Political leadership, irrespective of geography, is invariably shaped by the lure of power and the structures of incentives. Politicians, like other human actors, are driven by ambition, pragmatism, and an instinct for survival in the volatile world of governance. To expect politicians to be driven purely by a desire to advance the common good is to overlook the nature of political systems and the essential human condition. Yet, the extent to which politicians uphold or abandon principles varies across political contexts. In India, political maneuvering often reveals a particular penchant for identity and entitlement politics, while in the United States, one may discern a more consistent commitment to certain principles—even when politically unpopular. This essay explores these contrasts, arguing that while political opportunism is a universal feature, Indian politics is more explicitly shaped by identity, and thus, deeply compromised in its ethical core.
The Dynamics of Political Leadership: Indian and American Contrasts
In comparing Indian and American politics, the difference in political culture and moral expectations becomes palpable. American politicians, despite their self-interest, have historically been more likely to defend principles—even in the face of widespread dissent within their own constituencies. Take, for example, the case of John McCain, a Republican senator who consistently spoke out against the use of torture during the U.S. “War on Terror.” Despite the prevailing sentiment within his party, McCain championed an ethical stance on human rights, contrasting sharply with candidates like Mitt Romney, who, in a bid to appeal to the Republican base, pandered to hawkish voters by advocating for the expansion of the Guantanamo detention center.
Similarly, Rudy Giuliani’s pro-choice stance, though politically disadvantageous among the socially conservative Republican primary voters, was a testament to his refusal to bow to the prevailing orthodoxy. Likewise, Hillary Clinton’s repeated refusal to retract her support for the Iraq War Resolution—despite mounting pressure from the Democratic base—is another example of how U.S. politicians occasionally navigate the moral complexities of policy without capitulating to party demands. In these cases, leaders’ policies are not simply reducible to short-term expediencies but rather reflect more enduring convictions, even when those convictions clash with their electoral calculus.
Identity and Entitlement Politics in India
The Indian political landscape, by contrast, is more sharply defined by identity politics, where leaders derive their power from the promises made to specific groups based on caste, religion, or class. The ascent of politicians like Mayawati, who rose to power by appealing to the historically marginalized Dalit community, and Lalu Prasad Yadav’s long reign in Bihar, rooted in the consolidation of caste-based politics, exemplify how Indian politicians frequently leverage identity to gain and retain power. The focus in such cases is not on policy or ethical governance, but on the strategic mobilization of grievances. As historian Christophe Jaffrelot has pointed out, Indian politics has often been described as a “politics of redistribution,” where power is distributed as spoils to those whose loyalty is most secure—rather than a means of advancing the collective good.1
This pattern extends beyond material distribution. The entrenchment of identity-based politics has resulted in the widespread deployment of entitlement politics, in which leaders promise tangible benefits, such as televisions or other consumer goods, to certain demographics in exchange for their electoral support. For instance, Karunanidhi’s distribution of nine million color televisions to Tamil Nadu’s citizens is a case in point. This material exchange dynamic, far from addressing systemic inequalities, merely perpetuates cycles of political patronage.
Gujarat Riots and the Absence of Moral Leadership
Perhaps no other event encapsulates the moral vacuum in Indian politics better than the 2002 Gujarat riots. These communal riots, in which over a thousand people, primarily Muslims, were killed, exposed the depths of political opportunism, where leaders either facilitated or condoned violence in the pursuit of political gain. Narendra Modi, then Chief Minister of Gujarat and later Prime Minister of India, faced accusations of complicity in the violence, as his administration allegedly enabled the rioters by failing to intervene and providing lists of Muslim-owned properties. The Gujarat pogrom exemplifies the extent to which political leaders in India are willing to compromise higher moral principles in favor of consolidating their identity-based vote banks.
The absence of accountability for such egregious acts of violence suggests a troubling tolerance for opportunism in Indian political culture. While politicians across the globe react to incentives, the moral costs of such reactions are particularly stark in the Indian context, where communal violence and caste-based discrimination are often implicitly sanctioned by the state. The lack of moral leadership in these situations contrasts sharply with the political responses seen in other democracies. When confronted with similar moral crises, politicians in other democratic contexts, such as the U.S., have at least faced public scrutiny and have had to account for their actions before their constituencies.
The Illusion of Principle in Indian Political Rhetoric
Despite the demonstrable absence of higher ethical principles in the practice of Indian politics, leaders continue to couch their actions in the language of principle, creating a dissonance between rhetoric and reality. Politicians from across the ideological spectrum invoke ideals such as secularism, democracy, and social justice, while their policies and actions tell a different story. For instance, the Congress Party, which claims to be the champion of secularism, has often resorted to religious appeasement for electoral gain. Conversely, the BJP, with its invocation of Hindutva, couches its majoritarian agenda in the rhetoric of national unity and cultural pride. As political analyst Yogendra Yadav aptly notes, “Indian political leaders deploy the language of values and principles as mere rhetorical tools, without any substantive commitment to these ideals.”2
This illusion of principle extends even to the opposition, which, rather than holding the government accountable for its ethical failures, simply opposes for the sake of opposition. As demonstrated by the BJP’s opportunistic stance on the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal, political parties in India have no consistent ideological moorings. They simply adopt positions that align with their immediate tactical interests, abandoning these stances as soon as they no longer serve their political objectives.
The Broader Implications for Democratic Governance
The implications of this deep-rooted opportunism are far-reaching for the quality of democratic governance in India. The absence of moral leadership not only erodes public trust in political institutions but also undermines the legitimacy of the democratic process. Without principled actors, political competition devolves into a zero-sum game of identity and material exchange, leaving little room for substantive policy debates or the articulation of a common good. This diminishes the capacity of the state to act as a neutral arbiter of societal conflicts, leading to the perpetuation of structural inequalities and the marginalization of vulnerable communities.
Moreover, the entrenchment of identity politics threatens to fracture the social fabric, as politicians increasingly appeal to narrow identity-based constituencies rather than to a broader, more inclusive vision of nationhood. As noted by political theorist Bhikhu Parekh, “The long-term viability of Indian democracy depends not on the perpetuation of identity politics, but on the ability of political leaders to transcend these divisions and articulate a vision of common citizenship.”3 Unfortunately, the current trajectory of Indian politics suggests that this transcendence remains a distant goal.
Conclusion: The Need for Ethical Leadership
In conclusion, while political opportunism may be a universal phenomenon, its manifestations in Indian politics are particularly pernicious. The predominance of identity and entitlement politics, coupled with the glaring absence of principled leadership, has contributed to a democratic crisis in which power is pursued for its own sake, rather than as a means of advancing the public good. Moving forward, the challenge for Indian democracy is not only to hold politicians accountable but also to cultivate a political culture in which principles matter more than expediency, and where moral leadership is the norm rather than the exception.
References
1 Christophe Jaffrelot, India’s Silent Revolution: The Rise of the Lower Castes in North India (London: Hurst & Co., 2003).
2 Yogendra Yadav, Electoral Politics in the Time of Change: India’s Third Electoral System (Delhi: Orient Longman, 2009).
3 Bhikhu Parekh, Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000).
Comments