In the noisy, crowded landscape of Nepali politics, the meteoric rise of Prime Minister-designate Balendra Shah and his party, the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), represents a rare political anomaly. While veterans of the 2008 republic traded barbs, the rapper-engineer-turned-mayor bypassed traditional campaigning for a “monastic” silence. His victory in Nepal’s post-Gen Z parliamentary election on March 5 secured a historic mandate for an alternative force he joined a mere six weeks before the polls. Throughout the campaign, Shah spoke for barely thirty minutes, avoided media interviews and notably never once asked for a vote.

His unapologetic critiques of the political establishment during his tenure as Kathmandu’s mayor, mirrored a generation exhausted by stale ideological party politics. In a nation with a median age of twenty-five, Shah’s reputation as a disciplined, clean reformist promising better governance became a viral mandate. His calculated silence mirrored these frustrations, positioning him as the ultimate outsider for an electorate eager for results.

Beyond domestic politics

While capitalising on domestic old-guard fatigue served Shah as a winning electoral strategy, Nepal’s hard geopolitical reality remains stubbornly unchanged. In Nepal, political shifts rarely remain purely domestic, often prompting debates about foreign influence given its geography wedged between the rivalries of India and China.

Yet, Shah, however has sought to counter this by projecting an image of a staunch nationalist. As mayor, his symbolism was deliberate: hanging a “Greater Nepal” map in his office as a direct retort to the “Akhand Bharat” mural in India’s new Parliament House, and briefly banning Indian films. Simultaneously, he signaled caution toward Beijing by dropping a China-backed industrial park from his election manifesto. By distancing himself from large-scale geopolitical projects, Shah reframed the narrative, asserting a sovereignty that felt local, visible, and unapologetically independent.

Balancing ties with India and China

Historically, Nepal’s politics followed rigid ideological scripts. The Nepali Congress, the country’s oldest liberal force, leaned toward Delhi, while communist factions like CPN- UML maintained proactive affinities with Beijing. And at times, the ideological rhetoric from Kathmandu stretched far beyond the Himalayas, from debates over Venezuela’s regime change to contentious political statements on the Ukraine war, issues largely peripheral to Nepal’s own priorities. Under Shah, this era of predictable ideological signaling may finally be fading. His minimalist approach and by speaking less about the world’s ideological battles, Shah’s personality itself can be potent strategic asset to Nepal, but it is immediately replaced by a different kind of geopolitical pressure that needs sustained diplomatic communique.

India remains Nepal’s most consequential partner, linked by an open border, “Roti-Beti” social bonds, and accounting for a significant share of its trade, supplying virtually all of its petroleum, and emerging as the primary market for Nepal’s burgeoning hydropower exports. Meanwhile, China has deepened its footprint through major infrastructure financing, such as $216 million Pokhara International Airport. Intended as a regional gateway, its underutilisation is viewed in Kathmandu as a casualty of the broader India-China friction, particularly New Delhi’s hesitancy to facilitate air routes for Chinese-financed infrastructure.

This is perhaps inaugural diplomatic crucible for Balendra Shah. Having invested heavily, Nepal cannot afford for such massive infrastructure to remain a “white elephant.” The “monastic” outsider must now navigate a landscape where India is indispensable and China is influential. Meanwhile, Washington, a development cornerstone for seven decades, has pivoted from an aid partner to a high-stakes strategic interest partner, with recent post-election congratulations explicitly hinting at “shared security goals.”

But the first “baptism by fire” for the Shah administration may well lie in the volatile West Asia. With millions of Nepalese migrants’ lives and critical energy lifelines tied to the Persian Gulf caught in an escalating US-Israel-Iran War, India’s logistical depth as a regional first responder offers an indispensable synergy for contingency planning to Kathmandu. This is where Balen’s nationalist doctrine must meet the hard reality of strategic pragmatism. The new leadership remains untested in conventional diplomacy.

An opportunity for India

This moment offers a rare opening for New Delhi to recalibrate. India must move past the coercive shadow of the 2015 blockade and what is widely perceived in Kathmandu as outdated impulse for political micromanagement. New Delhi must recognise this transition not as a tilt away from divergence from India preferences but as a new opening for modern partnership that respects the domestic rise of ‘Nepal First’ politics. Shah’s mandate mirrors India’s own tectonic shift in 2014; in Shah, Nepal has found its “strongman” archetype, a leader whose personal charisma and promise of technocratic reform have dismantled a decades-old establishment. Whether this energy can be institutionalised remains to be seen, but for now, the “choreography” of diplomacy must account for a significantly more complex script.

In the end, Nepal’s geopolitical reality remains unchanged even as its politics transform at home. India’s proximity will always matter most, China’s influence will remain structural reality, and world powers like the U.S. will continue to pursue its strategic interests with renewed rigor. Ultimately, Nepal’s voters were not adjudicating between global strategies, but seeking domestic renewal. For Balendra Shah and the RSP, bashing the “old guard” is a potent domestic strategy, but it carries zero currency in the cold-eyed theater of international relations.

While the streets celebrate a new era, the ‘multipolar crosshairs’ of the Himalayas remain unforgiving. Balendra Shah represents a rare, raw moment of new possibility. To ensure that this is not just a brief pause before the old guard returns, Nepal’s new leaders must trade populist fumes for ‘strategically sober’ diplomacy. Because in a crowded neighbourhood, the unstrategic nationalist can quickly become someone else’s strategy.

(Bibek Raj Kandel is an analyst and AsiaGlobal Fellow at the University of Hong Kong and a graduate of Harvard Kennedy School.)

