By Arun Srivastava
After a three month dispassionate hawk-watch on the course of the students’ protest, Narendra Modi and Amit Shah have finally worked out a reeky strategy to attack Congress and Rahul Gandhi and persecute the student leaders and disavow their fundamental right guaranteed by Constitution to dissent and protest by forcing them sign a malodorous peace-bond with the dubious intention to weaponise preventive mechanism.
These two strategies manifest complete administrative and political bankruptcy of the government leadership. Protesters are required to sign a peace bond when executive authorities have sufficient information or grounds to believe they are likely to commit a wrongful act, cause a breach of the peace, or disturb public tranquillity. They are made to sign peace-bond when the agitators are found to have a history of engaging in confrontational conduct or violent protest. None of the protesters whether it was Abhijit Dipke, Saurabh Das or Rank or even Neha Bora have any such record. Before making them sign, the authorities must be in possession of sufficient material and evidences of they are likely to commit a breach of the peace, disturb public tranquility, or engage in an unlawful assembly.
Ironically without addressing the core concern of the disenfranchisement of nearly 18 crore voters and evolving a mechanism to fulfil the aspiration and needs of the people, Modi coined the new word “parjeevi” (parasite) to malign and discredit Rahul Gandhi alleging that they utterly lack political credibility and does not enjoy the trust of the people and simply aim to create disorder and undermine public progress. Apparently their strategy look like sending strong political messaging and active campaign planning against Rahul, but in reality it manifests utter lack of self-confidence and Modi’s desperation to keep the situation under his control which has already slidden out of his grip.
Yet another vital component of Modi govt strategy has been dismissing the allegations of “vote theft”. If they concede to the opposition demand it would turn Modi-Shah combine more vulnerable and strengthen the public perception that Rahul has been right. It would not only blunt Modi’s attack on Rahul, instead will add to the public perception that Modi government has been an illegal government as it has come to power by committing “vote theft”. It would further weaken the moral strength of Modi.
Rahul Gandhi is likely to unfold his protest strategy at the November 1 rally at Ram Lila Maidan in Delhi. His focus has been on issue-based warfare, pivoting toward tactical aggression and operational precision and on the saffron ideological rhetoric. With Modi making a strategy shift Rahul has to bring about some major strategical shift. Populist rhetoric attracts peoples’ attention more fast that a thorough dissection of ideology. He has to assimilate the ideological and political bankruptcy of saffron ecosystem with the prevailing binary to counter the ruling establishment on structural grounds. This strategic evolution must rely on calculated, highly pragmatic moves designed to hit the government where it counts:
Rahul could counter BJP’s organizational machinery, by attempting a programmatic expansion to capture younger demographics. He has to ensure that his new strategy should aim to translate the generic appeal of the Bharat Jodo Yatra into a permanent digital and institutional pipeline targeting Gen Z and Gen Alpha. Instead of focusing on classical high-level political theories, his strategy must consolidate around the hard mathematics of the OBC, Dalit, and tribal vote banks. In crucial states like Uttar Pradesh, the messaging relies on concrete promises regarding reservations, social justice, and systemic inequality rather than broad anti-establishment lecturing. He must identify with the needs and aspirations of the poor, Dalits and minorities.
Modi government decision not to remove Gyanesh Kumar may backfire providing a boost to Rahul’s strategy. Contrary to Modi-Shah’s strategy it may strengthen the public perception that Gyanesh has been instrumental in bringing BJP governments at centre and also in the states by manipulating the electoral process. This would prove to be disadvantageous for Modi and Shah. It is worth mentioning that in his first remarks on the agitation demanding Gyanesh’s resignation and the scrapping of SIR, Shah had accused the Congress of pursuing negative politics and said it needed to introspect rather than rely on what he described as fabricated media events.
Modi’s entire thrust under the strategy has been to discredit Rahul and prove that he is unable to rule. This is part of the strategy to downgrade his image as the future prime minister. Once the image of Rahul gets a boost, the possibility of Modi’s ouster from politics will strengthen. And Modi is scared of this scenario. His reference to Rahul as a failed political product was an attempt to shift the political debate from the government’s performance to the credibility, leadership and judgment of its principal challenger.
Little doubt Rahul has to be more aggressive and mobilise of young people around protests against the Chief Election Commissioner and the SIR adds another dimension. Youth participation will give an institutional controversy a wider public resonance. It is absolutely clear that youth will not accept lying down the verdict of ECI and Gyanesh. They will protest any misadventure. Opposition parties, precisely Rahul ensure that street mobilisation must translate into a coherent political argument supported by concrete evidence to influence public opinion.
There is no ambiguity that the intensifying protest over the SIR prompted Modi’s latest attack on the Congress. Modi had earlier tried to use some independent youth and student organisations to blunt Rahul’s initiative, but the strategy failed. This youth and student determination for a fundamental change will be on test during the assembly elections in Manipur, Goa, Punjab, Uttarakhand, and Uttar Pradesh in 2027.
Already scared of the developing situation to dismantle the opposition’s momentum, the BJP launched a massive nationwide outreach program running from October 22 to November 5, 2026. BJP running short of ideas is also evident in Modi’s endeavour to remind the public of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. It is an attempt to weaponize historical fault lines, as Congress will hold a major rally on November 1, to remind the people of Sikhs killing in October 1984 and accusing Rahul of insensitively “rubbing salt on the wounds of the Sikh community” to score political points
There is no denying that attacking saffron ideology directly is insufficient for the opposition and Rahul, and that its core support base must instead be dismantled. His ideological attacks against the BJP and RSS often fail to dent their core support base due to a combination of voter priorities, narrative mismatches, and organizational realities. Saffron ecosystem’s Hindu-Muslim binary and its politics of communalism and divisiveness has percolated so deep to make any substantive difference.
Bourgeoning middle class and neo middle class has blurred ideology. His core strategy to attack the RSS and BJP relies heavily on an ideological, institutional, and identity-focused blueprint. His political narrative has shifted from purely policy-based criticism to framing the conflict as a civilisational battle over the soul and structure of India. Positioning the Congress/INDIA alliance as the sole defenders of the Constitution against what he describes as attempts by the BJP-RSS to destroy it, will not help.
Whether the attack has been “effective” depends on how success is measured. If the goal was to completely dismantle the BJP’s moderate voter base, the impact has been limited, as the BJP remains a dominant political force. However, if the goal was to check the BJP’s electoral momentum, consolidate the opposition, and peel away specific vulnerable segments of the floating electorate, the strategy demonstrated measurable efficacy in recent electoral cycles. Whether Rahul will achieve his political objectives remains highly debated as his path depends on shifting coalition dynamics, public sentiment, and the electoral strength of the BJP. (IPA Service)
