Pune: NCP chief Sharad Pawar Monday said he will not contest next month’s Lok Sabha election.
The 78-year-old veteran politician said as two members of his family are going to contest the polls, “somebody had to step back.”
“Since I have already won elections 14 times, I decided not to contest the poll (this time),” the Rajya Sabha member told reporters after holding a meeting with party leaders.
“Somebody from our family had to step back and I decided to give an opportunity to the young leadership. I thought this was the right time to take this decision,” he said.
Also read: Amit Shah targets 45 Lok Sabha seats in Maharashtra including Sharad Pawar’s bastion
Pawar announced that his nephew and former deputy chief minister Ajit Pawar’s son Parth Pawar will be NCP’s candidate from Maval Lok Sabha constituency.
“Jayant Patil (of Peasant and Workers Party of India), whose party has good presence in three of the six Assembly segments in Maval Lok Sabha constituency, urged me to give ticket to Parth as his party is ready to work for him.
“We also have strong presence in the other three constituencies and we thought of giving an opportunity to the young leadership by giving ticket to Parth from Maval,” he said.
Ajit Pawar is an NCP MLA from Pune district.
Pawar had earlier said he was reconsidering his decision of not contesting the Lok Sabha election.
He had said his party workers wanted him to contest from Madha constituency in Solapur district, currently represented by NCP leader Vijaysinh Mohite Patil.
“There was a lot of insistence (from within NCP) that I contest from Madha. However, my candidature hasn’t been declared yet,” he said.
Pawar, who always won from his home turf Baramati in Pune, announced in 2012 that he would not be contesting Lok Sabha elections.
The NCP chief’s daughter Supriya Sule currently represents the family bastion of Baramati in the Lok Sabha.
This is interesting. The change of status on Sabarimala was clearly an act of the state. The courts ordered it, the state government is enforcing it, but it is out of bounds for political discussion? That is as ridiculous an interpretation of the separation of religion and state as I have seen in a long while. Of course, the problem has arisen because both the Supreme Court and the government erred in getting into a religious matter in the first place. But once it has arisen, how can a political solution for it be outlawed?
Comments are closed.