Published – March 23, 2026 10:50 pm IST

New Delhi:

Making strong observations on the practice of political parties announcing freebies ahead of elections, the Supreme Court has said people are “not willing to work” because of them and wondered whether a “class of parasites” was being created in the country. 

Hearing a matter on the right to shelter of homeless persons in urban areas, a bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih said people were getting ration and money without working.

“Rather than promoting them to be a part of the mainstream of the society by contributing to the development of the nation, are we not creating a class of parasites?” the bench asked. 

Pulling no punches, Justice Gavai referred to the ‘Ladki Bahin’ scheme in Maharashtra – under which women in the age group of 21-65 with an annual family income of less than Rs 2.5 lakh get Rs 1,500 per month – and similar programmes run by ruling parties in other states and said,  “Unfortunately, because of these freebies, which just on the anvil of elections are declared, like ‘Ladki Bahin’ and other schemes, people are not willing to work… They are getting free ration and money without doing any work.”

“We quite appreciate your concern for them but would it not be better to make them a part of the mainstream of society and permit them to contribute to the development of the nation?” the bench asked.

When Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for one of the petitioners, said there was hardly anybody in the country who did not want to work if they got work, he was interrupted by Justice Gavai, who went on to cite an example. 

“You must be having only one-sided knowledge. I come from an agricultural family. Because of the freebies in Maharashtra which they announced just prior to elections, agriculturists are not getting labourers,” he said. 

‘Need For Balance’

The bench noted that everybody, including Attorney General R Venkataramani, was on the same page that providing shelter to the homeless merited attention but asked, “At the same time, should it not be balanced?” 

Mr Venkataramani said the Centre was finalising the urban poverty alleviation mission, which would tackle issues like providing shelter to the urban homeless. The bench asked the Attorney General for a timeline and also said the Centre should gather information from all states so that the issue could be considered on a pan-India basis.

When one of the petitioners said the cause of the homeless was not being addressed as it was last on the priority and that the authorities showed compassion only for the rich and not the poor, his arguments were shot down by Justice Gavai. 

“Don’t make a political speech here. We won’t permit our courtrooms to be converted into (an arena for) political battle… How do you say the compassion is shown only for the rich? Even for the government, how can you say this?” 

The matter will now be heard after six weeks. 

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has spoken out against freebies. In December, a bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Manmohan was surprised when it was informed by the Centre that 81 crore people are being given free or subsidised ration under the National Food Security Act of 2013. 

On migrant workers who have been receiving free ration since the Covid pandemic, the bench had said, “For how long can freebies be given? Why don’t we work to create job opportunities, employment and capacity building for these migrant workers?”

Delhi High Court’s Refusal

The Supreme Court’s observations came on a day when the Delhi High Court refused to hear a petition filed by a former judge against freebies promised by the Aam Aadmi Party, Congress and BJP ahead of the Delhi Assembly elections on February 5.

In his complaint, Justice SN Dhingra said such promises made by parties amounted to corrupt practices under the Representation of People Act and sought directions to the Election Commission to declare them “unconstitutional”. The high court asked the former judge to approach the Supreme Court after it was told that a similar case was already pending before it. 

The distribution of freebies has also become a political issue and Prime Minister Narendra Modi has frequently attacked the AAP, Congress and other parties, accusing them of trying to buy people’s votes by distributing “revdis”. Hitting back, the parties have attacked the BJP-led government’s track record on inflation and unemployment and said there is nothing wrong with taxpayer money being used to make people’s lives easier. 

(With inputs from PTI)

As we reach almost the end of the first month of the new year, the Congress government in Karnataka completes 20 months in office—a third of its 60-month (five-year year) term. The next 20 months will decide the fate of the government in the state. 

One notices that most regimes in Karnataka tend to slip perilously in the second phase of their terms, often due to a drift in governance and loss of focus. Ultimately, they find it difficult to recover from this non-performance and are shown the door. This explains the revolving-door politics seen in Karnataka since 1985, where no ruling party has been able to secure a clear majority at the end of its term.

Three principles define and decide the success of a state government: efficiency in governance, unity in the ruling party, and social harmony. A review of past governments would indicate that they failed to abide by all or at least two of these principles. 

Respond To Aspirations

There is enough empirical evidence to show that across the country, governments have been returned to power when voters perceive a dispensation to have performed reasonably well on key indicators of governance. A Lokniti post-poll study done in Karnataka after the 2024 Lok Sabha election shows that if the Congress was able to return to its 2014 Lok Sabha tally (nine seats), it had a lot to do with citizens’ perception of the implementation of its key guarantees. Its improved performance among women voters also underlines this trend. The Congress’s clean sweep in the recent by-elections was, along with other significant factors, also largely because of these guarantees. Thus, a focus on governance that responds to the aspirations of different segments of society is a sure route to success.

How public perception changes amid scandals and controversies involving the government and its leaders is also an issue. In the past, this factor has shifted the government’s attention away from governance to fire-fighting and damage control measures. The current government in Karnataka is facing a similar challenge currently. Will the next 20 months see it somewhat tiding over allegations of misuse of power, or will they further dent the image of the government?

