top of page

By:

Akhilesh Sinha

25 June 2025 at 2:53:54 pm

Ideology, Illusion, and the Politics of Power

Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi greets supporters during a roadshow ahead of the Kerala assembly polls, in Kozhikode district on Tuesday. | Pic: PTI New Delhi:  At a critical electoral juncture in Kerala, the political contest being waged in the name of ideology appears less about public welfare and more like a renewed struggle for the division of power. Kerala's electoral battle exposes contradictions between ideology and alliances, as BJP, Congress, and Left trade...

Ideology, Illusion, and the Politics of Power

Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi greets supporters during a roadshow ahead of the Kerala assembly polls, in Kozhikode district on Tuesday. | Pic: PTI New Delhi:  At a critical electoral juncture in Kerala, the political contest being waged in the name of ideology appears less about public welfare and more like a renewed struggle for the division of power. Kerala's electoral battle exposes contradictions between ideology and alliances, as BJP, Congress, and Left trade accusations while prioritizing power, leaving voters questioning credibility, governance plans, and commitment to justice.   At the national level, the Congress and the Left position themselves as opponents of the Bharatiya Janata Party and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Yet before the public, they often appear equally eager to undercut one another. In Parliament, they join hands to bring no-confidence motions and accuse the government of misusing investigative agencies. However, at the state level, this coordination is conspicuously absent. In Kerala, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has alleged a nexus between the CPI(M) and the SDPI, even hinting at tacit understandings between the BJP and the Left. Meanwhile, LDF Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan has dismissed these claims as "entirely baseless."   This persistent friction reinforces the impression that ideology has become largely symbolic, while the real contest revolves around consolidating vote banks and securing seats. The Left, invoking the language of "pragmatic alliances," signals readiness to align with the Congress at the national level. Yet in Kerala, it faces accusations of straying from its foundational principles, even as it projects itself as the principal alternative to the BJP.   Conspiracy factor Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has repeatedly asserted in his campaign rallies that this election is a contest between two ideologies-the Left and the UDF. Yet, he claims, for the first time there is an "unprecedented partnership" emerging between the Left and the BJP. He alleges that the CPI(M) can be easily controlled by the BJP, whereas the Congress-led UDF would not play into its hands. Such assertions risk creating the impression that ideological confrontation has now given way to a politics of expedient compromises.   On the other hand, CM Pinarayi Vijayan firmly maintains that his party neither seeks support from the SDPI nor engages in any covert understanding with communal forces. He portrays the Left Democratic Front as a formation grounded in "clear ideological principles" and resolutely opposed to communal politics. The contradiction here is striking that just as the BJP accuses the Congress and the Left of collusion, the Congress and the Left, in turn, level similar charges of "compromise" against each other.   Confused Electorate In Kerala's electoral theatre, PM Modi has branded both the UDF and the LDF as "each other's B team," while projecting the BJP as the only genuine "A team." His argument rests on the claim that the state has, for decades, been trapped between two traditional power blocs, one corrupt and the other allegedly even more so. He contends that both alliances have deceived the public through vote-bank politics, whereas the BJP now promises to "expose" their corruption and deliver "justice."   The larger question remains, when the Left and the Congress join hands in Parliament to oppose the BJP, is their unity rooted in a principled stand against the ruling party BJP/NDA, or is it merely political theatre calibrated for electoral convenience? If both claim to be ideologically committed formations, what justifies their readiness to confront each other in the states and often aggressively over vote banks?   Real Issues At the national level, the Left often raises its voice on substantive constitutional and economic questions; corruption, public debt, privatization, and decentralization. Yet, in the heat of elections, these very debates are reduced to the arithmetic of vote banks and seat shares. The BJP, as the ruling party, seeks to anchor its campaign in development metrics, flagship projects like the Vizhinjam Port, and symbolic initiatives such as the Nari Shakti Vandan Act, presenting them as tangible achievements before the electorate. The opposition, in turn, attempts to recast these same initiatives as narratives of "debt" and "plunder."

War’s Unequal Burden

War widens every fault line, but the status of women bears the deepest fracture.

War does not affect all bodies in the same way. It reorganises power, access, and survival along lines that already exist. Gender is one of those lines. When conflict begins, it does not create new inequalities. It sharpens the old ones and makes them harder to ignore.


