The need for a strong opposition

India changed in many ways in 2011-12 in what started as the Anna Hazare protest in Delhi.
People had been seething with bottled up anger for decades — ever since the inertia of the Congress governments, mostly hemmed by the Gandhi family, was shaken vigorously by the uprising of sorts in 1989, most prominently by former Prime Minister VP Singh.

Much before that, seeds of dissent against the Gandhi party had been sown in states like Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, where local parties started having a sway by feeding the public about perceived racist attitudes of the central government and by using divisive politics – the four metros dominated the sense of perception and racism; other states never mattered until the IT revolution.

However, despite the swift spread of regional parties and their firm control over local politics, Congress managed to hold the reigns of the central government via coalitions such as the UPA, which led to further compromise and widespread corruption and violence. The main opposition in 2004 was the BJP, which the UPA and especially the Congress tried to paint in the saffron colour, which was lapped up by the regional parties who feared the rise of a Congress-like pan-India party.

Then followed the US nuclear deal, the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks (and several others across India), inflation, the recession — these did not allow the public to breathe, let alone topple the government led by Sonia Gandhi. The main opposition led by LK Advani had become lethargic and hypocritically idealistic.

But this changed in 2011 when corruption became the core issue once again (after 1989 Bofors related political upheaval). Soon it assumed a fire that engulfed the entire nation and promised a new dawn based on real issues – to the common man, just the common man. Unfortunately (or as per plan), Congress hijacked it all with the alleged Dixit-Kejriwal deal and hoped things will fizz out. People, however, thought they had lost again before even the battle had really begun.

Meanwhile, technology had brought reforms in the electoral process and the educated mass had started to firmly believe in it. Then came Narendra Modi – till then labelled as Maut ka Saudagar by Sonia Gandhi in the aftermath of the Godhra train carnage and the following riots in Gujarat. However, Modi had proven himself as an able CM – the infrastructure in Gujarat had leaped ahead of the four metros steadily – but more importantly, had maintained a low profile for around a decade – the crucial ace that was required for any disruption.

Modi was not just a disruption like VP Singh, but instead offered Indians long-term realistic goals – development, appeasement to none, and peace – vital points for the people then who had lost all hope of any progress. In an interview, he had even spoken about the contentious reservations policy, that such desperate measures are required only because there aren’t enough jobs or seats in higher education — he has increased the medical seats significantly after becoming the PM, and many engineering seats go vacant each year now though he has not tweaked the reservations policy at all. The signal was clear — he was looking at work-arounds to contentious issues and a firm hand on others – Pakistan, China, internal security, reforms, etc.

His first challenge came from inside the party — he nominated self for the PM candidate and started touring the country on his own with scant security and often none (bomb blasts during Bihar speech). Here was a man who believed no one else could save the country.

Many others within and outside the BJP (NDA) like Nitish Kumar saw it as undue ambition, but Modi used all of it to his advantage – gaining critical support from the then BJP president Rajnath Singh, who decided to choose Modi over LK Advani to keep afloat the party. Soon BJP became the largest party in the world and Modi placated people with Ache Din Ayenge.

This background shows that while it is very difficult to be the PM of India in a non-consensus nation, it is much more difficult to form a strong opposition without a strong disruptive factor. The UPA titanic had sunk even while it was in power, and other parties currently are mostly regional, which suffer from the very poison of divisiveness they spread to get into power — Marathi pride, Tamil pride, xyz pride… Can they do away with such easy crutches or apologise to change course and become a national party in the true sense? Unlikely.

Former CM of UP, Mayawati stands out in this endeavour. She saw the “minimum three states presence” as an easy wall to cross to become a national party. BSP has contested in several states so far, but instead of becoming a national party, it has lost significant voter share in the home state of UP.

Past oppositions

Morarji Desai was perhaps the first major disruption in Indian politics. No one would have believed he would be the PM a few years before the Emergency. But the real change came in 1991 with PV Narasimha Rao. He was again a disruption no one saw. He not only became the PM but also was the first non-Gandhian to rule the Congress Party with outstanding efficiency and innovation — until a major alleged scam was unearthed.

Other major issues that significantly changed India, and subsequently the PM, were the China war, Emergency, anti-Sikh riots, Kashmir genocide and separatism, Bankruptcy, Mandal Commission (Rajiv Gandhi opposed it in its entirety), and several financial scams. Point to note is that violence and wars have mostly failed to scare Indians out of an election or change their votes drastically so far.

Current status

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. So far, that has not happened under Modi’s rule, but unrest has steadily spread across the country at the state level – especially prior to elections; several times threatening a full-out communal riot. This does not augur well for our nation. Opposition parties and people opposing Modi have one common thing to say – the biggest threat they face is the popularity and rigidity of Modi, and his reforms that make it difficult for the old order to function. The general feeling of a “big family” among politicians (both ruling and opposition) has crumbled and Modi has emerged as a consistent dogged opposition. This isn’t exactly good for the nation.

The main role of the opposition parties is to convey the hopes of the citizens and keep a close eye on the implementation of laws, ie, cooperate constructively – not oppose laws or create ever-lasting dissent among politicians and the citizens. This would be the real big family that India needs.

Such an opposition (at least two major opposition parties to avoid the two-party hand-in-glove stinking monopoly seen in several states and other countries) isn’t possible with coalitions. Nor is it possible by a faceless party. It may sound cliché, but we still need educated intelligent and really honest people in our politics that know the importance of both ruling and opposition parties. We need leaders that think about the country and be the disruptive force when needed – not the ones that sleep for four and half years when they lose an election.

After several decades, we know what a strong leader and party can do for India. Now, more than a strong party in power, India needs a strong opposition. Will it happen in 2024?

Send your comments to feedback@mddtimes.com