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.

Unequal Classrooms

India’s school system has long prided itself on scale. But scale, as the latest Class 10 results of the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) suggest, is increasingly accompanied by stratification. Over 93.7 percent of students cleared the exams; more than 55,000 scored above 95 percent. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti posted near-perfect pass rates. Private schools, too, performed robustly. At the bottom sat government-aided schools, with a pass percentage of 91.01 percent. While the gap may appear modest, it reflects a deeper structural divergence that India has struggled, and often failed, to address.


The post-Independence consensus, shaped by the Kothari Commission, had envisioned a common school system - a moral commitment to equal educational opportunity regardless of socio-economic background. That ambition, however, was diluted almost as soon as it was articulated. Education expanded rapidly, but unevenly, with states relying on a patchwork of government, aided and private institutions.


Government-aided schools emerged as a compromise: privately managed but publicly funded. In theory, they would combine community initiative with state support. In practice, they became administratively ambiguous. Unlike fully government schools, they often escaped direct bureaucratic oversight; unlike private schools, they lacked the incentives and autonomy to innovate. Teacher recruitment, salary structures and accountability mechanisms fell into a grey zone.


The numbers today bear the imprint of that history. While Kendriya and Navodaya schools which are centrally administered, well-funded and tightly regulated, perform best. Their success is not accidental but institutional. They benefit from standardised teacher recruitment, relatively better infrastructure and a culture of performance monitoring. Private schools, though uneven in quality, operate under competitive pressure.


Government-aided schools, by contrast, are trapped between control and neglect. Their teachers are frequently paid by the state but managed by private bodies, diluting accountability.


Recent reforms have sought to bridge this divide. The National Education Policy 2020, for instance, emphasises flexibility, continuous assessment and reduced high-stakes testing. CBSE’s introduction of two board examinations reflects this shift, as does its decision to forgo merit lists in favour of a less competitive ethos. These are sensible steps. But they operate largely at the level of pedagogy and assessment. The structural fault lines lie elsewhere.


In aided schools, managements have limited authority to reward or discipline teachers, while governments hesitate to enforce accountability for fear of political backlash. Students, often from less privileged backgrounds, lack the supplementary support that their counterparts in private schools enjoy. The system thus compounds disadvantage while appearing formally egalitarian.


Without clearer lines of accountability, better alignment of incentives and sustained investment in teacher quality, aided schools will continue to lag.


The CBSE’s impressive aggregate results should not obscure this reality. They are, in a sense, the average of two systems moving at different speeds. Bridging that divide will require more than curricular reform. It will demand a return to first principles and a willingness to confront the institutional compromises that have long defined Indian schooling. 


Comments

bottom of page