Aligned and Non-aligned Opposition

Aligned and Non-aligned Opposition​

By: Amit Bhushan Date: 5th Feb. 2019

In the ‘dance of democracy’, every party and it’s Neta wants to throw his/her hat in the ring to take aim for the top job. There is an absence of any competency index for Netas that would measure them against some defined parameters, and this is designed to help some of the Netas and the same goes for policy-level discussions as well which again are proclaimed in a hazy manner. The fact is the challenger Netas and Parties have also kept it the same way rather than ‘democratizing the principles around Netadom’ and thus set stage for ‘family fiefdoms’ within the so called challenger parties as well. That ‘each party with the difference’ continues the same way hasn’t gone down well, however the ‘Game’ continues and even the ‘experiments’ like Common People’s party have been no aberration to this. The decibel levels of Dharna-pradarshans have definitely gone up along with the political fragmentation. From earlier basis regio-linguistic to later sociological/caste based divisions, and now we have political alignments basis economic classes as well and this is beginning to rise to prominence, rather fast. The urban as well as rural unemployment including the present status of tiny and small agriculturalists as well as non-landholding agri-dependent workers seem to be consolidating even more & more.

Incidentally, such fractious polity is also giving rise to political consciousness to consolidate as well otherwise, it may not be able to serve the goal of the Netas to capture/consolidate power. However, the Netas want to haggle (within their closed groups) to maintain their respective grip on power. In a democracy this is basis numbers, it is said. But nowhere is it said that those numbers should be obtained without any principles or guidelines, but absence of this being spelt prominently is an advantage for the Netas. However since ‘not following’ any principles or guideline suits the interest of Netadom and so ‘public’ needs to turn ‘Game’ to protect its interests and these articles in Management Paradise are just about the same. The opportunistic Netadom might be consolidating sensing a deeper fragmentation but a principled coalition would only shape up basis wide spreading of the declared policies/guidelines and is absent for now. The ‘bigger’ Netas are in wait and watch mode here and would only want to evolve some of these ‘partnerships’ post-elections, when it is a bit clearer that who are the ‘Real Netas’ or Survivors rather than risking any ‘self-made decisions’. This gives some very interesting political specuations around who are aligned opposition and for what (principles/policies) and who are the non-aligned opposition. The fact is the largest of political parties in opposition currently makes a show of doles & freebies with some empty rhetoric rather than some espoused principles with even things like ‘secularism’ as part of negotiable agenda post-elections.

While there is a clamour for ‘change’ in the areas that have been defined in previous articles, it may be noted that very little has been done to bring out and expose ‘corruption’/’policy lapses’ as the target of ‘change delivery boys’ remains ‘well-defined’. Since the ‘change’ is sought at a rather fixed level, so the ‘opposition’ seems to be rather flagging rather than consolidating as is being projected and hence the topic of this article. One of the key items ‘missing in action’ is the ‘state level leadership’ for most of the states and their performance pointers on key areas of public importance like jobs/agri & rural distress, which had come up as strong-point that decided the past elections. In fact it seems Netas have forgotten to think about ‘victory rationale’ and are rather concentrating on ‘winning rhetoric’ and feel that would take them ‘home (to meet their goal)’. The bye-election results of the largest state don’t seem to reiterate such line of thinking by any account for sure and this is likely to be true for the rest of the country as well. Let the ‘Game’ evolve….

 

[Dhruv Bindhani]

Aligned and Non-aligned Opposition​

By: Amit Bhushan Date: 5th Feb. 2019

In the ‘dance of democracy’, every party and it’s Neta wants to throw his/her hat in the ring to take aim for the top job. There is an absence of any competency index for Netas that would measure them against some defined parameters, and this is designed to help some of the Netas and the same goes for policy-level discussions as well which again are proclaimed in a hazy manner. The fact is the challenger Netas and Parties have also kept it the same way rather than ‘democratizing the principles around Netadom’ and thus set stage for ‘family fiefdoms’ within the so called challenger parties as well. That ‘each party with the difference’ continues the same way hasn’t gone down well, however the ‘Game’ continues and even the ‘experiments’ like Common People’s party have been no aberration to this. The decibel levels of Dharna-pradarshans have definitely gone up along with the political fragmentation. From earlier basis regio-linguistic to later sociological/caste based divisions, and now we have political alignments basis economic classes as well and this is beginning to rise to prominence, rather fast. The urban as well as rural unemployment including the present status of tiny and small agriculturalists as well as non-landholding agri-dependent workers seem to be consolidating even more & more.

