With Verdict 2024 opening up space for dissent, the Opposition’s many tasks

For the NDA allies, in particular, the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) and the Janata Dal-United (JDU), on whom a third NDA administration stands or falls, this is a historic opportunity to move the needle away from fiat and towards the constitutional rule of law. Rumour has it that the TDP is seeking the Lok Sabha Speaker’s post; that would be good news for Parliament, where deliberation was largely disallowed during the past five years. This is a demand that INDIA should support.

Equally, if not more importantly, is the post of Home Minister. Most of the recent attacks on civil society groups, including the media, and Opposition members, including, at one time, the TDP and JDU, have originated with the home ministry. Returning it to a rule of law based on civil rights is vitally required. If the TDP and/or JDU could assume that role, they would do a service to Indian interests that would outlast the 18th Lok Sabha.

For INDIA, assuming the role of a powerful Opposition is far better than unseating the NDA or seeking to form the administration. With 167 seats in the 15th Lok Sabha, the BJP was the most destructive Opposition in the history of independent India, according to then-Speaker Somnath Chatterjee’s memoir. With 240 seats, the BJP might prevent any Opposition administration from functioning, leading to midterm elections that would return an even stronger Modi administration. A powerful Opposition, on the other hand, could act as a defender of democratic rights in Parliament, thereby anchoring itself in the public mind.

Opposition parties have an even more historic opportunity than the TDP and JDU. While it is true that their relative success has been due to the localisation of campaigns, it is also true that overarching and seemingly abstract issues such as “democracy in danger” or “save the Constitution” achieved traction not only with minorities who have been increasingly discriminated against, or disadvantaged castes such as Dalit communities but also with many among the middle class. Civil society groups — from human rights, anti-corruption and transparency advocates to the farmers’ and anti-CAA movements, student organisations and professionals, including lawyers, doctors and teachers — supported Opposition campaigns on the ground and often under the radar in ways last seen in 1977 and 1989.

Together, these elements suggest that the country is approaching a fourth wave of democracy renewal (taking 1977-80, 1989-98 and 2004-14 as the first three). If past patterns are an indication, this wave will come from the states; indeed, earlier waves were often triggered by encroachment on states’ rights. The 1977 wave was propelled by students and civil rights activists, spreading from Bihar to the west with Gujarat as a fulcrum. In 1989, Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra played key roles. In 2024, Bengal and Tamil Nadu joined Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra, while Karnataka offered a locus for civil society coordination.

With important state elections coming up in 2024 and 2025 and fresh delimitation of constituencies in 2026, the defence of states’ rights will again become core. The increasing appropriation of power by the union administration through central cesses and reduction in states’ share of tax revenue, delayed disbursal to Opposition-headed states and subversion of the governor’s office to create conflict, have been a source of friction for some years. The capture or breakup of regional parties was a key factor in the Maharashtra vote, just as the attempt to communally polarise Tamil Nadu met a resounding electoral no.

For Opposition parties, it is worth dusting off the 1971 Rajamannar Committee’s recommendation that states have residual taxation powers, as is Sardar Patel’s 1949 proposal that state governors should be elected to ensure against misuse by a union administration. The latter could be amended so that governors are elected by state legislatures to avoid any conflict of authority. Both would constitute critical safeguards.

Delimitation’s danger lies in the allocation of a state’s share in Parliament according to its population. While population-based representation is fundamental in any democracy, in a federation, it can disadvantage the more developed states whose population is declining but which contribute proportionately greater fiscal and human resources to the union. One way to minimise this impact is to explore whether the US model of each state, and in our case Union Territory, having an equal number of seats in the upper house might be better than the present allocation.

Paradoxically, though Indian campaigns for democracy renewal generally originated in states, not the centre, the aspirations they generated were not acted upon in states, even those of their origin. With the dawning recognition that a federal democratic culture is best anchored by the normative practices which states implement on the ground, this time could be different. On issues such as unemployment and civil rights, Opposition parties could lead by example. For a start, their chief ministers could respect dissent and involve domain-specific civil society experts or organisations to implement transparency, employment and inclusion programmes. Their MPs could encourage investment in upgrading agriculture, education and health, together with skilling and job creation. If they were to do so, voters in other constituencies might look to their parties too. For a while at least, INDIA has created the space for an Opposition; they will have many partners in broadening it.

Radha Kumar’s latest book is The Republic Relearnt: Renewing Indian Democracy, 1947-2024 (PenguinVintage India)