Worldview – a way of thinking about the world – may be the fault line between the success of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the opposition’s fight to oust Modi, even after a decade of Modi’s rule. There are fundamental differences between the campaigns of the BJP and the opposition parties. Rather than campaigning on issues, the BJP presented a perspective and a worldview that not only provided a framework for dealing with contentious election issues, but also provided a framework that made it possible to analyze all other issues that were not necessarily directly related to the election. Frame of the problem. The BJP provides a point of view or a framework of analysis, while the Opposition only comments on the issue of independence without a point of view or narrative. Therefore, it can make conflicting claims and get away with it, and opposition criticism won’t stick because there’s no point of view. The BJP engaged in governance mobilization, while the opposition parties made the rebuttal appear legitimized and became part of the language of governance. This is most likely a result of the long-term rule of most opposition parties today, unlike the BJP which has only recently achieved this hegemony.
The BJP is driven by the radicalism of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), while the opposition is driven by organizational intrigue. Surprisingly, even the language of left-wing parties appears more authoritarian and bland. They lack imagination and the BJP, despite being in power, looks like an opposition force. The BJP offers a moral worldview; the opposition appears to have no worldview. In addition to money, media and other factors, the opposition is in trouble because its campaign has been lackluster. This is most likely because it has been drawn into the echo chamber carefully constructed by Modi and his media. Modi has successfully expanded his support and status with an approval rate of 30%. The opposition does not believe in its credibility to defeat Modi, as if it has lost the war before it has even been fought.
The opposition needs to provide a perspective-based narrative—a story that connects the issues without siling them. A perspective or moral worldview structures a way of life or way of life. The opposition is wary of the issue because Modi has turned it into a “70-year narrative” and they are not investing enough as they want to play within the confines of corporate capitalism. The BJP-RSS offers a strong, emotive and “moral” worldview of how “Indians” and “Hindus” need to be recognized. In it, they have a story of Hindu historical harm, which has taken the place of the loser in the fight for justice. This big narrative is then woven into multiple narratives, but the arguable point is that they are all interconnected. With demonetisation (all notes above Rs 500 were abolished in an effort to combat corruption), it touches on black money, the “war on terror”, the fight against Maoists, and Savniat (Pure intention). The opposition may say demonetization is a failed policy, but where is the story or worldview here? The failure of the demonetization policy should be related to the thinking of the Modi government and its expectations in the coming years. This may trigger people’s thinking and evaluation.
A worldview must be life-oriented, moral and experiential in order to resonate with the average person. Its storytelling ability has a folk flavor. Among opposition leaders, Arvind Kejriwal of the Aam Aadmi Party (chief minister of Delhi) comes closer to this ability to provide a framework, a worldview and a story. For example, most political parties oppose the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), arguing that it is unconstitutional and discriminatory against Muslims. Kejriwal, on the other hand, believes that CAA will bring in people from other countries who need jobs and resources. Where will the BJP take them from? This provides a story that also defeats the Hindu-Muslim binary and transforms it into an internal-external binary perspective. Similarly, in the Delhi Assembly, Kejriwal narrated the story of the “chouthi pass Raja” (uneducated king). That’s why Kejriwal is being hunted, he can tell an impressive story. But what’s interesting is that Modi recognized the potential of this kind of storytelling. Kejriwal has the potential to crack the BJP’s Hindu vote bank, but within the limits of majority psychology.
The Congress party’s Rahul Gandhi has chosen to transcend the logic of majority ethics, but this requires a better story to guide the worldview. It will not be easy to craft alternatives in the context of a rigid majoritarian framework, unlike Kejriwal and most regional parties, who limit themselves to more pragmatic options. Gandhi occasionally came close to this ability to provide a story, but otherwise it was mostly moral stances and critical commentary on personal issues. The issues, policies, comments and activities of the BJP are rarely interconnected. Rahul Gandhi told a press conference the story of a king whose soul rested in a bird. He connects Adani (Indian billionaire) with the soul of the king and of course Modi. So Rahul put forward a view that if Modi is attacked, he will remain silent, but if Adani is criticized, he will let the investigative agencies come after you. Likewise, left-wing parties are mostly ideological in their criticism surrounding established principles. The problem is not ideology but a failure to create a narrative. Class also has a “moral basis” and has an experiential dimension. Communist Party of India (CPI) General Secretary D. Raja said at a recent event that his Bharat Mata is the lady who cleans public toilets. It is a powerful image that explodes the masculinity of hyper-nationalism.
Historically, all dominant ideologies and regimes have been delegitimized by their claims. In the anti-colonial movement, Gandhi was the mirror of the colonial powers’ self-proclaimed liberalism. Disruption must be intrinsic to the dominant narrative. Marxists overthrow the bourgeoisie by exposing its universality. In the case of India, the claim is for the inclusivity and superiority of Hinduism. Most political parties have failed to find a way to delegitimize claims to Hindu supremacy. Part of the reason is fear of a Hindu backlash. Demagogues are powerful not because of the narratives they set, but because they are acutely aware of the limitations of those narratives. They know what narratives can drive them away. Thus, they set the tone of the counternarrative and construct it in such a way that the counternarrative reinforces the dominant narrative.
The only way out of this constraint is to espouse a worldview that offers voters a different and contrasting way to evaluate the issues of the day. Ten years is long enough to learn this lesson. Whatever the outcome in 2024, this remains an important lesson. What creates an effective campaign narrative is a complex question, but at least part of the explanation appears to lie in the ability to enliven a campaign that speaks to different voters in multiple veins. The results of India’s 2024 general election will make us reflect on this further.
Further reading on electronic international relations