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.

The GIUK Gap: A Maritime Chokepoint Through History

The Greenland-Iceland-UK (GIUK) Gap has long been a key maritime chokepoint, shaping naval strategy from the World Wars to today and remains central to NATO’s security calculus.

The GIUK Gap’s strategic importance emerged during the World Wars when securing North Atlantic sea lanes was vital to the Allied war effort. The UK and US recognised that safeguarding routes between North America and Europe required early detection and neutralisation of German U-boats. Surveillance and airbases in Iceland and Greenland enhanced the Allied’s ability to track and intercept submarines, laying the foundation for a more systematic maritime defence in the following decades.


The Cold War made the GIUK Gap one of the world’s most surveilled maritime corridors. The Soviet Northern Fleet, based in Murmansk, used it to deploy ballistic missiles and attack submarines into the North Atlantic. In response, NATO integrated the gap into its anti-submarine warfare (ASW) strategy. The Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS), a vast network of underwater listening devices, monitored Soviet submarine activity. The gap became NATO’s tripwire—any hostile movement triggered a rapid military response, supported by air and naval bases in the UK, Iceland, and Norway.


Strategic Revival

After the Cold War, the GIUK Gap faced strategic neglect. With Russian naval power seen as diminished, NATO shifted focus to counterterrorism and regional conflicts, diverting resources from maritime defence. Much of the SOSUS network was decommissioned, and patrols declined, creating a critical vulnerability in NATO’s defence infrastructure.


Over the last decade, geopolitical shifts have renewed focus on the GIUK Gap. Russia has modernised its Northern Fleet, deploying stealthier, long-range submarines. In 2019, a major naval exercise tested their ability to pass undetected through the gap. This assertiveness signals Russia’s intent to regain maritime presence, forcing NATO to recalibrate its posture.


Expanding Threat

Simultaneously, the Arctic is also undergoing unprecedented transformation. Melting sea ice is gradually opening new shipping routes, like the Northern Sea Route along Russia’s coast and potentially a transpolar passage. These developments create new economic opportunities but also complex strategic risks. The GIUK Gap, as the main corridor between the Arctic and the Atlantic, becomes the linchpin through which all maritime movement must pass. This geographical reality reaffirms the gap’s importance as a critical surveillance and control zone.


Beyond Russia, other actors are increasingly present in Arctic affairs. China, while geographically distant, has declared itself a “near-Arctic state” and has articulated ambitions through the “Polar Silk Road.” Chinese investments in Arctic research stations, ports, and infrastructure are growing. Though its military presence in the region remains limited, China’s increased activity necessitates greater strategic awareness from NATO states. The possibility of joint Russian-Chinese exercises or dual-use infrastructure supporting undersea operations cannot be discounted.


Strategic Adaptation

To address these challenges, NATO has strengthened its posture in the GIUK Gap. The U.S. re-established the Second Fleet in 2018, reaffirming its Atlantic commitment. Allies have boosted ISR investments, enhancing maritime patrol and undersea monitoring. Radar systems in the Faroes and airbases in Iceland have been upgraded, while the UK has reinforced ASW with advanced P-8 Poseidon aircraft.


Joint exercises like Trident Juncture are becoming more frequent and complex, focusing on rapid response and interoperability in harsh maritime conditions. They simulate contested scenarios involving conventional and hybrid threats. Meanwhile, emerging technologies—AUVs, AI-driven sonar processing, and space-based surveillance—are strengthening NATO’s maritime security.


Operational Challenges

Formidable challenges remain. Russia’s Yasen-class submarines feature stealth capabilities that strain detection technologies. The North Atlantic’s deep trenches, strong currents, and frequent storms further hinder surveillance and response. Maintaining real-time domain awareness over such vast waters demands ongoing investment in human and technological capital.


Iceland, the key to the GIUK Gap, lacks a standing military and depends on alliance support. Greenland, part of Denmark, poses logistical hurdles due to its remoteness and sparse population. Effective defence relies on burden-sharing and pre-positioned NATO resources.


The GIUK Gap must be seen within a broader multidomain defence framework. Modern conflicts extend beyond conventional warfare—cyberattacks on naval communications, space-based GPS disruption, and disinformation campaigns affect maritime readiness. Integrating the GIUK Gap into cyber, space, and information warfare planning is vital to NATO’s deterrence.


The GIUK Gap remains a crucial strategic corridor in today’s shifting security landscape. Linking the Arctic and Atlantic will remain central to any transatlantic conflict. As geopolitical competition, environmental shifts, and technological advances reshape the maritime domain, NATO must reinforce its commitment to this key chokepoint. Investing in infrastructure, strengthening allied cooperation, and integrating new technologies will be vital to safeguarding navigation and collective defence. In the coming decades, the GIUK Gap will not just be a passage but a barometer of North Atlantic stability.


(The author is a foreign affairs expert. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page