Don’t Frustrate Voters

A second crucial element that has in the past derailed ruling parties is disunity. Electoral victories have been won on the basis of party unity. Sometimes, voters, frustrated by incessant infighting within a ruling party, may boot it out of power. The Congress had fought the 2023 assembly elections as a united force. Setting aside differences on who should be the Chief Minister, the focus was on coming to power first and then resolving the issue. On the other hand, divisions within the previous incumbent, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), were all too visible during its campaign for the elections. Now, though the ruling Congress has somewhat managed to resolve the leadership issue within its own ranks with an understanding between the top two leaders, internal strife has reared its head frequently and the top brass has had to intervene from time to time. The shadow boxing, mainly between the supporters of Siddaramaiah and D.K. Shivakumar, is patently visible. What has worked so far to the advantage of the Congress is that the state unit of the BJP is equally bogged down by infighting. 

The next 20 months would be crucial for both players. Past experience has shown amply that incessant internal squabbles can cost parties. While a stable leadership is important, it also needs to be smooth and demonstrate policy continuity.

Build Confidence—And Harmony

The third and final element of governance, social harmony, is a by-product of several factors. It requires maintaining law and order, the safety of women, religious peace, cordial relations between caste groups at the grassroots, and containing social acrimony. Achieving this implies that any ruling party will have to take a proactive approach and build confidence among all stakeholders. In the coming 20 months, one would look for indications of the same. Any lapse here can seriously erode public confidence.

(Dr. Sandeep Shastri is the National Coordinator of the Lokniti Network)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

Barely six months after its forceful rise on the national political horizon, the Indian National Development Inclusive Alliance (INDIA), formed by diverse parties united by the sole ideological adhesive—an anti-Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) sentiment—is now tottering on the verge of disintegration.

The outcome of the general elections, where the alliance fell 60 seats short of the strength acquired by the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance, provided a significant boost to the combined opposition. The alliance’s strength was enough to counter the Narendra Modi government’s proclivity to pass laws unchallenged. A collective opposition of around 20 parties led to crucial bills—such as those on Waqf properties and One Nation One Election—being referred to parliamentary panels for detailed scrutiny.
However, by 2025, distinct grumbling voices from within the alliance suggested that it was in a state of drift, lacking demonstrable leadership, with the Congress failing to provide coordination. This discontent became more pronounced when a few constituents endorsed the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), which is gearing up for the Delhi Assembly elections on February 5.  

An Implosive System

The drifting state of the alliance, the Congress’s unwillingness to accommodate its partners in the Haryana assembly elections, and its current stance as a challenger to AAP in Delhi, highlight the inherent contradictions within this arrangement. Over the past decade, the AAP has captured the imagination of Delhi’s residents, filling the political space that was once dominated by Congress. The AAP is now on the verge of equalling the Congress’s record of forming a government in Delhi for three consecutive terms. The 15-year run of the Congress between 1998 and 2013 was halted by the rise of the AAP, formed by Arvind Kejriwal and his fellow travellers on an “anti-corruption” bandwagon. The Congress, now desperate to regain some of the ground it lost, is back in the fray.

AAP convenor and former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has declared that the party has secured support from Mamata Banerjee’s Trinamool Congress and endorsement from other INDIA allies. Meanwhile, the BJP, hoping to form a government in Delhi after 26 years, is playing up these differences within the INDIA bloc.

Parliament vs. Assemblies

Two clear strands have emerged over the past six months. The combined alliance in Parliament is different from its ability to accommodate constituents in state assembly elections. As the largest party in the alliance, other constituents expect the Congress to be magnanimous, without expecting reciprocity.

On January 9, Kejriwal was emphatic in declaring that the INDIA bloc was non-existent in Delhi, where the contest is primarily between the AAP and the BJP. His comments echoed the sentiments of Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) leader Tejashwi Yadav, who recently stated that the alliance was meant for Lok Sabha elections. This is part of the RJD’s posturing ahead of the Bihar assembly polls due this autumn. In Jammu and Kashmir, Chief Minister Omar Abdullah went a step further, suggesting that the alliance should either define clear contours of engagement in states or disband entirely.

The Congress is under attack as allies mount pressure to hand over the mantle of leadership to another player, unwilling as they are to be led by the Grand Old Party. The voices grew louder after the Congress failed to regain power in Haryana in October, which cost it a significant bargaining chip in the subsequent Maharashtra polls. This setback further eroded the Congress’s ability to provide leadership to the alliance. Signs of unease were evident during the winter session of Parliament.

It is natural for a party with a strong political base in a state to be unwilling to accommodate a weaker partner. During seat-sharing and adjustment talks, the strength that any party brings to the table matters.

Congress Needs To Present A Plan

Parties like the Samajwadi Party, the Rashtriya Janata Dal and the AAP, with strong presences in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Delhi, and Punjab, respectively, will be reluctant to grant any space to an ally with a similar voter base.

The Congress, the only party with a pan-India organisational presence capable of challenging the BJP across the country, must take charge. It needs to present a clear plan to coalition partners, adopting a discerning strategy for Parliament while maintaining flexibility in state politics and managing inherent contradictions. As the Congress prepares to move into its new headquarters in Delhi on January 15, it must shed its baggage and work toward a smooth transition with renewed enthusiasm.

(K.V. Prasad is a senior Delhi-based journalist)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

The debate over “freebies” in election campaigns exposes the tension between populist politics and fiscal prudence. Chief Election Commissioner Rajiv Kumar captured this complexity succinctly, questioning what qualifies as a freebie; an entitlement for one may be an extravagance for another. Addressing the announcement of Delhi’s poll schedule, Kumar lamented the lack of “accepted and legal answers” while warning against mortgaging future generations’ welfare for present-day political gains. His remarks underline the need for a framework that not only scrutinises the financial sustainability of poll promises but also reconciles welfare priorities with fiscal responsibility

The CEC was right when he said defining a freebie was difficult. It is fraught with philosophical challenges, the first of which lies in the subjective nature of value. What constitutes a freebie often depends on individual perceptions of necessity, entitlement, and utility. For example, some might see free electricity subsidies as essential for marginalised communities, while others view them as unnecessary handouts. This subjectivity creates a tension between the concepts of utility (benefit to the recipient) and entitlement (moral or legal right to receive the benefit). It challenges policymakers to draw a clear line between welfare measures that address inequality and populist giveaways that may lack long-term impact.

