In the high-stakes theatre of Indian politics, Maharashtra’s Deputy Chief Minister, Ajit Pawar, has sparked a political firestorm with a remark that critics are calling a brazen display of transactional politics. Now, he is attempting to douse the flames by calling it simple campaign rhetoric.
What Was the Controversial Remark?
The controversy ignited during a campaign rally in Indapur for his wife, Sunetra Pawar, who is contesting from the keenly watched Baramati Lok Sabha constituency. In a fierce electoral battle against his cousin and incumbent MP Supriya Sule, Ajit Pawar made a statement that was as blunt as it was revealing.
Addressing the voters directly, he reportedly said, “You have the button of the EVM in your hand, I have the button for funds.”
Opposition Slams ‘Transactional Politics’
The remark landed like a lit match in a tinderbox. The opposition, led by the Sharad Pawar-led NCP faction and the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) alliance, immediately cried foul. They painted the statement as a quid pro quo where development funds are dangled as a reward for votes.
Critics argued that this wasn’t just a promise of development but a veiled threat: support my candidate, or risk being cut off from the state’s financial pipeline. The statement has prompted calls for an inquiry from the Election Commission, with many asserting it confirms the worst fears about how power and money can influence the democratic process.
Pawar’s Defense: It’s Just ‘Election Talk’
Facing a barrage of criticism, Ajit Pawar has now mounted his defense, seeking to downplay the gravity of his words. His explanation? It was just “election talk.”
“Such statements are made only during elections,” Pawar clarified to reporters. “After the polls are over, we have to work for everyone, even for those who did not vote for us.” He suggested his remark was nothing more than rhetorical muscle-flexing, a standard part of the campaign playbook. “Does this mean we will not give funds to other constituencies? That’s not the case,” he added.
A Freudian Slip or Campaign Rhetoric?
While Pawar insists “these things are said only during elections,” his justification raises more questions than it answers. As the Finance Minister of Maharashtra, his control over the state’s purse strings is absolute, making his statement a potent reminder of the power he wields.
In the emotionally charged battle for Baramati—a bastion of the Pawar family—the message positions him as the sole bringer of development. Detractors argue that dismissing such a statement as mere “chunavi jumla” (election rhetoric) normalises a culture where votes are traded for development, undermining the principle of equitable governance.
As the dust settles, the voters of Baramati are left to interpret the Deputy CM’s words. Was it a harmless piece of campaign rhetoric, or was it a stark reminder that in the complex dance of democracy, the promise of funds can often be a more powerful motivator than ideology or legacy?