The philosophical case for taking this seriously is straightforward. If a society's baseline distribution of rights, resources, and recognition is already unequal, then any shock to that society will produce unequal consequences. War is not a neutral event. It is a pressure test of existing arrangements. The philosopher Iris Marion Young's concept of structural injustice applies here. Harm does not require a single identifiable perpetrator. It is produced when social structures, norms, and institutional arrangements work together to constrain the lives of some while enabling others. War does not create this structure. It reveals and intensifies it.


Sexual Violence as Tactic

In 2024, the UN Secretary-General's annual report on conflict-related sexual violence (S/2025/389) documented over 4,600 verified cases across 21 countries. Women and girls accounted for 92 percent of those cases, a 25 percent increase from 2023. The UN's own report acknowledges these are a significant undercount. The UN Women, Peace and Security Report (S/2025/556, September 2025) found that documented violations increased by 87 percent over two years. In Sudan alone, demand for survivor support rose by 288 percent from 2023 to 2024, with over 12 million women and girls assessed as being at risk.


This violence is not incidental. It is strategic. It is used to intimidate communities, drive displacement, and fragment social structures. The UN Secretary-General's report lists 63 parties credibly suspected of responsibility. More than 70 percent of those listed have appeared on the same annex for five years or more.


In 2023, over 600 million women and girls lived within 50 kilometres of conflict zones, a 50 percent rise over ten years. The proportion of women killed in armed conflict doubled in the same year. UNHCR recorded 122.6 million forcibly displaced persons globally in 2024, with an estimated 32 million women and girls of reproductive age living in emergency situations.


The WHO technical brief published in February 2026 puts the maternal mortality ratio in conflict-affected countries at 504 deaths per 100,000 live births, against 99 in stable countries. In 2023, an estimated 160,000 women died from preventable maternal causes in conflict-affected settings. That is six in ten maternal deaths worldwide, from countries that account for only one in ten global live births. A 15-year-old girl in a conflict-affected country faced a 1 in 51 lifetime risk of dying from a maternal cause. In a stable country, the figure was 1 in 593.


The International Labour Organization confirms that women perform 76.2 percent of all unpaid care work globally, more than three times as much as men. In 2024, 708 million women were outside the labour force due to care responsibilities, against 40 million men. In conflict settings, where services collapse and household needs multiply, this imbalance widens further. Women sustain households economically while maintaining caregiving roles. The workload expands. Control over resources does not.


On decision-making, the UN Secretary-General's WPS Report (S/2025/556) records that women represented only 18 percent of negotiators in UN-supported peace processes in 2024, down from 23 percent in 2020. In formal peace processes globally, women made up 7 percent of negotiators and 14 percent of mediators. UNSC Resolution 1325 was adopted in 2000. Twenty-five years later, women have not reached even a third of negotiators in any year since its adoption


Projection and Practice

India's position within this framework is specific. As of December 2024, India contributed the highest number of women military experts and staff officers to UN missions globally, 176 personnel, confirmed by the Ministry of External Affairs at its February 2025 conference in New Delhi. India was also the first country to deploy an all-female Formed Police Unit to a UN mission, in Liberia in 2007.


The numbers within India's own contingent tell a different story. As of September 2025, women accounted for 3.4 percent of India's total UN peacekeeping contingent, the lowest proportion among the top ten troop-contributing countries. India's neighbours Nepal, Bangladesh, and Pakistan each deploy a higher share.


More significant is the question of domestic policy. Over 100 UN member states have adopted National Action Plans for the implementation of UNSC Resolution 1325. India has not, as of May 2025, documented in the WILPF NAP database. India's formal position classifies zones of military deployment as 'disturbed areas' under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act of 1958, which removes the institutional logic for adopting the domestic dimensions of a Women, Peace and Security framework.


The cost of that classification is documented. Between May and November 2023, at least 175 persons were killed and more than 60,000 were internally displaced in Manipur. This is recorded in the US State Department's 2023 Country Report on Human Rights Practices: India, published in April 2024. On September 4, 2023, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights issued a formal communication raising alarm over alleged sexual violence, extrajudicial killings, and inadequate humanitarian response in Manipur. The Indian government's position is that these situations fall within domestic law and order jurisdiction.


India advocates internationally for women's participation in peacekeeping and supports the WPS agenda as a foreign policy position. It has not adopted the policy architecture that would make those commitments binding at home. The UN framework does not treat these as separate domains. The evidence of differential impact is not contested. The question is whether India's international commitments and its domestic policy will, at some point, point in the same direction.


(The author is an independent public policy researcher who writes on political economy, climate, and the ethics of everyday systems. Views personal.)


Comments

bottom of page