By showering funds for development on NCP MLAs, Ajit Pawar rewards their loyalty and defeats the Eknath Shinde camp
Ajit Pawar, the deputy chief minister of Maharashtra, has given money to the renegade NCP MLAs within a week of taking over the finance ministry.
For development projects in the areas represented by these MLAs, for which a specific provision was made in the supplemental demands, Pawar has approved money of at least Rs 25 crore. Sources claim that Pawar has also made an effort to appease the MLAs from the Eknath Shinde camp by giving them financial support.
Following the distribution of portfolios last week, Pawar immediately authorized funding for construction projects in the districts of the MLAs who backed the NCP uprising. A list of development projects was already requested from the MLAs who support Pawar. The Maharashtra Assembly’s two chambers received the supplemental requests from the finance department last week, which included a special Rs 1,500 crore allocation for construction projects. These extra requirements had been approved by the state assembly’s two chambers.
The source claims that in exchange for supporting Jr. Pawar, who organized an uprising against his uncle Sharad Pawar and joined the Eknath Shinde-Devendra Fadnavis sarkar with his team, the NCP MLAs were promised enough funding for development projects in their areas.
Ajit Pawar has authorized cash for NCP MLAs in the amount of Rs 25–50 crore. One of the NCP MLAs, Saroj Ahire, who is from the Nashik district’s Devlali seat, is said to have received Rs 40 crore for delayed development projects in her area. It’s interesting to note that Ahire had previously supported Sharad Pawar, but after changing her vote to Ajit Pawar, she got money from the finance division.
Following Ajit Pawar’s uprising, his group had targeted Jayant Patil and Jitendra Awhad, two Sharad Pawar team leaders. To everyone’s amazement, Awhad seems to still be on the waiting list even though Ajit Pawar approved monies for Patil to use for development projects.
Given Pawar’s track record as the deputy CM, the Shinde group had argued against giving him control of the finance department. Uneven money allocation by Pawar during his time in the MVA administration was one among the reasons the dissident Shiv Sena MLAs gave for leaving Uddhav Thackeray. Pawar, though, seems to have won the Shinde faction over by giving them money.
During the Congress-NCP coalition administration in the state, the custom of paying money to placate MLAs from the governing party was first introduced. The government of the time’s chief minister, Vilasrao Deshmukh, had approved money for MLAs’ districts totaling between Rs 5 and 10 crore. The practice has been criticized by the BJP and Shiv Sena, two opposition parties, and it was also contested in court.
Following the 2014 coup d’état, the Devendra Fadnavis administration approved more funding for BJP and Shiv Sena MLAs’ home districts. 2019 saw the election of the Maha Vikas Aghadi administration, and Uddhav Thackeray and Ajit Pawar authorized funding for construction projects in the Shiv Sena, NCP, and Congress MLAs’ districts. Devendra Fadnavis, who was then the leader of the opposition, opposed to this. Funds were immediately released for development projects in the districts of BJP and Shinde group MLAs after the transition of power in June of last year.
Sanjay Shirsat, the head of the Shiv Sena, told the reporters at a press conference at the state parliament that “it is a common practice that people who are in power always receive excellent money for development activities. Additionally, we used to get less funding from our constituents when we were in opposition.
Balasaheb Thorat, the head of the CLP and a former cabinet minister, however, questioned the government’s allotment. “Both deputy chief ministers and Chief Minister Eknath Shinde ensured the state’s growth was balanced. How will it be accomplished if the opposition MLAs are not given special funding? Sunil Prabhu, the head of the Shiv Sena UBT group, had also complained to the uneven allocation of funding, claiming that none of the 16 MLAs had received money.
