BJP Understands Nationalism in Elections; Opposition Still Doesn’t Get It

In 1989, when people ‘defected’ to vote the Indian National Congress government out, leading to a minority National Front government, there were loud cheers of hope against electoral totalitarianism in Indian democracy. It was speculated that the longevity of this coalition would alter India’s politics. The ninth Lok Sabha was seen as the culmination of what political scientist Francine R. Frankel called the ‘gradual revolution’.

The timing could not have been better. Secessionist voices began to gain momentum in the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir. Crafting a new national identity for India became the BJP’s raison d’etre.

The power of nationalism at making or breaking government systems holds true across the world but is particularly keenly felt in the Indian subcontinent. Blame it on the uneasy legacy of colonialism. Nehruvian ideals were a manifestation of nationalism, as was Indira Gandhi’s endeavor to liberate Bangladesh in the face of moral and material opposition from the Global West.

The BJP was quick to make this playground its own, and slowly became the only player. In the present context, the opposition parties – primarily the Congress – cannot be forgiven for ceding this space. When the BJP ratcheted its nationalism game up, the opposition left the field on its ideological high horse.

That’s exactly what the BJP wanted: to be the only option. The TINA factor exists not because there is a dearth of capable politicians in the opposition but due to their lack of preparation in challenging the BJP juggernaut. Politics is a game where the opponent is met with and defeated on a common ground.

The moment the opposition decided to exit the field of nationalism, they lost the game. Political parties may go on pretending that elections are won or lost over these ‘issues’, but they know that it’s not the case. All politicians would be getting their hands dirty in development work in their constituencies if that were indeed the reality.

When political parties begin to take the voter for granted, they are shown the door, and that’s what keeps India’s democracy-however fallible-dynamic and vibrant. For most Indians, the vote is still an emotive issue. It is pointless, often counterproductive, to chide them for not making the ‘correct’ choice.

The opposition has been making this mistake at least since 2014. When will it learn that guilt-tripping the voter does not change electoral fortunes? Assembly elections offer clear lessons.

The BJP has lost states where murmurs of dissatisfaction over in-fighting, poor governance and overt corruption have not been drowned by loud rhetoric. Hard work done by the opposition has paid off there. Regional parties, like the Trinamool Congress in West Bengal, have been far more prescient in tackling the BJP on its own terms.

They have learnt the rules of the game and are not ceding any space. What Alexis Tocqueville said of American democracy can be easily applied to the Indian context: democracy is a socio-cultural tendency. It is, therefore, a little unfortunate that this socio-cultural tendency is left only at the mercy of the ruling party.

That the BJP can casually fling accusations like ‘anti-national’ or ‘*desh ke gaddaar*’ at its critics is also a failure of the opposition in some measure. Was bunching in the furthest Left corner while the right-wing politics occupied the centre stage expedient? Why could they not stand firm on this ground in the middle?

Undermining the BJP in its use of a cocktail of nationalism’s emotional appeal and ruthless electoral pragmatism has cost the opposition two elections. Whether 2024 will be any different remains to be seen. A functional democratic nation needs a strong government and an equally strong opposition.