A Complex Question

The RBI Bulletin 2022 defines freebies as public welfare measures offered at no cost, such as free electricity, water, public transportation, and utility bill write-offs. However, the RBI draws a critical distinction between these and spending on public merit goods like the Public Distribution System (PDS), employment guarantee schemes, and state support for education and health. Unlike freebies, these merit goods generate economic benefits and positive externalities.

A study by the Centre for Policy Research (CPR) showed the effectiveness of freebies such as laptops, bicycles, and cash transfers in positively influencing voter turnout. These initiatives often resonate with voters, especially in lower-income demographics, as they provide tangible and immediate benefits.

However, while such measures may temporarily improve voter engagement, they risk undermining systemic governance and developmental priorities. Over-reliance on freebies diverts state resources from essential long-term investments in critical sectors like education, healthcare, and infrastructure. This trade-off perpetuates structural deficiencies, ultimately hampering economic growth and human capital development. Moreover, as political parties escalate their promises to outbid competitors, states risk slipping into unsustainable fiscal deficits, leading to potential economic crises.

The competitive populism associated with freebies also shifts the focus of electoral campaigns away from substantive policy debates to a transactional relationship between voters and the state. This dynamic may erode trust in democratic institutions over time, as governance becomes more about immediate gratification than addressing structural inequities or ensuring long-term economic resilience.

Rising Subsidy Costs

Election-driven promises of freebies have led to a sharp rise in subsidy expenditures, as highlighted in the RBI report State Finances: A Study of Budgets 2024-25. This increase, driven by farm loan waivers, free or subsidised services like electricity, transport, and gas, and direct cash transfers to farmers, youth, and women, creates fiscal stress. The report has even recommended that states urgently rationalise these subsidies to ensure that essential productive investments are not crowded out.

But why can’t the Election Commission stop political parties from announcing freebies? This is because of a Supreme Court judgement. The Court, in S. Subramaniam Balaji v. The Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (2013), held that announcing freebies in election manifestos is not illegal, as such promises cannot be classified as “corrupt practices” under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act (RP Act). However, the Court acknowledged that these promises significantly undermine free and fair elections by influencing voters, distorting the level playing field, and vitiating the electoral process. Recognising the Election Commission’s limited authority, especially for manifestos released before election dates, the Court directed the Commission to frame guidelines under the Model Code of Conduct. It emphasised the need for separate legislation to regulate such practices. While legally permissible, the judgment flagged the moral and ethical issues surrounding freebies, highlighting their adverse impact on democratic integrity and calling for systemic reforms.

A Proposal From 2022

Based on the advice from the judgement, in October 2022, the EC introduced a significant reform aimed at ensuring transparency and fiscal responsibility in electoral promises. The EC proposed requiring political parties to submit a detailed pro forma along with their election manifestos. This pro forma would mandate a granular breakdown of each electoral promise, including the estimated expenditure, targeted beneficiaries, and a clear financing plan to ensure these promises did not destabilise state finances. Grounded in the principle of providing voters with actionable and comparable data, the initiative aimed to address the shortcomings of existing Model Code of Conduct (MCC) guidelines, which often resulted in vague and inadequate disclosures by political parties.

The proposal has not been implemented despite its potential to promote fiscal prudence and deter reckless electoral promises. Resistance from political parties, concerns over constitutional and legal implications, and a lack of consensus among stakeholders have stalled progress. Many political parties argued that such mandates could infringe upon their autonomy and flexibility in addressing voter needs, while others questioned the EC’s authority to enforce such measures without legislative backing. As a result, the initiative remains a missed opportunity to instil accountability in electoral campaigns.

It is high time this reform is implemented, as it represents a critical step towards fostering transparency and fiscal responsibility in electoral promises. While it is true that the EC may find it challenging to verify the granular accuracy of the fiscal calculations presented in the pro forma, the very act of requiring political parties to disclose these details introduces an essential layer of accountability. The reform serves as an important nudge against the indiscriminate announcement of freebies that can strain state finances.

A Discerning Public

However, the true challenge lies in addressing the broader issue of public awareness. Voters must understand the real fiscal cost of these promises and how, over the long term, such measures can undermine economic stability and harm the very median voter they are meant to benefit. This requires a concerted effort to educate citizens on the trade-offs involved—such as increased taxes, reduced spending on essential public goods, or ballooning debt—that often accompany populist giveaways.

Bridging this gap in public understanding is indeed a tougher nut to crack as it involves overcoming entrenched narratives and emotional appeals that often accompany populist politics. Nevertheless, the EC’s reform, by reducing information asymmetry, provides a vital starting point.

(Aditya Sinha is a public policy professional.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

Top policy formulators of the Congress party met in Belagavi, Karnataka, on December 26 and devised a plan for the Grand Old Party. The leaders’ collective assembly decided to launch a campaign to protect the Constitution and strengthen the organisation.

The choice of the venue was symbolic, commemorating the 100th anniversary of the location where Mahatma Gandhi assumed the presidency of the Indian National Congress at its 39th session. The retracing of steps was an attempt to rediscover the party’s roots and draw inspiration in dealing with current challenges emanating from the governing coalition led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
Building on the momentum from their campaign during the general elections, the leaders emphasised that the Indian Constitution is facing a grave threat from the ruling coalition and its lead party is eroding the social welfare and inclusive principles enshrined in the document by its architect, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.

