Is India Ready For 2-Party Politics Again In 2024?

We might once more be moving towards a political landscape with a clearer two-party system if Congress could build on its strengths and create an ideology that is sufficiently contemporary.

We get an intriguing glimpse into the state of national politics, where we are now, how we got here, and where we are going next thanks to the dramatic change in Maharashtra politics.

The next set of queries is fascinating. Does ideology still have an impact on politics?

If one considers the rise of the Aam Aadmi Party, one might conclude that it does not.
No matter how lofty the promise of a government devoid of corruption and of free this or free that may be, it does not constitute an ideology.

Not even when flanked by framed pictures of Bhagat Singh and Ambedkar on the wall.

By examining the actions in Maharashtra, one can arrive at the same conclusion at the opposite end of the spectrum:

First, the Shiv Sena left the National Democratic Alliance to align itself with the Nationalist Congress Party and the Congress, their ideological rivals.
Two of the three eventually split, with the majority of their MLAs returning to the Bharatiya Janata Party.

What does that even mean for the concepts of politics’ ideology and principles?

When journalists questioned NCP leader and former cabinet member Praful Patel about why he joined the BJP-led coalition, he provided a glimpse into this altered political landscape. When asked how he could defend this ideological shift, he responded that since the NCP had no issues with the Shiv Sena in the past, there shouldn’t be any now.

Sharad Pawar says that while the BJP’s brand of Hindutva is unacceptable, the Shiv Sena’s is acceptable. which we are aware of and must reject as nonsense.

Ideology has, in actuality, grown stronger than it has in decades if one approaches the big picture with an open mind. However, it only benefits the BJP’s side.

However, in the same decades, too many leaders and their parties have prospered in an environment that is ideologically permissive and where beliefs in morality and philosophy have always been interchangeable with authority.

However, the political developments in Maharashtra over the last four years suggest that this era may be ending. Despite their brief periods of power, the Eknath Shinde Shiv Sena and the Ajit Pawar NCP represent political forces that are at the end of their tether. The demise of two largely transactional political entities could result from this.
It is less significant that the Shiv Sena and the NCP are almost exclusively one-state parties than that over the past 25 years, Delhi’s ruling coalitions have almost always included one of the two as a partner.

The conclusion is that the younger voter was only considering himself or herself when pressing the button on the voting machine.

While running for office in 2014, Narendra Modi kept that in mind, but his main appeal was a hard, Hindutva-based nationalism.

There were many indirect references to Muslims and frequent references to Pakistan, particularly when it came to the justification for the “pink revolution” i.e. voting.

The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act and other rights-based laws and welfarerism were mentioned by the Congress-led rivals, on the other hand, but these references came off as transactional. As the Congress retaliated with allegations of corruption (Rafale, Chowkidar Chor Hai) and handouts under the Nyay scheme, Mr. Modi had advanced to even more virulent, post-Pulwama/Balakot nationalism by 2019. There was still no definite ideological rift emerging.

We can easily comprehend the plight of the smaller, regional parties opposing the BJP if the Congress struggled.

They either wanted to differentiate their region by protecting Muslims or by giving them free gifts of water, electricity, or more.

No other party fought in support of its ideology other than the BJP, with the exception of a few local forces like the DMK and the Left in Kerala. It made Mr. Modi’s battle that much simpler.

We frequently bring up this issue because it is essential to our post-1984 politics.
1984 is the cutoff year since that was when Rajiv Gandhi was elected to a 415-member parliament.

Since then, the question of whether one side can use caste to split what religion (Hinduism) united has determined who controls India. Or will the other be able to bring the caste that was split back together?

The caste forces prevailed for the first 25 years after Congress lost power in 1984.

Modi’s Era Began Now…..

The secular politics of those 25 years lost their ideological foundations and became disorganized from India’s origins. Though they are aware of these scams during the Modi era, as I previously stated, the battleground is empty during the Modi era. The people of India have grown tired of this one-sided secularism politics and politics of open scams in public funds. Returning to the main question: How?

Opposing the BJP in Indian politics began to resemble a strategic move to win over Muslim voters more than a commitment to a higher ideal.

This is how the Muslim vote and the “secular vote” came to be synonymous.

As a result, there were regional conflicts between the Samajwadi Party and the Bahujan Samaj Party in Uttar Pradesh, the Congress, Left, and the Trinamool Congress in West Bengal, as well as between the Congress and newer Muslim forces like Asaduddin Owaisi’s AIMIM and Badruddin Ajmal’s AIUDF in Assam. In most states outside of Maharashtra, the NCP also began fielding its own candidates, most notably in the 2017 elections in Gujarat, which had previously seemed to be a toss-up for the BJP.

However, at the same time, the BJP was developing, emphasizing, and unapologetically advancing its Hindu nationalist message.

Its catchphrase, “Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikaas,” also highlighted its raw, new confidence that it will not victimize Muslims even though it knew they did not cast a vote for it. Although the BJP was unable to overthrow local/regional powers in several of the states, this led to a one-sidedness in national politics. With the exception of Kerala and Tamil Nadu, both of which are not particularly important to the BJP, this challenge came from one leader or family parties in the majority of other states. Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, West Bengal, Delhi, Bihar, and Maharashtra are among them. Now, many of those parties require revision.

Families can be torn apart; for instance, nephews can desert uncles; loyalists can be coerced or forced out using the agencies; and they all have some variation of the justification Praful Patel provided for his action.

Editor and author T N Ninan brought up a crucial point during his lecture on the life of the late Lal Bahadur Shastri, titled Lal Bahadur Shastri — The man who died too soon, which he gave at New Delhi’s Nehru Memorial Library. He said out loud that one possibility for what might have happened if Shastri hadn’t passed away too soon was that the Congress wouldn’t have broken up. Or perhaps Indira Gandhi’s tenure as prime minister came to an end, making way for Y B Chavan to take her place.
As a result, the party probably would not have taken the sharp turn to the Left that Mrs. Gandhi led it into if she hadn’t split it in 1969. She made the decision to go against her own old guard.

This was, in my opinion, political expediency rather than ideological conviction.

What better way to demolish the conservative ruddy daddies than with the progressive, young Left? She handled this expertly.

However, as a result of the process, the Congress was left with an ideology that its membership, especially the top leadership that remained with her, did not fully embrace.

That is likely the reason the party has continued to split since then, almost on a five-year cycle. From the NCP to the Sangmas of Meghalaya, Mamata’s TMC to the YSRCP, the majority of these breakaway factions later evolved into regional forces.
On the other hand, the BJP maintained its ideological and political unity.
A few of the rebellious leaders, including B S Yediyurappa and Kalyan Singh, came back. And Shankersinh Vaghela was the oddball who remained.

This explains the current state of American politics pretty well. Additionally, it is the message of Maharashtra.

Also Read:- Parliament Monsoon Session Begins Today. What Should You Expect?

So, if I had to sum up what I just said, I would say that leaders should encourage an alliance called India; whether people accept this or not will be determined by the results of the election in 2024. However, Congress should concentrate on its own ideology and present it to the Indian people in a clear manner so that they can counter the MODI wave. Because BJP was developing, emphasizing, and carrying forward its Hindu nationalist message without regret. But Congress was busy blaming Modi! Bipolar politics requires 2 parties with clear ideology which is currently not available in India without that, I am unable to see any hope for two-party politics in India in the near future.