top of page

By:

Akhilesh Sinha

25 June 2025 at 2:53:54 pm

Congress-Left Rift Exposes Power Games

New Delhi: Cracks widen in I.N.D.I.A. alliance as Congress and Left clash in Kerala/West Bengal polls, prioritizing state power over ideology. History of flip-flops fuels accusations of cynical opportunism, eroding public trust amid national unity facade.   Ahead of the Kerala and West Bengal assembly elections, cracks have emerged between the Congress and Left parties, with both gearing up to clash head-on in the electoral arena. The echoes of this rift reverberated in a recent meeting of...

Congress-Left Rift Exposes Power Games

New Delhi: Cracks widen in I.N.D.I.A. alliance as Congress and Left clash in Kerala/West Bengal polls, prioritizing state power over ideology. History of flip-flops fuels accusations of cynical opportunism, eroding public trust amid national unity facade.   Ahead of the Kerala and West Bengal assembly elections, cracks have emerged between the Congress and Left parties, with both gearing up to clash head-on in the electoral arena. The echoes of this rift reverberated in a recent meeting of the I.N.D.I.A. alliance's parliamentary parties. The Marxist Communist Party (CPI(M)) openly targeted Congress's biggest leader, Leader of opposition in Parliament Rahul Gandhi, exposing deep tensions. Whether it's the Congress-led I.N.D.I.A. alliance or the earlier United Progressive Alliance (UPA), history shows Congress has always fought elections against CPI(M) in Kerala and West Bengal assembly polls. What kind of political ideology is this, where parties unite for Lok Sabha elections but turn adversaries in state assembly contests?   This naturally begs the question that in this game of alliances, are Congress, the Left, and other I.N.D.I.A. bloc constituents indulging in opportunistic politics driven by a thirst for power? Are they playing tricks on the public just to grab the throne? If their alliances were rooted in ideology, they would stick together from Lok Sabha to assembly elections, united by principle.   Flash point The flashpoint came during an I.N.D.I.A. bloc parliamentary meeting in Kerala, originally called to strategize for the Parliament session and forge a united opposition front against the central government. But the discussion swiftly pivoted to escalating differences between Congress and the Left. CPI(M) MPs took strong exception to Rahul Gandhi's recent statement during a Kerala visit, where he accused central agencies like the Enforcement Directorate (ED) of targeting opposition leaders but sparing Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan.   In West Bengal, a senior Congress leader revealed the central leadership's calculus that with little to lose, going solo is the smarter play. Post-alliance breakup with the Left, focus shifts to bolstering vote share, not seat-sharing math. TMC and BJP are expected to dominate anyway. After days of silence, CPI(M) general secretary MA Baby accused Congress of drifting from a broad anti-communal unity, insisting his party favors collaboration with like-minded forces but slamming Congress's stance as isolationist.   The analysis Political analysts warn this split could fragment opposition votes, benefiting TMC. Yet they don't rule out informal grassroots understandings between left and congress. In both states, ditching the alliance lets Congress and the Left campaign comfortably, dodging awkward questions from voters. In Kerala, the Left has held power for two straight terms since 2021, breaking a decades-old pattern of alternating every five years between Left and Congress. Riding an anti-incumbency wave, Congress and Rahul Gandhi now eye a comeback, launching direct attacks on CPI(M). This has irked the Left, whose survival hinges solely on Kerala.   If we look at the political background, the I.N.D.I.A. alliance was formed mainly to create a united strategy against the BJP-led NDA. In several states, opposition parties are trying to contest elections together. Electoral processes, unemployment, inflation, and concerns over constitutional institutions are part of the opposition's shared agenda.   Watching this alliance charade ahead of Lok Sabha and assembly polls, the public is baffled that What's the real basis of these tie-ups? Do parties form and break them for keeping in mind the interests of leaders and parties, or based on ideology? Do they consider the welfare of the people and the nation's interests in doing so? Is coalition politics just opportunism masquerading as strategy? Voters deserve answers-will I.N.D.I.A.'s flip-flops erode trust, or can they justify this as pragmatic realism? Until then, the stench of power hunger lingers.

