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.

Late Reckoning

As Canada seeks to reset a badly frayed relationship with India, Ottawa has initiated proceedings to revoke the citizenship of Tahawwur Rana, the Pakistan-born businessman accused of playing a key role in the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks that killed 166 people. Coming just ahead of Prime Minister Mark Carney’s visit to India, the decision reads less like an attempt to undo some of the diplomatic and moral damage accumulated during the Justin Trudeau years.


The twist, here, is that Canada is not acting against Rana for terrorism. It is acting because he lied on a form a quarter-century ago. Canadian immigration authorities allege that Rana misrepresented his residency when applying for citizenship in 2000, claiming near-continuous residence in Ottawa and Toronto. Investigators later concluded that he had in fact spent much of that time in Chicago, running businesses and owning property. The case has been referred to the Federal Court, where government lawyers have also sought to withhold sensitive national-security material.


That such a consequential figure is being pursued on technical grounds rather than on the substance of his alleged crimes is telling. Rana, a close associate of David Coleman Headley, is accused by Indian investigators of helping enable the Mumbai attacks. He was convicted in the United States for plotting to attack a Danish newspaper, extradited to India in April last year and arrested by the National Investigation Agency upon arrival in New Delhi. Yet for years before that, Canada remained a reluctant actor, a passive host rather than an active partner in accountability.


This reluctance was not an isolated failing but part of a broader pattern. Under Trudeau, Canada has acquired an unsavoury reputation as a permissive jurisdiction for India’s most vicious enemies. The relationship between the two countries collapsed in 2023, when Ottawa accused Indian agents of killing a Sikh separatist on Canadian soil - an allegation India angrily rejected - triggering reciprocal expulsions of diplomats and the suspension of trade talks. Well before this, Khalistani extremists have always operated with remarkable ease in Canada, getting room to organise, raise funds and glorify violence under the banner of free expression there.


The Rana affair crystallised that mistrust. India’s repeated requests for cooperation were met with legal caution and political hesitancy. India has come to see Canada as a permissive space for its most virulent adversaries. Acting in the Rana case at this late date in order to strike successful deals with India on trade, energy, technology and defence, seems opportunistic.


Whether this amounts to a genuine reset remains to be seen. The larger test, however, is political. Will Ottawa under Carney draw a firmer line between dissent and extremism, and match its liberal rhetoric with enforcement? If not, today’s procedural resolve will look like a diplomatic courtesy call. If yes, Canada may yet discover that moral posturing cannot mask the geopolitical

costs of tolerating extremism, or recover trust once it has been spent.

Comments

bottom of page