Worldview – a way of thinking about the world – could be the fault line between the success of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the opposition’s struggle to dethrone Modi, even after ten years of rule. There is a fundamental difference between the BJP’s campaign and that of the opposition parties. The BJP does not campaign on issues but offers a perspective and worldview that allows for addressing not only controversial electoral issues, but also a framework that has the potential to analyze all other issues that are not necessarily and immediately linked to the elections. The BJP offers a perspective or framework for analysis, while the opposition only offers commentary on independent issues, without perspective or narrative. She can therefore make contradictory statements and get away with it and the opposition’s criticism does not hold up because there is no perspective. The BJP has been mobilizing for governance, while the opposition parties have made the counter-arguments appear legalistic and part of the language of governance. This could well be because most of today’s opposition parties have been in power for a long time, unlike the BJP which gained this type of dominant position more recently.
The BJP is driven by Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) activism, while the opposition is driven by organizational machinations. Surprisingly, even the language of left-wing parties seems more statist and bland. They lack imagination, while the BJP, although in power, appears to be an opposition force. The BJP offers a moral worldview; the opposition seems to have no worldview. Besides money, media and other factors, the reason the opposition is in trouble is that they strangely continue to run a lackluster campaign. This could well be because he is drawn into the echo chamber that Modi and his media have painstakingly constructed. Modi, with 30 percent support, managed to increase his support and stature. The opposition is not convinced that it can beat Modi’s credibility, which amounts to losing the battle before it is even fought.
The opposition must offer a narrative based on perspective – a story that connects the issues and does not leave them isolated. A moral perspective or worldview constructs the way life is or should be lived. The opposition is wary of the issue because Modi is turning it into a “70s narrative,” and they are not engaged enough because they want to play within the confines of corporate capitalism. The BJP-RSS offers a strong, emotional and “ethical” worldview on how “Indians” and “Hindus” should be recognized. In this, they tell the story of a Hindu historical wound, which already occupies the place of an oppressed striving for justice. This vast narrative is then woven into multiple stories, but the moot point is that they are all connected. With demonetization(where all banknotes over Rs 500 were canceled in an attempt to fight Corruption) it is about black money, the “war against terrorism”, the fight against the Maoists, and saaf niyat (pure intentions). The opposition might say that demonetization is a failed policy, but where is the history or worldview here? The failure of the demonetization policy should have been linked to the Modi government’s way of thinking and what can be expected from it in the years to come. Perhaps it could have made people think and evaluate.
A worldview must be lived, moral and experiential so that ordinary people can relate to it. He carries within him a folkloric character thanks to his ability to tell stories. Among the opposition leaders, Arvind Kejriwal of the Aam Admi Party (Chief Minister of Delhi) comes a little closer to this ability to provide a framework, a worldview and a story. For example, most political parties opposed the An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (CAA) as being unconstitutional and majoritarian in its discrimination against Muslims. Kejriwal, on the other hand, argued that the CAA would bring in people from other countries who would demand jobs and resources. Where will the BJP take them from? This offers a story that also defeats the Hindu-Muslim binary and converts it into an inside-outside binary perspective. Similarly, at the Delhi assembly, Kejriwal narrated the story of “chouthi passes Raja’ (uneducated king). This is the reason why Kejriwal is being hounded, he can tell a story that sticks. But what’s interesting is that Modi recognizes the potential of this narrative. Kejriwal had the potential to break the BJP’s Hindu vote bank, but also within the confines of the majority psyche.
Congress’s Rahul Gandhi has chosen to move beyond the logic of the majoritarian ethos, but this will require an even better story leading to a worldview. Defining an alternative in the context of a fossilized majority framework is not an easy task, unlike Kejriwal and most regional parties who have limited themselves to a more pragmatic option. Gandhi sometimes comes close to this ability to offer a story, but otherwise it is mostly ethical positions and critical commentary on individual issues. The BJP’s issues, policies, comments and campaigns are rarely linked. Rahul Gandhi, in a press conference, told the story of a king who had his soul in a bird. It linked the soul of Adani (Indian billionaire businessman) and the king, of course Modi. So Rahul came up with the view that if Modi is attacked, he stays silent, but if Adani is criticized, he asks the investigating agencies to hunt you down. Similarly, left-wing parties are mostly ideological in their criticism of stated principles. The problem is not being ideological, but failing to create a narrative. Class also has “moral foundations” and experiential dimensions. D. Raja, general secretary of the Communist Party of India (CPI), said at a recent event that his Bharat Mata was the lady who cleaned public toilets. This is powerful imagery that shatters masculinity into hypernationalism.
Throughout history, all dominant ideologies and regimes have been delegitimized by holding up a mirror to their demands. During the anti-colonial movement, Gandhi was the mirror of the liberal pretension of colonial power. The subversion must be internal to the dominant narrative. The Marxists dethroned the bourgeoisie by exposing its claims to universality. In the Indian case, the claim is about inclusiveness and Hindu ascendancy. Most parties have failed to find a way to delegitimize claims to Hindu supremacy. This was partly due to fear of a negative reaction from Hindus. Demagogues are strong not because of the narratives they offer, but because they are keenly aware of the limitations of those narratives. They are aware of the type of stories that can dislodge them. They therefore set the tone for the counter-narratives and frame it in such a way that the counter-narratives reinforce the dominant narratives.
The only way to break free from these shackles is to adopt a highly engaged worldview that offers the electorate a different and contrasting way of evaluating the issues at hand. Ten years was a long enough time for this lesson to be learned. This will remain an important lesson, whatever the results in 2024. The trick is to skillfully combine performance and perspective to create an alternative sense of reality. What creates effective campaign narratives is a complex question, but at least part of the explanation appears to lie in the ability to bring to life a campaign that can speak on multiple registers to different constituencies. The outcome of the 2024 general elections in India will allow us to deepen this reflection.
Further reading on international electronic relations
