. Although the Shinde faction acted as the “kingmaker”—pushing the alliance past the majority mark of 114—the sheer numerical gap made their claim to the mayor’s post untenable in the long run. KDMC Factor The catalyst for this truce lies 40 kilometers north of Mumbai in Kalyan-Dombivali, a region considered the impregnable fortress of Eknath Shinde and his son, MP Shrikant Shinde. While the BJP performed exceptionally well in KDMC, winning 50 seats compared to the Shinde faction’s 53, the lotter for the reservation of mayor’s post in KDMC turned the tables decisively in favor of Shiv Sena there. In the lottery, the KDMC mayor’ post went to be reserved for the Scheduled Tribe candidate. The BJP doesn’t have any such candidate among elected corporatros in KDMC. This cleared the way for Shiv Sena. Also, the Shiv Sena tied hands with the MNS in the corporation effectively weakening the Shiv Sena (UBT)’s alliance with them. Party insiders suggest that once it became clear the BJP would not pursue the KDMC Mayor’s chair—effectively acknowledging it as Shinde’s fiefdom—he agreed to scale down his demands in the capital. “We have practically no hope of installing a BJP Mayor in Kalyan-Dombivali without shattering the alliance locally,” a Mumbai BJP secretary admitted and added, “Letting the KDMC become Shinde’s home turf is the price for securing the Mumbai Mayor’s bungalow for a BJP corporator for the first time in history.” The formal elections for the Mayoral posts are scheduled for later this month. While the opposition Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi (MVA)—led by the Shiv Sena (UBT)—has vowed to field candidates, the arithmetic heavily favors the ruling alliance. For Eknath Shinde, accepting the Deputy Mayor’s post in Mumbai is a tactical retreat. It allows him to consolidate his power in the MMR belt (Thane and Kalyan) while remaining a partner in Mumbai’s governance. For the BJP, this is a crowning moment; after playing second fiddle in the BMC for decades, they are poised to finally install their own “First Citizen” of Mumbai.

Tariff Trouble

US President Donald Trump has slapped steep ‘reciprocal tariffs’ on major trading partners, with India among the hardest hit. From April 9, Indian exports to America will face levies of 27 percent - a staggering jump from the current average of 2.7 percent. The move is part of a broader strategy to narrow America’s $1.2 trillion trade deficit by mirroring other countries’ tariff regimes, albeit at half their rate.


India has long attracted criticism in Washington for its tariff regime. Agricultural tariffs, among the highest globally, average over 100 percent and reach 300 percent in some cases. But the friction runs deeper than numbers. India frequently revises its tariffs through annual budgets and ad hoc notifications, with little consultation or transparency. Foreign investors face regulatory uncertainty, telecom equipment and solar technology face targeted duties, and key sectors such as retail, banking and insurance are marked by heavy state intervention and uneven rules.


The new tariffs mark a clear escalation in trade tensions. Indian steel, aluminium and auto components will be subject to 25 percent duties. Though pharmaceuticals and semiconductors are currently exempt due to their importance in American supply chains, the tariff wall has risen sharply across most categories. Washington has warned that further hikes could follow if countries retaliate, suggesting that escalation remains a live threat.


India’s response so far has been measured. New Delhi appears unlikely to impose retaliatory tariffs of its own. Instead, it is likely to pursue quiet negotiations, hoping to secure exemptions or delays. That may be wise. India’s export profile is less vulnerable to such shocks than those of more trade-dependent Asian peers. Moreover, its recent push for self-reliance through schemes such as ‘Make in India’ has somewhat reduced its dependence on overseas demand.


Yet the pain will be real. The United States remains India’s largest export destination, and any erosion of market share there will hurt. Sectors such as energy and automobiles are particularly exposed. Some gains may accrue in textiles, where traditional rivals like Vietnam and Bangladesh are also facing US tariffs. But any gains are likely to be modest and patchy. Much depends on how other countries respond and how global supply chains adapt. There is also a broader strategic cost. America’s tariff decision has turned a spotlight on India’s economic policymaking. Washington’s lengthy catalogue of grievances - from opaque digital policies and erratic FDI rules to agricultural subsidies and internet shutdowns - reads like a reform checklist. India must decide whether it wants to protect the inefficiencies of the status quo or seize the moment to modernise its regulatory apparatus and embrace more transparent governance.


Ultimately, India’s challenge is not just about tariffs but about leverage. Without structural reform, its hand in future negotiations will remain weak. As the global trading system fragments into transactional deals and strategic alliances, the cost of standing still will grow. If protectionism was once a shield, it is fast becoming a shackle.

Comments

bottom of page