Having assumed the role of the principal opposition party in Parliament with renewed vigour, the Congress is moving forward with a plan to retain the space it gained in the recent Lok Sabha polls. It has drawn up a list of issues on which it aims to build public opinion.

Under the major thrust of highlighting the attack on the Constitution and disrespect for Dr Ambedkar, the issues identified political, economic, and foreign affairs. These include caste census, opposition to the One-Nation-One-Election plan and amendments to the Election Commission rules, rekindling the debate to revisit the Temples of Worship Act of 1991, the denial of political space to the opposition, the dilution of financial support for MNREGA, inadequate MSP for farmers, the promotion of oligarchies, demands for clarity on relations with China, and recent attacks on minorities in Bangladesh.

These highlighted issues are certainly ones any opposition would take up to demand a cogent response from the government. It is also the inherent right of the opposition to carry out campaigns and stage protests when the situation warrants. These elements are integral to parliamentary democracy, whose adage states that it is the job of the opposition to oppose, expose, and, if possible, depose the government.

However, the party resolution at the conclusion made no mention of whether the setbacks in the assembly elections over the past two months were discussed at the meeting of the Congress Working Committee. For the past 10 years, honest introspection has been notably absent.

The Congress party has lost three consecutive general elections since 2014. It managed to salvage some prestige this summer by reaching the 99 mark in the Lok Sabha. This achievement restored the Congress’s status as a leader in the lower house. However, in the last five years, the party has lost several state assembly elections. Worse still, it lost in states where pre-poll surveys and projections had predicted a comeback. Haryana is a case in point.

Any party, especially the Congress, should analyse, clinically and dispassionately, why the people of India have not been convinced by the narrative it has been setting. For example, after the setback in the Maharashtra elections, political analysts argued that focusing on issues like the caste census and threats to the Constitution did not gain traction—five months after they had contributed to the party’s success in the Lok Sabha polls.

On the other hand, Congress political managers at various levels have raised questions about the reliability of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), the accuracy of electoral rolls, and the reported increase in voter turnout as reported by the Election Commission. Each of these points has been rejected by the poll body.

Now, the party’s resolution emphasises similar issues, including the Constitution and the Reservation policy, along with the caste census. However, there is no indication that the party has conducted empirical studies to assess whether these issues resonate with the most marginalised sections of society.

To be fair, after setbacks in 1996, 1998, and 2014, the Congress did set up a committee under A.K. Antony. One of the factors identified was that economic reforms had caused a distancing of people from the Congress. In the previous century, this led to the conclusion that, while economic reforms were necessary, they needed to have a human face. While in opposition, the Congress continued the practice of serious introspective conclaves.

Course corrections followed when Dr Manmohan Singh assumed office, and the party recast welfare measures as rights-based schemes, such as MNREGA and the National Food Security Act. The post-2014 introspection concluded that the Congress was perceived as favouring minorities. The perception persists, while policy prescriptions to counter it are nowhere to be seen. The Congress needs to go back to the drawing board.

(K.V. Prasad is a senior Delhi-based journalist)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

In the lead-up to the recently concluded Haryana assembly elections, anti-incumbency sentiment was expected to surge, fuelled by farmers’ protests and other significant issues weighing on the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The Congress banked heavily on the unrest among farmers, wrestlers’ protests, and caste divisions to build a narrative that seemed poised to propel the party to the top of the state’s political landscape.

However, the election results told a different story. So, how much impact did the protesting farmers have on the assembly elections? In the Lok Sabha elections, the Congress saw an increase in both the number of seats and vote share in Haryana, largely attributed to the farmers’ discontent with the BJP.

Three years ago, when a coalition of peasant organisations successfully forced the rollback of three controversial farm laws, it was perceived as a significant blow to the Narendra Modi-led Union government. The euphoria of this so-called victory among farmer leaders soon transitioned into a political campaign against the BJP. Although their demands, including the legalisation of the Minimum Support Price (MSP), remained a focus, the protests took on an increasingly political tone.

A Mixed Outcome For Farmers

The Haryana assembly results revealed a mixed outcome for the protesting farmers. While the BJP’s popularity appeared to dip after the Lok Sabha results, the assembly election results signalled a change. Initially, the protesters succeeded in shaping the narrative. From staging pickets against BJP leaders during campaigns to public outreach and demonstrations, the farm leaders left no stone unturned. Protests at administrative offices and toll plazas further reinforced their message, but the overall mandate suggests their efforts had limited impact.

Gurnam Singh Charuni, a prominent farmer leader who played a key role in the protests against the now-repealed farm laws, managed to secure only 1,170 votes in Pehowa, finishing fifth. The seat was won by Mandeep Chatha of the Congress, who defeated BJP’s Jai Bhagwan Sharma by more than 6,500 votes.

Charuni, 64, who has faced multiple imprisonments since 1992 due to his activism, is the president of a faction of the Bhartiya Kisan Union. He contested the election under his political party, the Sanyukt Sangharsh Party (SSP). It is said that Charuni was initially seeking a Congress ticket to challenge the BJP but decided to contest independently when that didn’t materialise.

In contrast, state BJP leader and former Haryana minister Anil Vij managed to retain the Ambala Cantonment constituency despite facing significant farmer protests. He defeated independent candidate Chitra Sarwara, a former member of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), by over 7,000 votes, with Congress candidate Parvinder Pal Pari trailing in third place.

