In contemporary Indian politics, the fluidity of political positions and the erosion of principled stances have become alarmingly evident. What is particularly striking is the opportunistic nature of political parties, which seem to base their stances not on any inherent ideological convictions but on the shifting sands of political expediency. This essay delves into the pervasive culture of political opportunism in India, arguing that the lack of steadfast principles among mainstream political actors reflects a deeper crisis within the democratic fabric of the nation. The essay will critically assess political inconsistencies, drawing on key illustrations such as the nuclear deal and Nandigram, while also situating these within the broader discourse of ethical governance and democratic responsibility.
The Nuclear Deal: A Study in Political Hypocrisy
A paradigmatic example of political opportunism in India is the stance taken by various parties on the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal. During the period of negotiation, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) vehemently opposed the deal, with party leaders like Rajnath Singh declaring that it was “not good for the future of the country” and Murli Manohar Joshi arguing that it would render India “a junior partner of the U.S.”1 However, one cannot help but wonder if the BJP would have maintained the same oppositional stance had they been in power. Indeed, had the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) been in office and presented an identical agreement, it is highly likely that the BJP would have supported the deal with fervor, cloaking their approval in the language of nationalism. They would likely have hailed it as a strategic triumph that elevated India into the league of superpowers, and positioned it advantageously vis-à-vis Pakistan. The Congress, in turn, would have mounted its opposition just as vociferously.
This oscillation of positions is not unique to the nuclear deal; it is emblematic of a broader pattern in Indian politics where the ruling and opposition parties swap roles of endorsement and condemnation based on their political calculations rather than any fixed ideological compass. The nuclear deal underscores a larger truth about the nature of political opposition in India—there is no adherence to principle, only a reactive opposition to government initiatives. This pattern not only erodes public trust in political institutions but also undermines the substance of democratic debate.
Nandigram and the Selective Outrage of Political Actors
The political response to the Nandigram crisis of 2007 offers another instructive example of this pattern. Nandigram, a village in West Bengal, became the site of violent clashes over the proposed establishment of a Special Economic Zone (SEZ), leading to mass protests and a brutal crackdown by state forces. The Left Front, led by the Communist Party of India (Marxist), justified the repression in the name of industrial development, while the BJP and Congress criticized the violence as a violation of human rights and democratic norms. However, this dynamic is easily reversible. Had a similar crisis erupted in Gujarat, with the BJP in power and pushing for industrialization, the positions of these political parties would likely have been reversed. The BJP would have defended the state’s right to industrialize, and the Left would have mobilized for the rights of the displaced peasants.
This selective outrage extends beyond the specific context of Nandigram and Gujarat. The 2002 Gujarat riots, which saw widespread violence against Muslims, elicited condemnation from the Congress and the Left, who positioned themselves as defenders of secularism and human rights. Yet, these same parties were conspicuously silent or defensive when confronted with the anti-Sikh riots of 1984 in Delhi, in which Congress leaders were implicated. This glaring inconsistency highlights the deeply entrenched hypocrisy that plagues Indian politics. As political scientist Neera Chandhoke notes, “The moral high ground in Indian politics is not a stable perch; it shifts depending on whose interests are being threatened or defended at any given moment.”^2
The Discourse of Principles: A Convenient Facade
The broader issue at hand is that Indian political discourse is riddled with doublespeak. Politicians from across the ideological spectrum claim to act in the service of high-minded principles, but their actions betray the fact that such principles are conveniently malleable. The BJP’s purported commitment to free speech offers a particularly ironic case. BJP leader V.K. Malhotra once defended Taslima Nasreen, a controversial Bangladeshi author, by insisting that she be granted full protection and Indian citizenship, citing India’s tradition of protecting free speech. Yet, this same party has been at the forefront of campaigns against M.F. Husain, one of India’s most celebrated painters, whose depictions of Hindu deities led to the vandalization of his artworks and his eventual exile from the country. Husain’s case illustrates the selective application of free speech principles, as protection for speech only applies when it aligns with a party’s ideological or political objectives.
This selective application of principles is not confined to the BJP. The Congress Party, which often presents itself as a champion of secularism, has similarly exploited religious and communal sentiments for electoral gain. The party’s orchestration of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots following the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi is a glaring example of how the Congress has, at times, abandoned its professed commitment to secularism when it served its political interests.
Political Opportunism: A Symptom of Democratic Malaise
What emerges from this analysis is a portrait of Indian politics as a theater of opportunism, where principles are discarded the moment they become inconvenient. The language of opposition in India is not driven by any sincere commitment to governance, ethical leadership, or public service. Rather, it is dictated by the exigencies of power—the singular motivation that Devi Lal so candidly described as “gaddi” (the throne). When politicians invoke principles, they do so only to the extent that it serves their immediate tactical needs. Once those needs change, their principles are swiftly recalibrated.
The broader implications of this opportunism are deeply troubling for Indian democracy. As mainstream political actors prioritize their pursuit of power over principled governance, the space for genuine democratic debate and meaningful opposition diminishes. This undermines the legitimacy of political institutions and erodes public trust in the democratic process. As political theorist Pratap Bhanu Mehta has observed, “The crisis of Indian democracy is not one of representation, but of integrity; it is not merely that elections are held, but that politics is no longer anchored in any consistent moral or ideological framework.”3
Conclusion: The Imperative for Ethical Leadership
In conclusion, the persistent opportunism and lack of principled stances among India’s mainstream political actors reveal a profound crisis of ethical leadership. Whether in their responses to the nuclear deal, the Nandigram crisis, or the question of free speech, political parties have demonstrated a remarkable flexibility in their positions, driven not by ideological consistency but by the pursuit of power. This tendency not only diminishes the quality of democratic governance but also erodes public faith in political institutions. Moving forward, the challenge for Indian democracy is not merely to ensure electoral participation, but to cultivate a political culture in which principles are valued not as rhetorical devices but as guiding frameworks for governance. Only then can India fulfill the democratic promise envisioned at its founding.
References
1 Rajnath Singh, quoted in The Hindu, July 22, 2007.
2 Neera Chandhoke, Contested Secessions: Rights, Self-determination, Democracy, and Kashmir (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012).
3 Pratap Bhanu Mehta, The Burden of Democracy (New Delhi: Penguin, 2003).
コメント