mgid.com, 628612, DIRECT, d4c29acad76ce94f

On Ajit Pawar’s controversial statement, Sharad Pawar said, it is wrong to ask for votes by promising money.

On the statement of Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar, ‘If the vote is in your hands, then the fund is in our hands’, Nationalist Congress Party (Sharad Pawar) chief Sharad Pawar on Thursday took him to task and said that it is wrong to ask for votes on the basis of financial assurance.

Speaking to reporters in Baramati in Pune district, Sharad Pawar also said that the assistance given by the state government to farmers to compensate for the losses caused by rains and floods is not enough.

Ajit Pawar, who leads the NCP (Nationalist Congress Party), last week told voters in Malegaon in Baramati tehsil of Pune district that if they elected his party’s candidates, he would not let the city face any shortage of funds but if the voters “rejected” him, he would also “reject” them.

Elections for various local bodies of the state are scheduled to be held on December 2. Following the Deputy Chief Minister’s comments, there is an ongoing debate over who controls the state’s funds. Responding to this, Sharad Pawar said that there is a competition going on regarding how much amount should be given.

Sharad Pawar said, “Instead of seeking votes on the basis of work done, votes are now being sought on the basis of financial assurances. This is not right. If the only aim is to win elections by keeping financial aspects in front, then what is the need to comment on such things?”

On the financial assistance given to farmers who suffered losses due to heavy rains in some parts of the state recently, the NCP (Sharad Pawar) chief said that it is very important to provide adequate help to the farmers who have suffered losses.

He said, “The state government has decided to stop the recovery of loans from farmers for one year. This step will give temporary relief to the farmers but it will not help in the long run. Considering the losses suffered by the farmers, the government should have provided partial financial assistance. This could have provided adequate help to the farmers.

Source link