Vij – who was dropped from the cabinet when Manohar Lal Khattar was replaced as chief minister by Nayab Singh Saini in March – was heavily targeted by farmer unions throughout his campaign. They picketed his election rallies, and protests followed his campaign trail.

However, in Hisar and Ratia, where BJP candidates also faced intense protests over farm issues, the party suffered losses. In Hisar, BJP leader Kamal Gupta finished third, while in Ratia, Sunita Duggal lost to Congress candidate Jarnail Singh by over 21,000 votes. Gupta had previously won the Hisar seat in both the 2014 and 2019 assembly elections. In Ratia, sitting BJP legislator Lakshman Dass Napa quit the party after being denied a ticket.

The Border Impact

In constituencies bordering Punjab – a state that strongly rejected the BJP and has a robust base of farm unions – the election results were more polarised. Congress secured nine seats, while the BJP won three. Of these, the BJP managed to retain one but lost five to the Congress. The Congress kept two seats but lost one to the BJP. Dushyant Chautala’s Jannayak Janta Party (JJP), which was once allied with the BJP, lost the two seats it previously held in the Punjab border region – one to Congress and the other to the BJP. Notably, the JJP failed to win a single seat in this election.

Farm Politics And Political Leanings

Despite many Samyukta Kisan Morcha (SKM) leaders being directly connected with anti-BJP parties, the group largely stayed out of the elections. In 2022, the SKM severed ties with the Samyukta Samaj Morcha (SSM) led by Balbir Singh Rajewal and Charuni’s SSP.

The poster boy of the 2020-2021 anti-farm law protests, Rakesh Tikait, previously contested elections, but without success. On the other hand, Hannan Mollah, a senior leader of the All India Kisan Sabha and former member of Parliament from the Communist Party of India (Marxist), won from West Bengal’s Uluberia eight times.

The political leanings of most SKM leaders are rooted in socialist or Left ideologies – traditionally anti-BJP. However, the peasant leaders likely missed a critical lesson from 2020 when, during the height of the protests, the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) won a majority in the Bihar assembly elections, despite the anti-farm law sentiment.

Undeterred, farm leaders continued to campaign against the BJP in subsequent state elections. While the BJP won governments in Assam and Puducherry, other parties triumphed in states like Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal, where SKM leaders claimed some credit for the electoral outcomes, particularly in West Bengal, where Mamata Banerjee’s Trinamool Congress scored a major victory.

Despite these efforts, two years later it seems that while farm-related issues may have influenced voters in border areas, they failed to swing the overall mandate away from the BJP.

(Jayanta Bhattacharya is a senior journalist writing on polls and politics, conflict, farmer and human interest issues)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

“It’s good these people are in jail,” a fruit seller shared his frustration, keeping his shop open despite a lowered shutter in response to the lockdown called on by the separatists. The year was 2019, precisely a month after the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government announced the abrogation of Article 370, and “these people” in question were the leaders of Jammu & Kashmir’s regional parties: the Jammu & Kashmir National Conference (JKNC) and the People’s Democratic Party (PDP). Five years later, these very people are not just out of jail, but some of them are also set to form the government in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. 

The world can draw an essential lesson from what has transpired in Jammu & Kashmir in the last five years. And this lesson has nothing to do with the polling outcome. Despite the previous unstable assembly (the BJP opted out of the ruling PDP-led coalition), the geopolitical turmoil in the aftermath of the abrogation of Article 370, and the controversy around delimitation, Jammu & Kashmir chose democracy yet again.

Democracy As A Lived Reality

When an insurgency or an armed conflict continues for too long, democracy is the first to fall. Increased securitisation of a conflict-ridden space undermines democracy not just as a political philosophy concept but also as an everyday lived reality. Political alienation is often the beginning and the end of a conflict. It is also the means and the end of most insurgencies. Secessionists in Jammu & Kashmir, therefore, leaned on boycotts of political processes in the region. These boycotts were successful in forging a sense of identity, delinked from New Delhi, in a section of Jammu & Kashmir’s population.

Jammu & Kashmir’s voter turnout in 2024 has fallen marginally short of 2014. Still, considering the political and security volatility during the past decade, the political remapping of the region, and the trends from the 2024 general election turnout, the absolute figure of 63.88% is a big round of applause for Indian democracy. Not only were the calls for boycotting the elections negligible, but voters also didn’t even think twice before ignoring them. The pre-poll sentiment in Jammu & Kashmir was defined by buoyancy and optimism.

Reigniting Faith

Participation in electoral processes should not be seen as an indicator of peace in Jammu & Kashmir or any other conflict-riddled region. Democracy does not suit all, and efforts to derail it are the strongest whenever it appears to work and emerge as a choice. For peace, the synergy of formal institutions is a prerequisite. The BJP has done well to reignite people’s faith in at least one of them: electoral polity. Jammu & Kashmir, under the governor’s rule for six years, grabbed this chance to assert itself and make its voice heard in New Delhi. The JKNC-Congress alliance has trumped religious extremism-driven parties on the one hand and heavy-handed nationalism on the other.

After almost a decade of aggressive and kinetic strategy in dealing with the hardliners in J&K, this is a perfect moment for the Indian establishment to rethink its attitudes towards conflict resolution. The temptation to discard democracy as a defunct system is at its highest during an armed conflict. But this is also the time when democracy can shine the brightest. A rights-based approach to conflict resolution may appear counter-intuitive, but this is the only lasting solution. The rejection of the right to vote by a dissatisfied bunch of people as a means of their political expression can be the first sign of trouble. The converse is also true.

