Narendra Modi begins his third term as India’s Prime Minister with a compromised mandate. BJP’s numbers, short of a majority, have left Modi beholden to coalition partners for his government. Consequently, Modi’s new cabinet of 72 has 11 ministers from NDA coalition partners.
This constraint has sparked hope of a restrained administration. But such hopes may be misguided. Sharing power in a limited manner among a handful of state parties may not change the core nature of Modi’s power or how he wields it. That determination calls for a deeper analysis.
As the numbers stand right now, no one party can unilaterally pull down the BJP government. Coalition partners thus have limited leverage. Moreover, for all significant coalition partners, such as the TDP, JDU, NCP and the Shiv-Sena-Shinde, the impetus to join the NDA was a preoccupation with their own state-level competition. It is likely that the leverage enjoyed by these parties will be deployed to further their own state-level political agenda rather than in the service of larger ideological or democratic concerns.
Seen from a perspective of state-level politics of coalition partners, the picture is in Modi’s favour at least until the next round of state elections. While the TDP is comfortably placed in its own state and does not need the BJP’s help to stay in power, Nitish Kumar of the JDU needs the BJP to stay in power till the assembly elections next year. The Bihar pitch is further queered by the presence of Chirag Paswan of LJP and a resurgent RJD (in terms of vote share). This might explain why the politician known for repeatedly opposing Modi would publicly touch Modi’s feet despite the perceived balance of power being tilted towards him. The same holds true for Eknath Shinde’s Shiv Sena who remains Chief Minister of Maharashtra at the BJP’s mercy because folding back into the original Shiv Sena would necessarily mean abandoning his chief ministerial dreams. The equation in Bihar and Maharashtra — and thus the NDA coalition — may change depending on the outcome of the assembly elections and the alignments thereafter. The other coalition partners such as the JDS, RLD and NCP are too small to have any influence beyond bargaining for something for their own sake.
What does this mean going forward? The politics of most coalition parties — JDU, TDP, NCP, RLD — is not anti-minority and thus there may be some toning down of anti-minority rhetoric which had ratcheted up during the elections. This does not mean the abandonment of the Hindutva project; instead it is likely that the anti-minority rhetoric will be outsourced, as before, to lower levels to provide deniability to all concerned.
There is some hope that the very fact of managing a coalition will create a federal roadblock for fraught projects like one-nation, one election and delimitation. While there will indeed be an impact of having to take on different voices on board, it is unclear how different issues will play out given that the interests of all coalition partners may not be aligned. Nitish Kumar has already endorsed one-nation, one election and given that Andhra’s election schedule is aligned with the Lok Sabha elections, TDP may not immediately care. On delimitation, the interests of the southern parties are opposed to the interests of parties from more populous states of Bihar and Maharashtra.
The key takeaway therefore is that relying too heavily on BJP’s minority status to predict significant changes in how Modi wields power may be a mistake. On the targeted misuse of state power, it is not yet clear that a coalition government will be the curb we hope it will be. It is likely that a change in how the Modi government wields power will be driven less by external curbs than by Modi and Shah themselves and their strategic choices.
The election has shown a negative electoral impact of the rising inequality and distress under the BJP government and it is likely that the government will focus on alleviating this distress to shore up its prospects. The coalition partners will also press for more money for their constituents in the form of special status for Andhra, and rethinking the Agniveer scheme to open up more jobs for youth.
This is exactly the expectation from a democracy but a central government focus on welfare may lead to a diminishment not expansion of democratic space for Opposition.
The real change may come from the shattering of Modi’s aura of invincibility. Large sections of the media, bureaucracy, other state institutions and the corporate class had seemingly internalised that the BJP will remain in power forever. This had led to an open disregard for holding the middle-ground at considerable cost to Indian democracy and their own personal integrity. This section may calibrate its behaviour especially if the BJP’s performance in upcoming state elections is poor.
This will create some breathing room for the Opposition and dissenting voices at large.
But as always, the greatest safeguard for our democracy remains “Bharat ki sar-zameen par faili uski awaam” (the people of the land). As the election results unfolded, the dominant feeling was a profound sense of love for the people of our country — not just for their wisdom, but for the irrepressibility of their most basic, everyday aspirations. As long as vast swathes of our people continue to strive for the simple dignities of a better life, the space for democracy in our country shall remain open and thriving.
The path forward for the Opposition, therefore, must not be a politics of opportunistic jod-tod but a politics rooted in the hopes and struggles of our people. As Nehru so eloquently articulated, “Bharat ke log hi Bharat Mata hai” (Bharat Mata is no one but the people of the country.) Unki jeet main hi Bharat Mata — and Opposition — ki jeet hai (In the victory of the people is the victory of Bharat, and that of the Opposition). Bharat Mata ki Jai.
The writer is the executive director of Future of India Foundation
