top of page

By:

Anusreeta Dutta

26 April 2026 at 1:22:24 pm

One Maharashtra, Unequal Priorities

Six decades after statehood, constitutional safeguards remain necessary to bridge the gap between western Maharashtra and the regions left behind. Maharashtra is often referred to as India’s economic engine. The state, which is home to Mumbai’s financial ecosystem and Pune’s industrial corridor, contributes about 14 percent to the GDP of India. There is a long-standing dispute behind this achievement that has affected state politics for decades. Is every district in Maharashtra thriving at...

One Maharashtra, Unequal Priorities

Six decades after statehood, constitutional safeguards remain necessary to bridge the gap between western Maharashtra and the regions left behind. Maharashtra is often referred to as India’s economic engine. The state, which is home to Mumbai’s financial ecosystem and Pune’s industrial corridor, contributes about 14 percent to the GDP of India. There is a long-standing dispute behind this achievement that has affected state politics for decades. Is every district in Maharashtra thriving at the same pace? It is not just a political question. It is written into the Constitution proper. Unlike most states in India, Maharashtra has a unique constitutional provision under Article 371(2) which empowers the Governor to ensure that development funding and opportunities are equally shared between Vidarbha, Marathwada and the rest of Maharashtra. The clause was born out of fears that some areas would be forgotten once the state was established in 1960. Six decades later, the existence of this constitutional safeguard raises an uncomfortable question: why does Maharashtra need tools to balance regional development still? Regional Disparity The seeds of regional disparity were sown long before the birth of Maharashtra. Western Maharashtra had early investments in irrigation, cooperative sugar mills, educational institutions and transportation. The centres of industrial growth followed by agricultural commercialisation were Pune, Satara, Sangli, Kolhapur and part of Nashik. Vidarbha and Marathwada chose the other. Agriculture was still heavily dependent on monsoon rains, industrialization was slow and irrigation coverage was less than the state averages. Regional studies in Maharashtra have repeatedly shown that irrigation intensity and agricultural yield are higher in western districts than in much of eastern Maharashtra. These differences subsequently led to calls for institutional safeguards. In contrast, in western Maharashtra, government moves are increasingly geared towards growth, not deficit reduction. The region’s success is built on industrial corridors, logistics infrastructure, urban mobility projects and advanced manufacturing clusters. Pune has emerged as a hub for vehicles, computer technology, defence production and startups. Mumbai remains a major draw for investment in metro rail networks, coastal roadways, financial services infrastructure and international business zones. Agricultural practices in western Maharashtra are in a relatively advanced stage of development. Irrigation coverage is much better than many districts in the east, so the authorities can concentrate on raising productivity, export-oriented, value-added farming and agro-processing industries. Western Maharashtra’s policy, in a nutshell, is to make competitive regions more competitive. Eastern Maharashtra is very different. Here, the Governments have not only focused on accelerating growth but also on reducing the backlog of development. The main policy question is irrigation. For many decades official studies have consistently identified irrigation as the most important factor for regional disparities. Even with dedicated funds, the backlog of irrigation in Vidarbha and Marathwada kept growing, requiring repeated interventions by successive governments. To tackle this, region-specific irrigation corporations, such as Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (VIDC) and Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation (GMIDC) were established with a specific mandate to speed up water infrastructure projects. The Union Government has sanctioned a special irrigation package for Vidarbha, Marathwada and draught prone areas of Maharashtra, with an objective to increase irrigation potential and improve water security of the farmers. Even today, a lot of public money is spent on irrigation projects in eastern Maharashtra. Government affidavits and parliamentary replies say crores of rupees are spent every year to make up for irrigation shortfalls and to finish long-pending projects. This emphasis reflects an important reality: while the western part of Maharashtra talks about competitiveness, the eastern part of Maharashtra continues to debate water access. Another area where there are divergent approaches is industrial policy. Market forces have played a major role in the industrial expansion of western Maharashtra, a process assisted by the existing infrastructure and urbanization. In contrast, Eastern Maharashtra has frequently depended on state-led interventions to draw investment to lagging regions. Projects such as the Multi-modal International Cargo Hub and Airport at Nagpur (MIHAN), logistics corridors, special industrial incentives and infrastructure subsidies were to divert industrial expansion away from the Mumbai-Pune region. Likewise, recent government announcements have earmarked Vidarbha to become a future hub for solar energy, semiconductors, aerospace manufacturing and logistics, with Marathwada being pitched for electric vehicle and electronics investments. Whereas in western Maharashtra, the policy tends to buttress pre-existing advantages, in eastern Maharashtra the industrial policy aims to generate such advantages from the beginning. Regional Equilibrium These divisions have persisted, leading to separate institutions of governance. Vidarbha and Marathwada have statutory development boards to monitor regional imbalances and recommend corrective actions. Their emergence is an indication of a broader acceptance that market forces alone have not been adequate to promote balanced growth in Maharashtra. The second capital of Maharashtra is also Nagpur. The same ideology. The state legislature meets every winter in eastern Maharashtra to ensure that the issues concerning the region remain in the political focus. The issues discussed generally are irrigation, agriculture, tribal welfare and regional development in these sessions. The controversy over regional equity, however, is still unresolved. According to critics, despite decades of special packages and focused strategies, many irrigation projects continue to face delays, cost overruns and implementation problems. Several big projects in Vidarbha remain incomplete despite years of cash pledges. There is now a growing body of policy thinking that suggests that Maharashtra may have to give up the very terminology of backlog elimination. In its own discussion on balanced regional development, the state attaches more importance to reforms in governance, diversification of the economy and speeding up growth, than to compensatory spending. The challenge is not just building canals and roadways anymore but building lasting economic ecosystems that can hold on to talent, draw investment and create jobs beyond the traditional Mumbai-Pune boom corridor. The real test for Maharashtra will be whether future policies can turn Vidarbha and Marathwada from regions requiring special support to regions capable of driving growth on their own. Till then Maharashtra’s development story will be two stories. (The author is a columnist and climate researcher with experience in political research analysis and energy policy. Views personal.)