This Is True ‘Normalcy’

The BJP may not feel warm and fuzzy about the assembly poll results, but New Delhi has all the reasons to rejoice. This is what ‘normalcy’, an oft-touted catchword of the current dispensation, looks and feels like. This almost violence-free election is the festive bonus that everyone hoped for, but nobody could have been sure of it. Reams will be written about the “success” of this election within the security paradigm. However, the real success is allowing the decriers of democracy to come into the fold. After long periods of violence and quasi-violence directed primarily against the Indian state, this election is an affirmation of the core principles of participatory democracy. 

No political system, even the good old democracy, can and should be treated as the panacea for all ills. At best, democracy can achieve an environment where people who are affected by policies feel like stakeholders. This precludes compulsive resistance and fosters a sense of ownership. Jammu & Kashmir’s ‘problem’ is both a function and an origin of political alienation and disempowerment. Increased participation on the population’s part and more open-mindedness on the part of the establishment during political processes help create a secure environment that doesn’t rely solely on securitisation.

What and how Jammu & Kashmir’s political arena will look like with a government in place after six years of Governor’s rule remains to be seen. For now, these lessons of democracy are for all to see and emulate. 

(Nishtha Gautam is a Delhi-based author and academic.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

The 2024 U.S. Presidential Election is being keenly watched around the world, both for the outcome and for the consequences. One month out, the polls suggest a virtual tie. Vice President Kamala Harris, a Democrat, had seen an increase in popularity after donning her party’s official nomination in August. But over the past two weeks, a series of events – a devastating hurricane in North Carolina, growing tensions in the Middle East, the Vice Presidential debate, and concerns about recurring inflation – appear to be shifting the momentum back toward former President Donald Trump. Much could still happen over the next month, but ultimately, the outcome will be determined by seven ‘swing states’ – Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, and Wisconsin – and each could be decided by only a few tens of thousands of voters. Although Democrats are likely to win more votes overall (as they have in seven of the last eight presidential elections), their ability to ensure higher voter turnout among their supporters in these swing states may well turn out to be the decisive factor.

Impressions Over Issues

This election campaign is being waged less on issues and more on impressions and attitudes. Trump is playing on dissatisfaction with the bureaucratic state, a scepticism of international entanglements, lower taxes for businesses and investors, curbs on immigration, and social conservatism, although he has attempted to dilute the latter to appeal more to moderate voters. Harris has positioned herself as appealing to youth, urban voters, ethnic minorities, responsible governance, and progressive social causes. Their competing worldviews reflect a rigid divide in American society across age and class lines, ethnic groups, and especially urban and rural constituencies, across which Republicans and Democrats have consolidated deeply entrenched if ‘big tent’ coalitions. Suburban voters, white women, second-generation Hispanics, and union workers are among the constituencies in which Republicans and Democrats are still battling to sway opinion.

The 2024 US presidential election outcome will matter to India, although less directly perhaps than it will to some other countries and regions. For US adversaries (China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea) the election will determine negotiations over future relations. For US allies (NATO members in Europe, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Australia), the election could signal changes to US force posture, assistance, and commitment. For those actively involved in current or prospective conflicts (Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan), the outcome will determine the nature of US military aid. And for major trade partners (Mexico, ASEAN, the UK), the election could have deep ramifications for their economies.

India Will Be Affected, But Not Directly

India is less directly affected than many of these countries, not being an adversary, a treaty ally, or a country dependent on military or financial assistance from the United States. To be sure, India is the United States’ ninth-largest trade partner and enjoys about a $30 billion trade surplus, but its economy is, at present, less dependent on manufacturing exports than some other large emerging markets, such as Mexico or Vietnam. While the direct implications for India might be less than for others, the 2024 US presidential election will undoubtedly have indirect effects on India.

Should Trump be elected, India will have to confront some difficult negotiations over trade and immigration. Trump and his economic advisors have been clear that they will impose tariffs on countries they believe are engaging in unfair trade practices, especially China. But India, which enjoys a trade surplus, will also be subjected to some, resulting in retaliatory measures by New Delhi. Questions remain about the degree to which a second Trump administration can refashion trade policy without negative repercussions for the US economy – particularly for inflation. Moreover, Trump’s advisors have pledged to stem immigration, especially by undocumented individuals, which may affect Indians too. Trump is also likely to impose restrictions on employment and student visas and cut funding for processing, contributing further to backlogs and delays. This will have implications for a variety of Indian businesses in the United States.

China Is Still The Big Question

For both Trump and Harris, whose views on foreign policy are still inchoate beyond a broad continuation of incumbent Joe Biden’s approach, a primary determinant of their outlook will be their policy towards China. While Trump’s national security, foreign policy, and trade advisors are overwhelmingly hawkish on China – suggesting a confrontational and competitive approach – some of his donors and financial associates have advocated for a more cooperative attitude and a cooling of US tensions with Beijing.

Meanwhile, Harris has to contend both with hardening national security and trade impulses, as also with a progressive agenda among some Democrats that seeks to disassociate the United States from international competition and conflict. Progressives – as well as veterans of the Obama administration who hope to return to influence under Harris – are also more likely to prioritise human rights over a balance of power in foreign policy.

