By K Raveendran
The Bharatiya Janata Party’s increasingly combative response to protests demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar suggests that the ruling establishment is considerably less confident about its political invincibility than its public pronouncements would indicate. The extraordinary energy expended on dismissing the opposition’s mobilisation, coupled with renewed efforts to redraw political alliances, points to an underlying anxiety about the changing direction of the national political discourse.
Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s insistence that the Congress cannot win the 2029 parliamentary elections is particularly revealing. The immediate controversy concerns the credibility of the Election Commission, the integrity of electoral rolls and allegations of voter disenfranchisement. Yet the BJP’s response has repeatedly shifted towards the prospects of regime change, the electoral future of Narendra Modi and the supposed inability of the opposition to dislodge the government.
This is a significant political departure. A government entirely comfortable with its position would presumably concentrate on defending the electoral process and answering the specific questions raised by protesters. Instead, the ruling party has sought to transform a dispute over institutional accountability into another referendum on its own electoral supremacy. Such a response certainly provides grounds for questioning the confidence projected by the BJP leadership.
The agitation spearheaded by the Cockroach Janta Party at Jantar Mantar was initially directed against Gyanesh Kumar and the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Its significance lay in the possibility of transforming a technical dispute over electoral administration into a broader public movement questioning the impartiality of democratic institutions.
The BJP could have treated the agitation as an isolated protest with limited political consequences. Its decision to confront the campaign politically, however, has helped elevate the controversy beyond the Election Commission. The government’s critics have consequently found an opportunity to connect electoral grievances with larger questions about the relationship between constitutional institutions and executive power.
The November 1 rally at Delhi’s Ramlila Maidan brought this confrontation into sharper focus. The presence of Rahul Gandhi, Mallikarjun Kharge, Mamata Banerjee, Akhilesh Yadav and other opposition leaders demonstrated that the controversy had acquired sufficient political traction to bring together parties whose competing regional interests have frequently obstructed collective action.
The BJP’s reaction was strikingly disproportionate to its own assessment of the gathering. Party spokesperson Sambit Patra declared the rally a failure, arguing that approximately 40 per cent of the ground remained vacant. Other BJP leaders questioned the opposition’s crowd estimates and accused the organisers of exaggerating attendance through misleading imagery.
The actual attendance remains disputed, and there is no independently established figure that conclusively settles the argument. Nevertheless, the BJP’s determination to discredit the rally raises an obvious political question. If the gathering was genuinely inconsequential, why devote so much attention to demonstrating its insignificance?
The answer may lie in the distinction between immediate crowd strength and longer-term political momentum. A single rally does not determine electoral outcomes, but a sustained campaign around a grievance that resonates with voters can create an organisational platform extending well beyond the original controversy.
The BJP understands this distinction better than most political organisations. Its own ascent was assisted by movements that converted public dissatisfaction into sustained political mobilisation. It would therefore be unrealistic to assume that its leadership regards demonstrations involving several major opposition parties merely as spectacles without electoral implications.
There is another reason why the Ramlila Maidan mobilisation matters. Opposition unity has historically been most effective when parties discover a common issue capable of overriding their differences. Electoral integrity offers precisely such a platform because every opposition party has an interest in ensuring that voter registration, electoral administration and the counting process command public confidence.
The developments in Maharashtra provide a more concrete indication of the BJP’s strategic calculations. Barely a day after the opposition rally, senior leaders of the Ajit Pawar faction of the Nationalist Congress Party met Amit Shah amid discussions about the possibility of bringing the rival NCP factions together within the NDA.
The political significance of the initiative is unmistakable. Sharad Pawar’s participation in the opposition mobilisation gave the INDIA alliance additional credibility. A reunification of the NCP under the NDA umbrella would weaken that alignment while strengthening the ruling coalition’s position in Maharashtra.
Yet the proposed arrangement faces substantial obstacles. Differences within the Ajit Pawar faction, particularly over the roles of Sunetra Pawar and Parth Pawar, have complicated negotiations. NCP leaders have also disputed reports suggesting that reunification is imminent. The BJP’s apparent preference for consolidation therefore remains an objective rather than an accomplished political realignment.
The timing nevertheless deserves attention. Coalition engineering has long been central to the BJP’s political strategy, but the renewed emphasis on attracting opposition forces suggests an awareness that electoral dominance cannot be sustained indefinitely through ideological mobilisation alone.
Tamil Nadu presents another dimension of this calculation. Reports of possible issue-based cooperation between the BJP and the DMK, following the latter’s estrangement from Congress, indicate that political boundaries are becoming increasingly negotiable. Such cooperation would not necessarily constitute an alliance, but even limited parliamentary accommodation could weaken the opposition’s collective bargaining strength.
The BJP no longer possesses an independent Lok Sabha majority and depends on coalition partners to sustain its government. This makes the preservation and expansion of the NDA considerably more important than during the party’s earlier period of single-party dominance.
What the present confrontation reveals is not the certainty of a BJP defeat in 2029, but the erosion of the assumption that such a defeat is politically unimaginable. Amit Shah’s emphatic predictions, the relentless disparagement of the Ramlila Maidan rally and the simultaneous search for additional allies suggest a ruling party determined to prevent scattered opposition discontent from acquiring the force of a coordinated national challenge. (IPA Service)
