top of page

By:

Akhilesh Sinha

25 June 2025 at 2:53:54 pm

From Ideology to Electability

BJP is blending ideology with pragmatism, elevating leaders from rival parties to power New Delhi: The growing tendency of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to elevate leaders from other parties to the position of Chief Minister represents a shift, one that reflects not only a recalibration of the party's strategy but also the evolving character of Indian politics itself. Once known primarily as a cadre-based party anchored firmly in ideological commitment, the BJP has entered a phase where...

From Ideology to Electability

BJP is blending ideology with pragmatism, elevating leaders from rival parties to power New Delhi: The growing tendency of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to elevate leaders from other parties to the position of Chief Minister represents a shift, one that reflects not only a recalibration of the party's strategy but also the evolving character of Indian politics itself. Once known primarily as a cadre-based party anchored firmly in ideological commitment, the BJP has entered a phase where political pragmatism is accorded equal importance alongside ideology. The clearest evidence of this transformation lies in the rising number of leaders who, after crossing over from other parties, have not only found space within the BJP but have gone on to occupy the highest offices of power. Names such as Basavaraj Bommai in Karnataka, Himanta Biswa Sarma in Assam, and most recently Samrat Choudhary in Bihar have come to embody this trend. Each of these leaders had prior political affiliations outside the BJP, yet after joining the party, their stature and responsibilities have grown significantly. This is not an ad hoc development, but the outcome of a carefully crafted, multi-layered strategy. At the heart of this strategy lies a decisive emphasis on "winning ability." The BJP is no longer determining leadership solely on the basis of ideological loyalty, instead, it is prioritising individuals who possess electoral appeal, grassroots influence, and the capacity to navigate complex social equations. This explains why Himanta Biswa Sarma rose swiftly within the BJP to become Chief Minister and one of the party's most influential figures in the Northeast, who spent nearly two decades in the Congress. Similarly, leaders like Pema Khandu in Arunachal Pradesh, N. Biren Singh in Manipur, and Manik Saha in Tripura underscore the party's willingness to rely on strong local faces to expand its footprint in the Northeast, even if those leaders once belonged to the Congress. In Uttar Pradesh, the elevation of Brajesh Pathak, a former Bahujan Samaj Party leader, to the post of Deputy Chief Minister reflects a similar attempt to balance social equations. Key Driver One key driver of this approach is the relative absence of strong indigenous leadership in several states. In regions where the BJP historically lacked widely accepted local faces, turning to experienced leaders from other parties has proven to be a pragmatic solution. This marks a shift away from ideological rigidity toward an acceptance of political realities. A second critical factor is the need to manage caste and regional equations. Social structures continue to play a decisive role in Indian elections, and political success often hinges on aligning with these dynamics. In Bihar, the elevation of Samrat Choudhary is widely seen as an attempt to consolidate OBC/Kurmi support, while in Karnataka, Basavaraj Bommai's leadership aligns with the influence of the Lingayat community. The third dimension of this strategy is the systematic weakening of the opposition. By inducting influential leaders from rival parties and assigning them significant roles, the BJP not only strengthens its own ranks but also erodes the organizational capacity of its competitors. The induction of leaders such as Jyotiraditya Scindia, Narayan Rane, R. P. N. Singh, and Jitin Prasada, all of whom have been entrusted with key responsibilities in government and party structures, illustrates this approach. Two Levels The BJP's model now appears to function on two distinct levels: a strong and centralized leadership at the top, and influential local faces at the state level. Under the leadership of Narendra Modi and Amit Shah, the central command remains cohesive and firmly in control, while states are led by individuals capable of delivering electoral victories, irrespective of their political past. The rise of Suvendu Adhikari in West Bengal further exemplifies this strategy. Once a close aide of Mamata Banerjee, Adhikari is now one of the BJP's principal faces in the state, forming a cornerstone of the party's expansion efforts. The message is unmistakable clear that the opportunities within the BJP are no longer confined to its traditional cadre. Any leader with mass appeal and capability can aspire to the top. This shift also reflects the party's organisational confidence. The BJP believes its institutional structure is robust enough to quickly integrate leaders from outside and align them with its broader objectives. This has enabled a blend of ideological flexibility and political pragmatism. That said, the strategy is not without its internal contradictions. For long-time party workers, the rapid rise of leaders from outside may send mixed signals, potentially creating tensions within the cadre. Managing this balance will be a critical test for the party in the years ahead. Even so, in a broader sense, the BJP's approach represents a fusion of ideology and pragmatism. Its goals are clear that secure electoral victories, expand rapidly into new regions, and systematically weaken the opposition.

Bell, Book and Bludgeon: The Politics of the Unverified

The Naravane book episode shows how Opposition politics has slipped from demanding accountability into calculated institutional vandalism.

India’s latest parliamentary rupture did not begin with a bill or a vote of confidence but with a book that officially does not yet exist. Earlier this week, during the Budget Session, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi rose in the Lok Sabha brandishing Four Stars of Destiny, the autobiography of former Army Chief General M.M. Naravane with the intent to corner the Modi government on the Indian Army’s vicious 2020 Galwan Valley clash with Chinese forces.


Naravane’s 448 page-memoir traces a four-decade military career from Sikkim to Galwan, ceasefire negotiations with Pakistan and efforts to modernise the army. While the manuscript has been written and promoted, it has not yet been published. The Ministry of Defence and the Indian Army are still vetting it for sensitive operational details. Following the contretemps with Gandhi in the Lok Sabha, Penguin Random House India, the book’s publisher, has repeatedly and publicly confirmed that no print or digital copies have been released and that any circulation would violate copyright.