A Lot Would Depend On The Supporting Casts

Ultimately, both Trump and Harris’s approaches to China – and, by extension, international affairs – will be determined by their selection, as President, of key advisors. The main Cabinet-level positions – U.S. Secretary of State, Defense, and Treasury, National Security Adviser, and U.S. Trade Representative – as well as second- and third-level political appointees will have an opportunity to set the tone for U.S. foreign policy for the next four years. Around Trump, figures such as Robert O’Brien and Robert Lighthizer are expected to play critical roles. The composition of a Harris foreign policy team is more uncertain, but it will likely be drawn from both Biden and Obama-era officials. Both Harris and Trump may also bring into their cabinets senior U.S. Senators, although that will be determined by margins in the Senate after this November’s election.

For all these reasons, developments of the next month – and the transition period between November’s election and the next president’s inauguration in January – will be observed carefully, in India and around the world.

(Dhruva Jaishankar is Executive Director of ORF America in Washington DC)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

The 2024 U.S. Presidential Election is being keenly watched around the world, both for the outcome and for the consequences. One month out, the polls suggest a virtual tie. Vice President Kamala Harris, a Democrat, had seen an increase in popularity after donning her party’s official nomination in August. But over the past two weeks, a series of events – a devastating hurricane in North Carolina, growing tensions in the Middle East, the Vice Presidential debate, and concerns about recurring inflation – appear to be shifting the momentum back toward former President Donald Trump. Much could still happen over the next month, but ultimately, the outcome will be determined by seven ‘swing states’ – Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, and Wisconsin – and each could be decided by only a few tens of thousands of voters. Although Democrats are likely to win more votes overall (as they have in seven of the last eight presidential elections), their ability to ensure higher voter turnout among their supporters in these swing states may well turn out to be the decisive factor.

Impressions Over Issues

This election campaign is being waged less on issues and more on impressions and attitudes. Trump is playing on dissatisfaction with the bureaucratic state, a scepticism of international entanglements, lower taxes for businesses and investors, curbs on immigration, and social conservatism, although he has attempted to dilute the latter to appeal more to moderate voters. Harris has positioned herself as appealing to youth, urban voters, ethnic minorities, responsible governance, and progressive social causes. Their competing worldviews reflect a rigid divide in American society across age and class lines, ethnic groups, and especially urban and rural constituencies, across which Republicans and Democrats have consolidated deeply entrenched if ‘big tent’ coalitions. Suburban voters, white women, second-generation Hispanics, and union workers are among the constituencies in which Republicans and Democrats are still battling to sway opinion.

The 2024 US presidential election outcome will matter to India, although less directly perhaps than it will to some other countries and regions. For US adversaries (China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea) the election will determine negotiations over future relations. For US allies (NATO members in Europe, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Australia), the election could signal changes to US force posture, assistance, and commitment. For those actively involved in current or prospective conflicts (Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan), the outcome will determine the nature of US military aid. And for major trade partners (Mexico, ASEAN, the UK), the election could have deep ramifications for their economies.

India Will Be Affected, But Not Directly

India is less directly affected than many of these countries, not being an adversary, a treaty ally, or a country dependent on military or financial assistance from the United States. To be sure, India is the United States’ ninth-largest trade partner and enjoys about a $30 billion trade surplus, but its economy is, at present, less dependent on manufacturing exports than some other large emerging markets, such as Mexico or Vietnam. While the direct implications for India might be less than for others, the 2024 US presidential election will undoubtedly have indirect effects on India.

Should Trump be elected, India will have to confront some difficult negotiations over trade and immigration. Trump and his economic advisors have been clear that they will impose tariffs on countries they believe are engaging in unfair trade practices, especially China. But India, which enjoys a trade surplus, will also be subjected to some, resulting in retaliatory measures by New Delhi. Questions remain about the degree to which a second Trump administration can refashion trade policy without negative repercussions for the US economy – particularly for inflation. Moreover, Trump’s advisors have pledged to stem immigration, especially by undocumented individuals, which may affect Indians too. Trump is also likely to impose restrictions on employment and student visas and cut funding for processing, contributing further to backlogs and delays. This will have implications for a variety of Indian businesses in the United States.

China Is Still The Big Question

For both Trump and Harris, whose views on foreign policy are still inchoate beyond a broad continuation of incumbent Joe Biden’s approach, a primary determinant of their outlook will be their policy towards China. While Trump’s national security, foreign policy, and trade advisors are overwhelmingly hawkish on China – suggesting a confrontational and competitive approach – some of his donors and financial associates have advocated for a more cooperative attitude and a cooling of US tensions with Beijing.

Meanwhile, Harris has to contend both with hardening national security and trade impulses, as also with a progressive agenda among some Democrats that seeks to disassociate the United States from international competition and conflict. Progressives – as well as veterans of the Obama administration who hope to return to influence under Harris – are also more likely to prioritise human rights over a balance of power in foreign policy.

A Lot Would Depend On The Supporting Casts

Ultimately, both Trump and Harris’s approaches to China – and, by extension, international affairs – will be determined by their selection, as President, of key advisors. The main Cabinet-level positions – U.S. Secretary of State, Defense, and Treasury, National Security Adviser, and U.S. Trade Representative – as well as second- and third-level political appointees will have an opportunity to set the tone for U.S. foreign policy for the next four years. Around Trump, figures such as Robert O’Brien and Robert Lighthizer are expected to play critical roles. The composition of a Harris foreign policy team is more uncertain, but it will likely be drawn from both Biden and Obama-era officials. Both Harris and Trump may also bring into their cabinets senior U.S. Senators, although that will be determined by margins in the Senate after this November’s election.

For all these reasons, developments of the next month – and the transition period between November’s election and the next president’s inauguration in January – will be observed carefully, in India and around the world.

(Dhruva Jaishankar is Executive Director of ORF America in Washington DC)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author