No confidence motion on Manipur: Opposition’s missed opportunity

Members of the Opposition have cited an array of reasons for uniting. From bemoaning “attacks on the federal structure” to “assaults on the idea of India” to “misuse of agencies,” there seem to be numerous grievances but no consensus on an aspirational “go-to-market” message. This haze is unlikely to persuade voters, especially when contrasted against the NDA’s singularity of messaging. This was evident in the difference between the confused rhetoric of the Opposition and the coordinated defense by the treasury benches during the no-confidence debate. There is an ever bigger threat, outside Parliament – the multiplicity of messaging could confound voters when the incumbent points to the reservations the “partners” harbored in the past. Getting the message right is even more vital considering that the Opposition parties intend to go to the Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) with a single symbol. Workers of sister concerns ought to understand, internalise and market the same message with ease. This is fraught with risks when these workers have spent their careers mobilising against parties, candidates, and symbols that they may now have to vouch for.

I-N-D-I-A seems preoccupied with performative matters. The biggest takeaway of the Patna meeting was the mere assemblage of parties that have historically been antagonistic towards each other. The “win” in Bengaluru was its invention of a new name. Between Bengaluru and Mumbai, coining a slogan and appointing office-bearers is taking precedence over substantive issues. Even the PM, during his closing remarks during the no-confidence motion, chided the Opposition for not preparing its verbal ammunition enough and not asking the government tough questions about the claims it has been making. There is an urgent need for the Opposition to deglamourise its approach and attend to the complex and delayed compromises, such as that of seat sharing. It is the dealing of the downstream consequences of seat contestation decisions that will define the degree of success that the Opposition will have against the NDA, which on its part has already revealed that plugging gaps in potential vote shares, accommodating rebels and sustaining the non-committal nature of certain parties is its preemptive strike on the unification efforts.

Then there’s the issue of internal competition. The rotational hosting, banner flexing and conditional attendance make for an uncomfortable settlement rather than a wholehearted union. Take for example the INC’s superimposition of its Bharat Jodo Yatra (BJY) syntax on I-N-D-I-A’s evolving lexicon. The BJY was avowedly apolitical. Transplanting its lingo risks alienating new friends, many of whom had stayed away from the BJY. This isn’t about tacitly co-opting people into a mission as much as it’s about conceding for the sake of a larger and immensely complex project. Totems meant for political relevance are misfits for what is meant to be a credible campaign against an unyielding opponent. Just before the no-confidence debate, speakers from the treasury benches pointed to the uncomfortable union of the AAP and the INC during the debate on the Delhi services Bill, teasing the INC that its “temporary” truce with the very party responsible for its thorough ouster from Delhi would not last long, thereby seeding doubt in the minds of voters.

Opposition members have routinely cited the 1967, 1977 and 1989 elections as exhibits of the power of Opposition consolidation. The 1967 election was fought at a time when popular disenchantment with the INC’s political hegemony had set in. That it takes a political “village” to even project a sense of competitiveness in today’s polity testifies to the impact of that election’s core issue. The political devolution that had to happen, happened in large parts. The nature of BJP’s political domination is different. From the outset, it has focused on enlisting the support of different segments of society. These segments have been given due representation at different levels of the government and the party. It has also expanded the number of posts in its political organisation to accommodate its ever-expanding tent. The exception was in the case of Muslims. Of late, it is trying to remedy this too, blending the claim of welfare delivery with calls for social reform and the amplification of select diplomatic engagements. From the party’s choice of its first speaker in the no-confidence debate from a backward region (MP from Godda in Jharkhand) to the Prime Minister’s reference to Abdul Kalam in his remarks, the BJP exploited every opportunity to showcase its political chutzpah.

Emergency became the rallying point for the 1977 elections. While some in the Opposition claim that similar conditions exist today, the proliferation of digital media (where several hues of criticism flow) belies such assertions. Further, many of the insurgents of ’77 are key figures in the ruling party today. The Bofors issue, its stickiness and the way V P Singh was able to generate an anti-corruption sentiment among the masses proved to be the undoing of the Congress in 1989.

In at least two of the above cases – in 1977 and 1989 – there were charismatic figures binding the Opposition’s assault: Jayaprakash Narayan (JP) in ’77 and V P Singh in ’89. While they did not necessarily have pan-India appeal, their polemic resonated with large parts of the country. There is no such Opposition leader today who has the rhetorical devices, coalition forging abilities, widespread acceptance, and limited liabilities to lead the challengers. In the no-confidence debate, not a single speaker from the Opposition benches could match the Home Minister’s meticulousness or the Prime Minister’s erudition.

The BJP of today is a multi-headed electoral instrument. It maintains a perennial omni-channel connect with voters, leverages welfare delivery for political points, bolsters brand Modi in myriad ways, mobilises resources exhaustively and harnesses incumbency effectively. This has enabled the party to target everyone, every day and in every possible way. In celebrating limited successes with acronyms, on social media or in televised studio debates, the Opposition may be doing what the proverbial blind men did with the elephant — misreading, misunderstanding and magnifying meagre gains while being oblivious to the interconnected nature of the BJP’s electoral arms and its capacity to neutralise the Opposition’s moves. The starting point for I-N-D-I-A ought to be understanding the expanse of the BJP’s electoral prowess. India deserves a competitive election. Unless I-N-D-I-A earnestly commits itself to the process of learning and unlearning, the hope for a closely-fought general election remains a mirage.

Also Read

Inside Track by Coomi Kapoor: Allied problems, Cong-AAP ties & Hema Malin...

P Chidambaram writes: Aid and Advise

Faizan Mustafa writes: New penal code falls short of its laudable objectives

Ram Madhav writes on Partition Horrors Remembrance Day: A division of hearts

The writer is founder, Peppo. He previously co-founded FourthLion Technologies, a political campaign planner