By Arun Srivastava
Rahul Gandhi’s strategy to mobilize people against Modi–Shah leadership and build a sustainable national alternative, remains a subject of intense debate among political analysts and observers. The realisation that saffron ecosystem is determined not to allow him the parliamentary system and space to articulate his views, he has noticeably shifted toward aggressive street-level activism and mass resistance. A prominent example is the INDIA alliance’s massive Ramlila Maidan rally on November 1 which successfully brought together diverse regional leaders to protest alleged institutional irregularities.
RSS, the think tank of the saffron ecosystem, is aware of the fact although the INDIA Bloc has closed ranks at the Ramlila Maidan, maintaining this momentum across upcoming state assembly elections remains a major challenging task. It is apparently fragile. Obviously the saffron strategists have chosen to engage Rahul on the confrontational pathway. Rahul’s strategy is not enough to pose a serious threat to Modi-Shah’s political moves. Shah’s street fight is a design to distract Rahul’s attention from the basic electoral realities and strive him for acquiring space on streets. This is the reason that ruling dispensation has responded aggressively to the opposition’s street movements.
Whether opposition’s mass mobilizations will successfully translate into a coherent political narrative capable of altering the national electoral equation will face its next major tests in upcoming state-level assembly election. It primarily depends on how Rahul used the available subjective as well as objective conditions to his advantage. The current political landscape in India features a highly polarized debate between the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the opposition INDIA bloc regarding strategies for the 2029 general elections. The narrative concerning a strategy to “rig” or heavily tilt the playing field for the 2029 election stems primarily from an intensifying conflict over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and the role of the Election Commission of India (ECI).
At Ramlila Ground rally, Rahul Gandhi stated that Modi could choose “any stage, any venue,” suggest any moderator (even suggesting RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat as the judge), and debate him on issues like the India-US trade deal, the Adani case, and the Jeffrey Epstein files. He punctuated his challenges with phrases like “Daro mat!” (Don’t be afraid). The motive behind Rahul’s open debate challenge to Modi was to directly counter his accusations that the Opposition is an “anti-national, obstructionist force” acting under the influence of foreign powers. On October 31 speaking at Rashtriya Ekta Diwas celebrations Modi had criticized the Opposition, labelling them an “Avrodh Paksh” (obstructionist bloc). He suggested that Opposition leaders were secretly meeting anti-India forces abroad to spread rumours, divide the country, and destabilize the nation.
In retaliation, Gandhi sought to flip the narrative. On November 2, he alleged that it was actually Modi who became and remains Prime Minister due to “foreign help,” claiming India’s financial structures and social media backing are controlled by overseas entities. Gandhi renewed his challenge to dare Modi to prove the anti-national allegations publicly. He stated the debate should take place in front of the media and the nation’s youth, offering to discuss several key issues.
Narendra Modi’s reluctance to comply to opposition’s demand to remove CEC Gyanesh Kumar, who is indispensable for him, ought to be seen in this backdrop. Rahul Gandhi has publicly levelled sharp accusations against Gyanesh Kumar at Ramlila Maidan, Gandhi alleging that Modi and Shah would not have formed the government without the influence of Gyanesh Kumar, accusing the CEC of compromising the electoral process. At the “Vote Bachao, Desh Bachao” mega rally at Ramlila Maidan, Rahul Gandhi alleged that the 2024 mandate for the Modi government was “illegal”. He claimed that roughly 130 to 133 million voters (about 15% of the electorate) were deleted from the voter lists. Describing the alleged electoral irregularities as “treason” rather than ordinary theft, Gandhi forecasted that Gyanesh Kumar would be removed from office and go to jail.
Gandhi asserted that the agitation would not stop at Gyanesh Kumar. He claimed the opposition would legally confront Modi and Shah next, asserting that they would not have assumed power without the CEC. Shah is focused on electoral performance is evident from his appreciating and depending on SIR. He had high words of appreciation for SIR. For Shah SIR exercise is a legitimate legislative process meant to clean up the voter database. They allege that Rahul Gandhi’s real motive in opposing it is to protect and register illegal infiltrators as voters for political gain. He has mocked the agitation, warning Rahul Gandhi to prepare for a “crushing defeat” for the fourth consecutive time in 2029. Though Shah points to its open strategies for 2029, which include a massive organizational shift toward younger leadership (“Gen Z overhaul”) his primary focus has been on preparing for the state and national elections.
Since Modi cannot directly remove Gyanesh Kumar from office due to constitutional protections, he could have asked him resign. Under Article 324(5) of the Indian Constitution, the CEC holds an autonomous position and cannot be simply dismissed by the Prime Minister or the executive government. Gujarati duo is aware of the fact that allowing Gyanesh would simply witness intensification of movement seeking his resignation. Even then while they are mentally prepared to face any kind of agitation than removing him office.
Looking at the changes it would be better to say that Gyanesh Kumar made U-turn on most of the sensitive issues. He reversed almost every decision the two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, had objected to in 14 notes over 10 months. In a significant development ECI has taken the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) declaration out of the online version of the statutory voter enrolment form. This would also not allow Gyanesh to carry out it design to criminalise voters by making them give wrong and false declaration. Earlier the applicant was to choose one of three statements: whether their name appeared in the electoral roll during the last SIR held in the early 2000s, whether the name of a parent or grandparent appeared in that roll, or whether neither their name nor that of their parents appeared in it. An applicant could not proceed without answering it.
Yet another significant U-turn has been Gyanesh Kumar amending its earlier order and its recent notification by which the Booth Level Officers (BLOs) will visit homes of such persons to collect documents and upload them for consideration. Such persons would not be required to attend physical hearings and that online facility would be provided to them, where it is necessary, camps would be arranged for vulnerable groups, including homeless people and those living in night shelters. Eligible persons, it said, could continue to apply for inclusion in the roll even after the SIR exercise is over.
A section of BJP leaders acknowledges that the party has temporarily lost ground in the ongoing political narrative and perception battle against the INDIA bloc of opposition parties. They also agree that the INDIA bloc has gained significant traction with campaigns targeting Gyanesh Kumar. Opposition narratives have found heavy resonance, especially among Gen Z and younger voters, outsmarting traditional WhatsApp blasts and TV-led messaging strategies. The compulsion to divert and digress opposition attention from the future elections has turned Modi-Shah desperate to hit streets.
When a ruling party organizes rallies to “protect democracy” or counter opposition protests, it signals a serious nature of contradiction. The core arguments from this perspective include: since the ruling party controls the state administration, law enforcement, and government institutions, it holds the primary responsibility to protect democratic norms and maintain order. Protesting against other while in power is nothing but evasion of governance responsibilities and sign of political weakness. BJP has organised counter-rallies to divert public attention from governance challenges, economic issues, or specific criticisms raised by the opposition. It is also a mechanism to disown the responsibility, accountability and transparency in governance. (IPA Service)
