Election fever two years too early

Political parties appear to have entered election mode far too early, putting political calculations ahead of governance. From disruptions in legislatures and attacks on police to selective outrage over Vande Mataram, caste and religious issues, the race for votes is already shaping public discourse. But governance cannot wait for another election.

All political parties seem to have gone into election mode this time, almost two years ahead of the Lok Sabha elections. This is certainly not a healthy trend. When political parties start preparing for the next election long before the previous one has even faded from public memory, governance inevitably takes a back seat.

Normally, political parties begin fine-tuning their election strategies about a year before the polls. But this time, they appear to be behaving as though elections could be held tomorrow. The result is that Parliament, state Assemblies and even routine governance are increasingly being treated as extensions of the electoral battlefield.

We have seen how opposition parties have disrupted proceedings in Parliament. The same strategy appears to have travelled to the Telangana Assembly, where the BRS, during the ongoing monsoon session, seems to have allowed political ego to take precedence over rules, debate and decorum.

The latest trend is equally disturbing: blame the police whenever protests turn unruly. Political leaders allege that the police behaved in a high-handed manner, conveniently forgetting that it is the same police force that they themselves dealt with when they were in power. The police do not change their uniform, responsibilities, or operating procedures depending on which party is protesting.

Yet, leaders are heard threatening officials: “We are keeping note of everyone’s name and will not spare you once we are back in power.”

This is not democracy. It is intimidation masquerading as politics.

Some leaders also seem to believe that they have an unrestricted right to push, abuse, or even attack police personnel on duty, irrespective of whether the officer is a man or woman, and then turn around and accuse the police of manhandling them. What exactly do they expect the police to do? Lay a red carpet for protesters?

The police are not there to become punching bags for politicians. They have a responsibility to maintain law and order and follow instructions from their superiors. If a protest crosses the line, the police must respond. Political leaders cannot demand that the police remain passive spectators while protesters violate rules.

Whether it is the Assembly elections due next year or 2028 or the 2029 Lok Sabha elections, the opposition appears ready to build its campaign around issues such as “smash the patriarchy”, caste discrimination and opposition to the decision of Parliament on Vande Mataram.

Defying a decision taken by Parliament is not a small political disagreement. It sets a dangerous precedent and undermines the authority and sanctity of the institution. Those who never tire of waving copies of the Constitution need to answer a simple question: what respect do they have for Parliament?

If elected representatives themselves refuse to respect a law passed by the legislature, how can they claim that they alone are the protectors of the Constitution and democracy?

It is particularly shocking that the Karnataka government has ordered that only the first two stanzas of Vande Mataram be sung at state events, with exceptions for programmes attended by the President, Vice-President, Prime Minister or Governor. Chief Minister D K Shivakumar has justified the decision in the name of uniformity, dignity and appropriate protocol. Frankly, this explanation does not pass the smell test. It looks far more like electoral calculation than protocol.

The brazenness with which the grand old party appears to challenge Parliament suddenly disappears when the issue involves the hardline position taken by Kerala Grand Mufti Sheikh Abu Bakr Ahmed. He reportedly said that women should remain confined to their homes and stay away from public spaces and, invoking Sharia, said that for them Sharia comes first, not the Constitution.

Where is the same outrage?

It appears that neither the AICC nor Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi want to ruffle the feathers of the Muslim community. Kerala Opposition Leader V D Satheesan did call the Grand Mufti’s statement that women entering the public sphere would “lead to destruction” regressive. But where is the unequivocal political condemnation?

Why is the Congress unable to tell its ally, the IUML, clearly that such statements are unacceptable in a constitutional democracy? At the same time, it does not have the courage to say that it endorses the Mufti’s position. The Congress cannot have its cake and eat it too. It must take a clear stand. This becomes even more relevant when the Congress repeatedly denies indulging in appeasement politics. If that denial is genuine, then why did the party fail to stand by young TV journalist Aparna Kurup, who strongly criticised the cleric’s position while anchoring a discussion on the controversy?

Kurup referred to what some supposedly claim is permissible under the Quran. Her comments immediately triggered outrage, with allegations that they were offensive to Islam and capable of hurting religious sentiments. An FIR was subsequently filed against her. The question is simple: will the Congress and other opposition parties display the same speed and determination when people criticise Vande Mataram, Sanatana Dharma, or make sweeping allegations that Hindus are castist?

Selective outrage is not secularism. Selective silence is not social justice.

The Karnataka government’s decision on Vande Mataram also appears to be a direct fallout of the Congress Working Committee’s position. The CWC has said it would follow the 1926 resolution to drop two stanzas which, according to the party, could offend Muslims.

But what is the oppn afraid of?

Why is it so determined to turn the singing of the full version of Vande Mataram into a political controversy? A large section of the Muslim community is not opposed to singing all its stanzas. Even Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah has said that if the Congress and opposition parties had objections, they should have stopped it from becoming law in Parliament. Having failed to do so, he said, there was little point in opposing it now. He also supported singing all the stanzas at official events since it was mandatory.

Yet the Karnataka Chief Minister seems unwilling to go against the AICC line. It increasingly looks like a case of “my way or the highway”.

The opposition is also likely to push another electoral narrative—that caste discrimination, including the practice of keeping separate cups at tea stalls for upper castes and SCs and STs, is still widespread across India.

There may certainly be isolated pockets where such practices continue, and they must be condemned wherever they exist. But portraying such incidents as the defining reality of India today is another matter. The opposition seems keen to convert every such incident into a political weapon to consolidate SC and ST votes. The real question is whether voters will accept it. Consider the controversy involving Shivakumar at a breakfast meeting at an agricultural produce market. He was seen eating from a steel plate and drinking tea from a glass while others used plastic plates and paper cups. The Congress dismissed the matter as trivial, saying someone must have done it without any mala fide intention.

Even if one accepts that explanation, the Chief Minister could have sent a simple message by asking the organisers to treat him exactly like everyone else and provide him with the same plate and cup. Leadership is also about symbolism.

The opposition, therefore, has much to ponder before finalising its election strategy. But the BJP and the NDA cannot afford to sit back and celebrate the opposition’s mistakes. They too have serious homework to do.

The government must improve accountability and put systems in place to curb corruption at various levels in civic bodies and government departments. Illegal constructions and building collapses cannot become annual features of urban India.

One spell of heavy rain and several states descend into chaos. Roads flood, buildings become vulnerable, civic systems collapse, and governments begin blaming the weather. The problem is not merely the rain. It is the systemic failure that precedes it.

The NDA government cannot afford to remain trapped in the “chalta hai” syndrome. If India has to achieve the goal of becoming a developed nation by 2047, governance must be as serious as the political ambition.

Political parties have every right to prepare for elections. But the country cannot be governed permanently in an election mode. The people did not elect governments merely to see them campaign for the next election. They expect them to govern—and govern well.

If political parties spend the next two years preparing for 2029, who will spend those two years preparing India for 2047?

(The author is former Chief Editor of The Hans India)

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

V Ramu Sarma

website user[email protected]