The shifting sands of I.N.D.I.A’s birth and evolution

Leaders of the opposition parties during the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA) meeting, in Mumbai, Friday, Sept. 1, 2023. (PTI)

The Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance or I.N.D.I.A was not birthed in the most propitious circumstances. From the start, doubts crept in over who would lead the coalition which spanned a large swathe of the Opposition.

The Congress which, as the single largest opposition constituent, should have logically helmed the formation was not acceptable to many of the regional parties that justifiably felt they could give the Congress a run for its money on their turfs.

The contradictions inherent in the political outlook of a national party like the Congress and its regional allies inevitably surfaced. On top of it, the question of how aggressive the coalition’s campaign against the BJP-led NDA ought to be still lingers.

A Difficult Start

Nonetheless, I.N.D.I.A’s  inaugural meet at Patna began in a spirit of euphoria, despite the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) playing spoiler because it felt that the Congress had still not spelt out its stand on the Delhi Services Bill, which essentially curbed its power in the governance of the national capital.

The feel-good sentiment was followed by the dawning of hard realities over seat-sharing, especially in problematic states like West Bengal, Punjab and Delhi, crafting a common minimum programme by consensus and going in for a logo that was eventually rejected at the next Bengaluru convention.

I.N.D.I.A’s most recent sitting in Mumbai took forward some of the outstanding issues,  sought to broaden the common ground and foster the alliance’s objective of defeating the BJP and narrow down the internal differences. It did not step into the slippery terrain of leadership, aware that a mention of Rahul Gandhi as the pilot of the ship was just what the BJP asked for.

The outcome of a presidential-style contest between BJP’s Narendra Modi and Rahul is a no-brainer, despite the Gandhi scion’s concerted efforts to repackage himself as a people’s person.

A Series Of Shocks

However, reality checks from Delhi were served on the Mumbai meet thick and fast.

First, the Centre announced that Parliament will meet for a special session from September 18 to 22. The Constitution does not define a special session but it is convened to commemorate parliamentary or national milestones.

The Opposition got into a tizzy because the government did not put out an agenda while speculations swirled around multiple possibilities including the passage of significant bills to legislate a common civil code, tweak the procedures in the appointment of a Central Election Commission or celebrate the success of Chandrayaan 3 and possibly the G20 summit and set the tone for the 2024 elections by enhancing PM Modi’s image as a “Vishwa Guru”.

Then the news arrived that Modi and the BJP were keen to take to fruition a pet preoccupation of the BJP for holding one simultaneous poll throughout the country in all the tiers down to the panchayats and municipalities as it existed before 1967. Sections of the Opposition saw the “one nation, one poll” idea as an attack on federalism because if implemented through a constitutional amendment, it implied that the tenure of many states would be curtailed.

That the government was serious about giving the idea a shot was manifestly clear when a panel headed by Ram Nath Kovind, the former President, was constituted to examine seven terms of reference. Among them was whether a constitutional amendment will have to be ratified by the states or can be passed by the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha by a simple or special majority.

What’s In A Name? Everything

I.N.D.I.A’s second big challenge came from the BJP/Centre’s intent to “change” the country’s name from India to Bharat. Again there were indications that the nomenclature change – the idea is in circulation days before the prestigious G20 summit in Delhi – was not a pie in the sky.

The dinner invites that went out from Rashtrapati Bhavan were in the name of the “President of Bharat” and not the President of India while a government booklet on the PM’s 20^th ASEAN-India and the 18^th East Asia summits alluded to Modi as the “PM of Bharat”.

The Centre’s spokesman, Union minister Anurag Thakur, adroitly skirted the matter. He dismissed the conjecture that the special session would stamp its seal on the name change, cautioning at the same time that those who dissented against the use of Bharat reflected a “certain mindset”.

Problems Aplenty For I.N.D.I.A

Read together with the stress on passing the civil code bill, Bharat is an integral part of the BJP’s cultural nationalism package crafted to not only appease the party’s faithful but a larger “nationalist” constituency.

I.N.D.I.A’s problem is if the government moves a parliamentary resolution to ratify the name change, what will the Congress and the other constituents do? Oppose and risk being called “anti-national” because Bharat, in the BJP’s world-view, is rooted in ancient Hindu civilisation?

Not the least of I.N.D.I.A’s problems is the controversy that emanated after DMK minister Udhayanidhi Stalin’s remarks against “Sanatan Dharma”. The BJP conflated Udhayanidhi’s attack with an assault on Hinduism, putting the other parties in a quandary on whether to support the DMK, an important ally, or distance themselves from the party.

Any which way, the post-Mumbai scenario presents a daunting challenge to I.N.D.I.A.

Radhika Ramaseshan is a senior journalist and columnist. She was the political editor at The Telegraph. Views are personal and do not represent the stand of this publication.