Opinion The limits of Pawar

For a variety of reasons,the impact at the national level will be somewhat limited. Congress president Sonia Gandhi and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh have already sought to placate Pawar by saying that he is an important partner of the Congress. Pawar himself knows well that his options are limited — not just because of his party’s small numbers in Parliament,but also because there is not much he can do by quitting the UPA,given the condition of the BJP. For all practical purposes,therefore,a rapprochement may be effected soon. And yet,it may also put the Congress on notice as we move close to 2014. As in 1999,Pawar has attempted to combine political aspiration with a certain policy stand on some key issues.

He has raised two key issues among others: first,the viability of the food security bill and second,the neglect of coalition partners by the Congress. While the latter may strengthen him among the non-Congress UPA partners,the former is likely to endear him to a section of the business and industry elites. Both will augment his position in future arrangements in New Delhi.

But 2014 is some distance away yet. In the meanwhile,the NCP-Congress stand-off may have implications for political equations in Maharashtra that neither Pawar nor the Congress may cherish much.

Political competition in Maharashtra is characterised by a bipolar system for the last 12 years. But this bipolarity has always been somewhat complicated. The Congress and NCP have been unwilling partners right from the beginning. On the face of it,both parties are part of the “Congress culture” and share the history of middle-peasant caste domination that has shaped politics in the state since the late 1950s. And yet,or because of their common history,they are unable to settle their differences.

Both the NCP and the Congress target the same constituency. This puts them in a competitive relationship with each other. Compulsions at both the state and the national levels have ensured the continuity of their coalition. In 1999,Pawar was forced out of the Congress to make sure that there was no challenge to Sonia Gandhi’s leadership from within the party. Pawar’s exit also meant more space for other factional leaders at the state level. Before this,in 1995,the Congress had lost power in the state mainly because of an unprecedented rebellion due to factional fights. So,Pawar’s exit in 1999 could give an opportunity to his factional opponents in the Congress. But both the Congress and the NCP were unable to register an impressive performance and both were forced to enter into a post-election coalition in 1999. In a sense,for the Congress as well as the NCP,there have been very limited options ever since.

That deadlock continues even today. Of the two Congress parties,the NCP,at least theoretically,has the option of going with the BJP. However,that would be a meaningless option if the BJP-NDA has only very thin chances of wresting power at the Centre and also at the state level. Knowing this,the NCP can only keep pushing the Congress for a better deal at the Centre and in the state. Pawar’s “protest” serves that limited purpose,without upsetting the delicate political balance in the state. As his experience of the 1980s must remind him,if he chooses to remain out of power in the state,that would have adverse consequences for the state-level party. The NCP can break the arrangement at the state level only if it has the option of sharing power with some other party. For that to happen,the other coalition,of the Shiv Sena and the BJP,must fall apart.

The Shiv Sena-BJP alliance is older — dating back to 1989. But the last round of elections in 2009 indicated considerable distancing between the two partners,mainly in the absence of a deft mediator. Another factor weighing on the alliance has been internal factionalism in both the Sena and the BJP. While the Sena experienced internal rift leading to the exit of Raj Thackeray and the formation of the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS),factionalism in the BJP is being played out for quite some time. In addition to this,in the BJP’s assessment,the Sena is weaker after the rise of the MNS,and hence the BJP has been arguing in favour of taking the MNS on board. Given the personal and family factors involved in the Sena-MNS face-off,this larger alliance has not been possible so far.

Even as the NCP mounted its protest within the UPA at Delhi,Mumbai was witnessing another dramatic development in the form of a possible family reunion between the Thackeray cousins. There are no indications yet about a political reunion,but that development has now provided a platform for the BJP to broker a possible collaboration between the Shiv Sena and the MNS. With one Republican Party of India faction (RPI-Athavale) having joined the Sena-BJP,the possibility of the MNS too joining that coalition only means the choices before the two Congress parties will be very limited. Now they would not have the hope of isolating the Shiv Sena from the BJP — thus their chances of severing their mutual links also become narrower.

Pawar’s protest in Delhi thus needs to be assessed in the light of the repercussions it may have in Maharashtra as much as by what it may achieve in Delhi. As he said last week,the NCP may choose to support the UPA from outside,but whether his followers will survive out of power at the state level is a question that will weigh heavily on Pawar and determine his course of action.

The writer teaches political science at the University of Pune
express@expressindia.com