Incidentally, such fractious polity is also giving rise to political consciousness to consolidate as well otherwise, it may not be able to serve the goal of the Netas to capture/consolidate power. However, the Netas want to haggle (within their closed groups) to maintain their respective grip on power. In a democracy this is basis numbers, it is said. But nowhere is it said that those numbers should be obtained without any principles or guidelines, but absence of this being spelt prominently is an advantage for the Netas. However since ‘not following’ any principles or guideline suits the interest of Netadom and so ‘public’ needs to turn ‘Game’ to protect its interests and these articles in Management Paradise are just about the same. The opportunistic Netadom might be consolidating sensing a deeper fragmentation but a principled coalition would only shape up basis wide spreading of the declared policies/guidelines and is absent for now. The ‘bigger’ Netas are in wait and watch mode here and would only want to evolve some of these ‘partnerships’ post-elections, when it is a bit clearer that who are the ‘Real Netas’ or Survivors rather than risking any ‘self-made decisions’. This gives some very interesting political specuations around who are aligned opposition and for what (principles/policies) and who are the non-aligned opposition. The fact is the largest of political parties in opposition currently makes a show of doles & freebies with some empty rhetoric rather than some espoused principles with even things like ‘secularism’ as part of negotiable agenda post-elections.

While there is a clamour for ‘change’ in the areas that have been defined in previous articles, it may be noted that very little has been done to bring out and expose ‘corruption’/’policy lapses’ as the target of ‘change delivery boys’ remains ‘well-defined’. Since the ‘change’ is sought at a rather fixed level, so the ‘opposition’ seems to be rather flagging rather than consolidating as is being projected and hence the topic of this article. One of the key items ‘missing in action’ is the ‘state level leadership’ for most of the states and their performance pointers on key areas of public importance like jobs/agri & rural distress, which had come up as strong-point that decided the past elections. In fact it seems Netas have forgotten to think about ‘victory rationale’ and are rather concentrating on ‘winning rhetoric’ and feel that would take them ‘home (to meet their goal)’. The bye-election results of the largest state don’t seem to reiterate such line of thinking by any account for sure and this is likely to be true for the rest of the country as well. Let the ‘Game’ evolve….

 

[Simran Rai]

This article offers a sharp reflection on the fragmented and evolving nature of Indian democracy, where the absence of clearly defined principles or a standardized competency index for political leaders allows opportunistic behavior to thrive. In this “dance of democracy,” every political leader aspires to the top position, yet there are no objective measures to judge their governance capabilities. This intentional vagueness benefits not just the ruling elite but also challenger parties, many of which have fallen into the same traps of dynastic politics and internal opaqueness. Movements like the Common People’s Party, which once promised structural change, have mirrored older parties by embracing similar patterns of personality cult and centralization.


Political fragmentation has shifted from regional and linguistic divides to sociological and economic fault lines. Unemployment—both rural and urban—along with distress among small farmers and non-landholding workers, has given rise to class-based political alignments. While this growing political consciousness could be a force for unification, most leaders are choosing to use it as leverage within closed groups, protecting their own power rather than the public interest. The absence of a public, principles-based framework for political coalitions means alliances are often stitched together based on short-term electoral math rather than long-term governance vision.


Despite the public demand for accountability in areas such as job creation, agricultural reform, and rural development, the opposition lacks cohesive leadership and policy clarity at the state level. The focus remains on rhetoric over results, with political parties prioritizing symbolic gestures and last-minute promises rather than tackling corruption or systemic lapses. Notably, principles like secularism, once central to political identity, have now become negotiable in the post-election calculus. The failure to learn from previous victories—where genuine public needs drove the outcome—is evident, and the recent bye-elections in major states suggest voters are no longer swayed by empty slogans. To break this cycle, the public must demand a shift toward principled politics and transparent policy commitments. Let the ‘Game’ evolve….​