It is generally agreed that the BJP will win the election and the INDIA bloc will be rendered irrelevant. The debate is limited to the margin of the BJP’s victory, with supporters claiming a two-thirds majority and detractors conceding a simple majority. Reasonably, the BJP may be expected to lower its tally. But the rise of the party has not been based on reason, so this is just another wild surmise among many enlivening a boring election with a foregone conclusion. Among these is the idea of the opposition fading away. The future of India’s unique democracy remains undecided, despite the prowess of the "juggernaut," the term beloved by Modi’s hagiographers.
INDIA gets bad press because its seams remain visible. It cannot completely close ranks, as the opposition did during Jayaprakash Narayan’s movement and in the V. P. Singh era. But is grand unification a reasonable expectation today? The opposition parties are regional and strongly focused on local issues, like the DMK in Tamil Nadu and the TMC in West Bengal. Can parties representing populations that see themselves as culturally or historically unique and that pointedly stand apart from the north Indian mainstream be expected to integrate seamlessly? Their strength is that they are agents of diversity united by opposition to BJP, perfect foils to Modi’s suffocating promotion of one India, one people, one culture, and one election.
The notion of opposition unity is dated. It’s from the eighties and nineties, when newspapers used to feature an index of opposition unity. Today, one looks forward to an index of political unity in diversity, as the Modi era taught us yet again that the overwhelming superiority of one party or politician is problematic. Monopolies of power inspire suspicion more than ever before.
Besides, criticism of INDIA is not really about the idea of the bloc, but mostly about tactical shortcomings like confusion about seat sharing and lack of an obvious general, a natural and articulate leader focused on winning. Neither Rahul Gandhi nor Mallikarjun Kharge fit the bill. They speak of saving democracy, an abstract goal, without quite being able to explain the implications for the ordinary voter.
Back in 2008, the CPI (M) had withdrawn support for the Manmohan Singh government and then spent the 2009 campaign explaining to bemused rural voters the intricacies of the India-US nuclear deal, over which the party had parted with the UPA. The present predicament of the Congress is similar. It is preaching to voters who seem to be indifferent to the looming threat of authoritarianism. Perhaps this is because the lower socio-economic strata have always lived under arbitrary authorities with absolute power. It’s a novelty only to prosperous people and the upper castes.
But the INDIA bloc also keeps alive issues of mass unease, like the advantages the BJP is giving to large corporations, which are in turn its electoral funders. It is channelling old suspicions about big money. The accumulation of capital is perceived to be sinful in most Indian communities. Businessmen like Ghanshyam Das Birla and Jamnalal Bajaj extended crucial support to the freedom movement helmed by Gandhi, but the Nehruvian socialism that followed, the rise of left labour movements, and the punitive taxation of the rich by Indira Gandhi made owners of big businesses inimical to politics. The sentiment has survived liberalisation, the tide that was supposed to lift all boats, and can only become stronger as the gap between the very rich and the rest widens.
INDIA also keeps economic issues like unemployment, underemployment and the exit of exhausted job-seekers from the market a live issue, while the government promotes welfare schemes in the PM’s name to keep the electorate reassured. It remains to be seen if in the long term, people remain comfortable receiving handouts that reduces their financial independence. Meanwhile, farmers remain restive about financial prospects, and the heat wave that coincides with this election will make it difficult for the BJP to increase job creation and hold down food inflation.
Hunted by the taxman and central agencies, the opposition also keeps the spotlight trained on their political role. Coupled with the revelations about electoral bonds, a picture of organised extortion has emerged. The public is generally indifferent to corruption, but only until they are personally affected, like when the legislators they elect are threatened and lured into changing sides. The constituent parties of INDIA keep public attention on this, while the BJP’s machinery keeps voters fascinated by the food habits of the opposition.
The talk of 370 seats for the BJP is no more real than the 56-inch metric of the PM. And talk of INDIA turning into vapour is no more credible either. Its constituent parties will continue to exist because they represent local concerns and the grouping will exist because they have no option but to hang together. The BJP will remain in power, but over time, it will become clear that the Ram temple is its only unique offering. The opposition does welfare just as well, or even better. And it has redeeming qualities of respecting the Constitution and the diversity it mandates. For people who think enlightened self-interest means a temple, good luck to them.
(Views are personal)
(Tweets @pratik_k)
Pratik Kanjilal | For years, the author has been speaking easy to a surprisingly tolerant public