Frontier of Turmoil

Updated: Jan 2, 2025

The Afghan-Pakistan rivalry flares anew across the Durand, echoing colonial histories and etching precarious modern geopolitics.

Afghan-Pakistan rivalry

Few borders are as contested and as combustible as the Durand Line, the 2,640-kilometer frontier that divides Pakistan and Afghanistan. Drawn in the shadow of British colonialism in 1893, this boundary was meant to carve British India’s interests from those of Afghanistan. Instead, it has left a legacy of dispute, ethnic rifts, and geopolitical chess moves.


Now, long-simmering tensions have boiled over once more with the Afghan Taliban targeting areas in Pakistan in response to alleged Pakistani airstrikes on militant hideouts in Afghan territory. Islamabad’s strikes, carried out in Paktika province, reportedly left dozens dead, many of them women and children. For Afghanistan’s ruling Taliban, this marked a breach too far.


The Durand Line, imposed during a time when colonial borders were drawn with scant regard for local ethnic realities, cleaved through the Pashtun heartland. Millions of Pashtuns, the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan and a sizable minority in Pakistan, were left straddling both sides of the border. Afghanistan has never officially recognized the boundary, rejecting it outright after Pakistan’s creation in 1947.


The ambiguity has kept border areas volatile, serving as a fertile ground for smugglers, militias, and insurgent networks. For Pakistan, its tribal belt—particularly Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Baluchistan—has become the site of a double challenge: confronting separatism within its own borders while countering armed groups spilling over from Afghanistan.


The fall of Kabul to the Taliban in 2021 was viewed cautiously in Islamabad. Pakistan hoped its influence over the new rulers would stabilize the region and reign in the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), a militant group with shared ideological and operational roots with the Afghan Taliban. But the honeymoon proved short-lived. The TTP, far from being contained, grew emboldened, launching brazen attacks on Pakistani security forces and claiming areas along the frontier.


The Afghan Taliban, for their part, face a dilemma. They have repeatedly denied harbouring or aiding the TTP, insisting that no group uses Afghan soil to attack Pakistan. Yet the Taliban leadership remains tied, culturally and strategically, to a pan-Islamist and Pashtun ethos that complicates efforts to dissociate from their Pakistani ideological cousins. This conundrum pits their promises of maintaining regional stability against their loyalty to a shared militant fraternity.


Islamabad’s strikes in Paktika last week reflect Pakistan’s frustrations. The civilian toll of the operation, however, galvanized a sharp response from Kabul, whose rulers view such actions as violations of Afghan sovereignty - a touchy subject underpinned by decades of external interference. Afghanistan’s subsequent counter-attacks, cloaked in evasive language about borders, signal that the Taliban are willing to assert themselves more aggressively against their once-close allies in Islamabad.


These clashes risk opening wider fault lines in South Asia’s delicate balance. The recent cross-border violence exemplifies how old rivalries can resurface with greater ferocity when layered with modern complexities like terrorism and ethnic nationalism. With Afghanistan’s economy teetering on collapse and Pakistan battling financial crises and internal dissent, neither side is well-positioned for prolonged hostilities. Yet their historical entanglements and mutual accusations leave little room for de-escalation without international mediation.


China, which maintains influence in both capitals, might emerge as a reluctant referee, driven more by a desire to safeguard its Belt and Road Initiative than by altruism. Meanwhile, Washington, though less directly invested post-withdrawal, watches uneasily as the region veers closer to chaos.


The Durand Line remains as much a fault line of identity and ideology as a geopolitical border. As long as Kabul and Islamabad view each other more as adversaries than allies, the shadow of colonial cartography will continue to darken the region. The Afghan-Pakistan dynamic, rooted in history but inflamed by modern geopolitics, risks pushing the region toward instability. Unless both countries find ways to separate their national ambitions from cross-border militancy, the Durand Line will remain what it has always been: less a boundary and more a bridge to conflict.

Comments


bottom of page