NCP Chief Sharad Pawar likes to play his cards close to his chest. Being the supreme leader of the party he carries on his aging shoulders, Pawar can afford to be as inscrutable as he chooses to. But his refusal to be candid about government-formation in Maharashtra has kept the entire State on tenterhooks. A fortnight after the Shiv Sena in its greed for a bigger slice of power from its senior ally, the BJP, overplayed its hand and found itself stranded, the NCP boss has kept it on edge, neither accepting the proffered hand of friendship nor spurning it. An erstwhile detractor desperate for survival seeks to be rescued by someone whom it has excoriated in the foulest of terms. Pawar has reason not to rush into this rescue act which could well leave his fingers burnt. Being a regional or rather a Maharashtra-centric party, the reservations of the NCP vis-à-vis the Sena might stem from its anxiety to retain its influence in the State, given the fear the Sena evokes among the minorities and middle classes. Besides, not unlike the NCP, the Sena too is a Maharashtra party and seeks dominance in the State. How the two can share power without treading on each other’s toes will generate constant friction. The Sena alliance with the BJP, a national party, had the benefit of a shared glue in the form of the Hindutva. The ideological Fevicol in the case of the NCP and Sena is missing. However, more than the NCP it is the Congress which has reason to mull utmost carefully over the consequences of a tie-up with the Sena. As the self-avowed legatee of the secular traditions of the once-great Indian National Congress, the Gandhi-family led Congress will bury that heritage a million fathoms deep should it choose to rescue the father-and-son Thackeray duo along with their chief courtier Sanjay Raut from complete humiliation. The formation of a Sena-NCP-Congress coalition even for a few short days will help the Thackerays save face. Otherwise, the voters in Maharashtra, who elected the BJP-Sena alliance to power for another five-year term, will hold the Sena leadership in contempt for the ugly contretemps for a disproportionately high share in power-partnership. Indeed, seen from the above perspective, the reluctance of Pawar to commit the proposed threesome in Maharashtra makes good political sense. For, after tantalizing the Sena leadership with the prospect of an alliance, the wily Pawar could well turn around and reject supping with its ideological foe for fear of jeopardizing its secular credentials. Admittedly, more than the NCP, the Congress stands to lose far more nationally should it throw a life-line to Thackeray.
It is significant that the Prime Minister while speaking in the Rajya Sabha on Monday chose to commend the NCP for not breaching the parliamentary etiquette by rushing to the well of the House. Notwithstanding the sharp words exchanged at the poll time, both Pawar and Modi have always enjoyed an excellent rapport. Serious charges of corruption against Praful Patel and Ajit Pawar, now under the scanner of various investigating agencies, may not influence the NCP leader. For that matter, the BJP may not determine its next move based on the on-going probe against the NCP leaders. But there is no gainsaying that when all things are considered the NCP-Congress alliance is better served by spurning the embrace of the Sena. At the time of writing, there was no clarity as to what actually transpired at the much anticipated meeting of Pawar with Sonia Gandhi on Monday. With Pawar choosing to remain non-committal, speculation in sections of the media suggested an agreement in principle to form the three-way alliance. As per this line of speculation, Uddhav, and not son Aaditya, will be CM while there could be a deputy CM each from the NCP and the Congress. However, in the complete absence of any word from any of the actors involved, uncertainty and confusion prevails. Meanwhile, how the Congress supping with the Sena will be received by is clear from some of its more articulate supporters, with a writer in a contemporary dubbing it ‘a betrayal of the Gandhi-Nehru legacy’. Jaundiced critics fail to see that Nehru’s legatees, beginning with Indira and Sanjay Gandhi, had rejected that heritage decades ago. Conflating ideology with power in this permissive age has become a mug’s game, as testified by the on-going deals in Maharashtra.