That did not prevent the Leader of the Opposition from citing it on the floor of the House. Even more inexplicable is how Rahul Gandhi managed to obtain a hardback copy of a book not ‘officially published.’ (when questioned later, Gandhi claimed it has been published abroad)


When Speaker Om Birla intervened to stop Gandhi, ruling that an unpublished and unverified text especially one under security review could not be used as a parliamentary source, the Congressman protested. He waved the book theatrically, offered it to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, displayed it to cameras and then declined to answer the simplest question: how did he obtain it?


Negativity as Strategy

Within days, the matter escalated from a procedural ruling into a constitutional confrontation with Opposition parties submitting a notice seeking the removal of Om Birla under Article 94(c) of the Constitution. It bore the signatures of 118 MPs from the Congress, the Samajwadi Party, the DMK and others. Notably absent were the signatures of Rahul Gandhi himself and the 28 MPs of the Trinamool Congress.


The charge was familiar: alleged bias against the Opposition and denial of speaking time to Gandhi and the refusal to allow references to the Naravane book to be spoken in Parliament.


The motion became only the fourth attempt in Lok Sabha history to remove a Speaker. The first such motion, in 1954 against G.V. Mavalankar, failed. Jawaharlal Nehru described it as a challenge not merely to an individual but to the dignity of the House. The second, against Sardar Hukam Singh in 1966, and the third, against Balram Jakhar in 1987, were debated and defeated. Parliament understood that procedural disagreements, however sharp, were a poor basis for destabilising the chair.


The Naravane episode is not an aberration. It fits a longer pattern in which confrontation, disruption and de-legitimisation have become central to the Congress’s parliamentary strategy under Rahul Gandhi. The objective has appeared less about shaping legislation than about sustaining a permanent crisis atmosphere around the prime minister and the institutions associated with him.


Gandhi’s method is consistent. An issue is raised before a session begins. Allegations are amplified through press conferences and proceedings are disrupted. Walkouts follow. By the time claims are tested - often disproved - the political objective which is to stall Parliament has already been achieved.


From the Budget Session of 2025 through the Winter Session of that year, proceedings were repeatedly disrupted over demands for a caste census, opposition to the Waqf Bill and attacks on the Election Commission. The Winter Session of 2024 was paralysed by claims that industrialist Gautam Adani had allegedly bribed American officials to the tune of $2 billion and should be jailed.


Recurring Pattern

The pattern stretches further back. The first session of the 18th Lok Sabha and the Monsoon Session of July 2024 were consumed by protests over Adani and SEBI, citing reports by the American short-seller Hindenburg. These were debunked when Hindenburg itself folded later.  The Budget Session of early 2024 saw repeated disruptions over Agniveer recruitment reforms and the familiar Adani-Ambani refrain. The Winter Session of 2023 collapsed amid protests over OBC issues and the suspension of MPs.


Likewise, the Manipur violence dominated the Monsoon Session of July 2023, along with opposition to Enforcement Directorate and CBI raids on leaders accused of corruption. A special session in September 2023 was disrupted over opposition to the new Parliament building, objections to the Sengol, Manipur again and the same investigative agencies.


Earlier still, Pegasus spyware allegations paralysed sessions in 2021 and 2022. Rafale aircraft purchases dominated disruptions from 2018 through 2022. Farmers’ protests halted the Budget Session of 2021. Protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act and NRC derailed the Budget Session of 2020.


According to PRS Legislative Research, parliamentary productivity has averaged just 25–30 percent since 2018. Bills on economic reform, internal security and governance have routinely been delayed or rushed through amid din.


Some episodes have crossed from obstruction into the realm of pure farce. In December 2023, protests over a Parliament security breach spiralled into chaos, leading to the suspension of 15 MPs for the remainder of the session precisely as three landmark criminal-justice bills were nearing passage. Opposition MPs marched through the complex carrying placards proclaiming ‘Save Democracy’ and ‘Parliament Shut, Democracy Ejected!’


A year later, during protests within the Parliament premises, Gandhi and his colleagues were accused of pushing two BJP MPs -Mukesh Rajput and Pratap Sarangi - both of whom were hospitalised.


At the inauguration of the new Parliament building, a Trinamool Congress MP mocked Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar through a mimicry act. Opposition MPs laughed. Gandhi recorded it on his phone. When elected representatives trivialise offices in such a crass manner, they corrode the very legitimacy of Parliament they claim to defend.


Costly Disruption

But Parliamentary disruption is extremely expensive as well. A single smooth working day of Parliament costs roughly Rs. 27 crore, covering security, staff salaries, utilities, allowances and live broadcasts. The Lok Sabha alone costs about Rs 2.5 lakh per minute. Every forced adjournment burns public money without producing public accountability.


This cost is borne not by ministers or MPs, but by ordinary taxpayers who watch the proceedings hoping for debate, legislation and solutions rather than shrill sloganeering and repeated disruptions.


Agreed that parliamentary democracy depends on dissent and scrutiny. But it also depends on agreed standards of evidence and restraint.


Using an unpublished book under active security review as a parliamentary weapon crosses a red line. Turning a procedural ruling into a removal motion crosses another. When negativity becomes a worldview rather than a tactic, it corrodes the institutions it claims to defend.


History suggests that such strategies eventually backfire. No Speaker has ever been removed by a no-confidence motion and persistent disruption dulls outrage and weakens the credibility of those who deploy it.


India’s Parliament has survived wars, emergencies and ideological convulsions. Its dignity has been strained before and restored. Whether today’s Opposition wishes to be remembered as a guardian of that dignity, or as its most inventive saboteur, remains the unanswered question.

Comments

bottom of page