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.

Unequal Bargain

Updated: Feb 12, 2025

Union Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal’s recent remarks dismissing the demand for proportional tax devolution reflects a deep misunderstanding of India’s federal structure. His argument, that it is ‘unfortunate’ for states like Maharashtra, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Telangana to expect a fair return on the taxes they contribute, betrays a centralist mindset that contradicts both economic logic and political prudence.


Goyal is right to highlight the Modi government’s focus on the Northeast and eastern states. Infrastructure investment in these regions is long overdue. But this does not justify an opaque and inequitable distribution of central funds. The argument that wealthier states must fund poorer ones is valid in principle, but it cannot be an excuse for fiscal discrimination. India’s taxation system is already heavily skewed against high-income states. The share of central taxes that a state receives is not based on its contribution but on parameters such as income distance, demographic weight and forest cover - criteria that disproportionately benefit less developed states. Maharashtra, which contributes roughly 15 percent of India’s GDP, received just Rs. 10,930 crores in tax devolution this January, whereas Uttar Pradesh, which contributes far less, received three times that amount.


A fairer tax arrangement does not mean abandoning the idea of national solidarity. Developed states acknowledge their responsibility in nation-building, but they also require adequate reinvestment to sustain their growth trajectories. Their economies are the engines of India’s broader prosperity. Mumbai, Bengaluru, Chennai and Hyderabad are not just regional hubs; they are financial and technological nerve centers whose competitiveness is crucial to India’s global standing. Underfunding these states in the name of ‘Act East’ policies risks hampering national economic momentum.


The minister’s argument is also politically dangerous. The principle of fiscal federalism is at the heart of India’s unity. When a state’s electorate perceives itself as being consistently shortchanged, it fuels resentment and strengthens regionalist movements. Southern states, in particular, have been vocal about what they see as an unfair distribution of resources. Governments in Telangana and Tamil Nadu have frequently questioned why their tax contributions do not translate into better fiscal support. The BJP’s reliance on Hindi heartland votes may make it indifferent to these grievances for now, but alienating southern and western India is a risky long-term strategy.


Moreover, the Finance Commission’s recommendations, which guide tax devolution, are not immutable laws of nature. They are political decisions, shaped by economic theories and policy priorities. If wealthier states demand a reassessment, they are not indulging in petty thinking but are questioning an outdated framework that does not reflect their aspirations or contributions.


Instead of dismissing their concerns, Goyal would do well to acknowledge that economic fairness is integral to national unity. India’s economic rise has been powered by its most productive states. If these states begin to feel that their growth is penalized rather than rewarded, the very foundation of cooperative federalism will be at risk.

Comments

bottom of page