The letter written by nine Opposition leaders after Delhi’s Deputy Chief Minister and one of the founders of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Manish Sisodia’s arrest has emerged as a point of reference for a public debate on “Opposition unity”. The signatories of the letters are seen as “pro-unity”; while the absence of others — especially the Congress party — is regarded as a possible disruption. There is an expanded claim that these fault lines are going to play a decisive role in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.
No one can ignore the significance of this line of political reasoning. The emergence of AAP at the national level has certainly encouraged the Opposition parties to explore the possibilities of some kind of a grand alliance. At the same time, the success of the Rahul Gandhi-led Bharat Jodo Yatra in carving out a space for the Congress party in the BJP-dominated public discourse cannot be underestimated. The hostile attitude of the BJP towards the Opposition, in this sense, provides an opportunity for the non-BJP parties to come together and create a joint front.
However, there is a need to unpack this imaginary political configuration for the sake of a realistic assessment. Broadly speaking, three related arguments are made to make the notion of Opposition unity believable. First of all, BJP’s aggressive anti-Opposition strategy is defined as a necessary precondition for Opposition unity. To substantiate this assertion, a related yet slightly historical argument is proposed. Many opponents of the BJP claim that the Narendra Modi government behaves like the Emergency regime of Indira Gandhi: Government agencies such as the CBI and ED are misused; Opposition leaders are targeted and political dissenters are jailed. It is, therefore, argued that the Janata Party-type experiment is inevitable. This historical necessity is finally justified by evoking a highly typical understanding of liberal democracy. It is argued that the prime objective of the Opposition is always to challenge the ruling party so that it might win over popular support through elections. Hence, it is obvious that the Opposition parties have to forge a winnable coalition to defeat BJP in 2024.
This simplistic explanation does not work in the realm of actual politics. The BJP’s success should not merely be seen as an electoral triumph of majoritarianism. The party has also been successful in transforming the political culture of the country in a significant way. Hindutva-driven nationalism has emerged as the dominant narrative of politics. At the same time, the idea of inclusive welfarism is systemically replaced by a new conception of a charitable state — a pro-market state that provides some facilities to citizens on a case-to-case basis, while bargaining with them in the realm of competitive electoral politics.
These significant structural changes have been more or less accepted by the entire political class in the last nine years. No political party is in a position to ignore what is now described as “Hindu sentiments”. In fact, non-BJP parties often avoid using the term “secularism”. Similarly, the Opposition-ruled governments do not hesitate to provide welfarism as a kind of charity. This wider acceptability symbolises the hegemonic presence of the BJP in Indian politics.
The nature of Opposition parties is a crucial factor in this regard. There are strong regional parties — AAP in Delhi and Punjab, TMC in West Bengal, BJD in Odisha, JD (U) and RLD in Bihar and DMK in Tamil Nadu — which have established their effective electoral dominance in their respective states. These parties are guided by two conflicting political impulses. On the one hand, they want to preserve their regional dominance without disturbing the federal equilibrium; at the same time, there is an urge to capture the national space for a future possibility of a coalition at the Centre.
These regional players are fully aware of the fact that the Indian electorate votes strategically. It might be easy for them to get an impressive vote share in state assembly elections. However, this might not be the case in the Lok Sabha elections. These practical considerations are treated as guiding principles by the regional parties for political negotiations.
The non-BJP national parties face a dilemma of a different kind. The geographical expansion of the BJP has reduced their national presence in a significant way. Many influential national and regional level leaders have already joined the BJP. At the same time, the organisational strength of these parties at the grass roots level has been completely destabilised. Congress in UP and MP and the Left parties in Tripura and West Bengal are revealing examples of these trajectories. These national players have to adopt a carefully calculated strategy towards the powerful regional parties, including AAP, to retain their national status.
It does not mean that these conflicting political concerns are unmanageable. Interest orientation is an important factor in political negotiations and there is always a possibility for an effective electoral alliance. However, such alliances will remain irrelevant if they are not given any moral-intellectual justification. This is precisely what Jayaprakash Narayan did in the mid-1970s. He opposed Emergency not merely for the sake of Opposition unity. Instead, he offered a moral conception of “total revolution” to assert democracy as a political virtue. The formation of the Janata Party, in this sense, became possible because it was guided by two considerations — an already evolved project of anti-Congressism and a need for collective survival in the aftermath of the Emergency.
The acceptability of the BJP as the dominant hegemonic force does not allow the non-BJP parties to make any attempt to seriously engage with the idea of anti-BJPism. For this reason, the debate on Opposition unity has not yet become meaningful.
The writer is associate professor, CSDS