When Asia Pushes Back

India and Japan’s deepening partnership signals a broader Asian challenge to America’s fading economic dominance.

The notion that the 21st century belongs to Asia is not new. What is new, however, is the way Asian powers are knitting together alliances to counterbalance America’s waning authority. Washington’s tariff wars, erratic diplomacy and selective tolerance of partners’ choices have accelerated this shift. Rather than isolating China or browbeating India, America’s actions have nudged Asian countries into greater cooperation with each other and with long-standing players like Russia.


Nowhere is this more evident than in India’s growing intimacy with Japan. Their relationship, once defined by modest trade and cultural exchange, has matured into a strategic partnership with ambitions transcending bilateral ties. The two countries, democratic in outlook and complementary in capabilities, are using trade, technology and security pacts to shape the contours of an ‘Asian century.’


Donald Trump’s tariff policies and the protectionist mood that persists in Washington were meant to punish China but have also ensnared other Asian economies. India’s purchase of Russian crude oil drew American ire even though China has long done the same with little consequence. Foreign minister S. Jaishankar has repeatedly defended India’s right to secure its own interests, dismissing Western criticism as hypocritical.


New Delhi has doubled down on cultivating allies across Asia and beyond. Trade agreements with Britain, ongoing talks with Australia and South Korea, and even deals with smaller Pacific states like Fiji are part of a deliberate strategy: to dilute America’s leverage and demonstrate that India’s options extend well past Washington.


The most visible outcome of this diplomatic push has been the tightening embrace between India and Japan. Narendra Modi’s recent visit to Tokyo underscored this trajectory. Japan has pledged billions in infrastructure investment, from financing the Mumbai–Ahmedabad bullet train to backing renewable-energy projects. Its firms are entering Indian markets in semiconductors, space research and start-ups, while India’s rice exports to Japan have doubled in the past two years.


Technology and innovation form the backbone of this partnership. Japan has committed to training 500,000 Indian workers in advanced skills, sending thousands of experts to India to bolster capacity. Joint ventures in artificial intelligence, agriculture and space exploration including Japan’s assistance in India’s Gaganyaan space mission highlight a shared belief that their combined scientific prowess can propel Asia into global leadership.


Thirteen agreements signed at the latest Indo-Japanese summit lay out a roadmap stretching decades ahead. The targets are ambitious: advancing all 17 of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, strengthening cyber-security, and coordinating on counter-terrorism. Both countries, as members of the Quad alongside America and Australia, present themselves as guardians of democratic values. Yet their flourishing bilateralism also signals a desire to act independently of Washington when necessary.


This momentum is not confined to Tokyo and Delhi. The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), whose recent summit in China drew leaders from across Eurasia, is increasingly a forum for Asian countries to coordinate politically, economically and culturally. India’s presence alongside Russia and China illustrates how even states with differences find common cause when confronted with American tariffs and selective sanctions.


America’s retreat from multilateralism - its withdrawal of funds from UN agencies, the World Health Organisation and other international bodies - has weakened the very architecture of global governance it once championed. Institutions like the IMF and World Bank now face resource constraints just as developing countries most need support. Many in Asia see America’s policies as not only anti-China but anti-poor, undermining the very principles of free trade and globalisation.


The message from the latest Indo-Japanese summit is that Asia will not passively accept American economic diktats. By pooling resources, aligning technologies and coordinating diplomatically, India and Japan are sketching out a development plan that could transform Asia’s economic geography. Their projects, worth an estimated Rs. 100 trillion are designed to reposition Asia as the world’s centre of innovation and trade.


If the last century was defined by America’s industrial and financial dominance, this one may be remembered for Asia’s determination to forge its own path. India and Japan, representing two ends of the continent but united in democratic values and pragmatic ambition, are at the forefront of that shift. Their partnership, once a footnote in world affairs, is fast becoming a bellwether of Asia’s rise.


For America, the warning is stark. Heavy-handed tariffs and selective criticism have alienated potential partners, pushing them towards one another. If Washington persists, it may find itself sidelined in the very region it once sought to dominate. For Asia, this is a stark opportunity to prove that cooperation, rather than coercion, can set the tone for a century that is indeed theirs to claim.


(The writer is a foreign affairs expert. Views personal)

Comments


bottom of page