‘Watershed moment’, ‘wake-up call’, ‘triumph for Indian democracy’ – the 2024 Indian general elections held earlier this year accumulated a number of labels, all sharing a common theme of change.
After securing an absolute majority for the last two terms, the BJP was dealt a blow this time around, forced to rely on two significant NDA allies in order to form their government – Nitish Kumar and Chandrababu Naidu, the kingmakers of this Modi government.
A party that had grown accustomed to undisputed victory and its seemingly invincible leader finally experienced a check to their political power – a chastening of a deeply pedestalised Modi and a step in the right direction for the democratic structure of India.
While Modi was still sworn in for a historic third term as prime minister, it was a somewhat pyrrhic victory, as the BJP seemed to now be at the mercy of the likes of Nitish and Naidu.
While this verdict signaled hope in much of the country for a renewed strength of our democracy, several political analysts forecasted negligible genuine change, if any, and instead predicted a reinvigoration of the BJP’s relentless hunger to be the sole political authority in the country.
While the BJP might have fallen short of achieving an absolute majority, they still shone through with 240 seats, with the Congress lagging far behind with 99. This election reflects a substantial improvement as compared to the 2019 general election results, but in isolation, it was viewed as a symbol of the chokehold the BJP has on Indian politics – a grip that might have now loosened, but still very much exists.
However, the litany of U-turns and shifts made by the Modi government over the past two months defy these expectations, suggesting the resurgence of coalition politics. Among these U-turns are abrupt policy reversals, which indicate that the BJP, despite its previous dominance, is now increasingly compelled to accommodate the demands of its coalition partners.
As a result of this weakening of the central authority, the Modi government is being forced to prioritise consensus-building over unilateral decision-making, which marks a significant departure from its earlier governance style.
The most recent change in policy was on August 20, when the Modi 3.0 government canceled advertisement for lateral entry appointments by the UPSC following criticism from the INDIA alliance as well as Nitish and Naidu.
Moreover, Modi withdrew or amended several bills and budget proposals, including the Broadcast Bill, the Waqf Board Bill, and the elimination of indexation benefits on long-term capital gains tax, all in response to public and political pressure. This pattern of reversals demonstrates the growing influence of Nitish and Naidu and opposition forces in shaping government decisions, marking a surprising yet refreshing change in governance in India as the BJP now faces the reality of a coalition government.
Naidu’s Telugu Desam Party (TDP) and Nitish’s Janata Dal-United (JD(U)) emerged as indispensable coalition partners to Modi, holding the power to make or break BJP’s NDA government – a “Nitish-Naidu Dependent Alliance”, as articulated by the Congress.
Unreliable in nature, Nitish and Naidu can take credit for much of the Modi government’s recent backtracking. The importance and leverage of these kingmakers in this coalition government is undeniable, which begs the question of how they have politically leaned in the past vis-a-vis the NDA, the BJP, and Mr. Modi himself.
Nitish Kumar’s repeated shifts in allegiance
The allegiance of Nitish Kumar’s JD(U) to the NDA has been highly precarious, charting a delicate and tenuous relationship given the party’s abounding turnabouts between Modi’s alliance and that of the opposition. In fact, the JD(U)’s last shift in allegiance occurred as recently as January of this year, when it left the opposition INDIA alliance and joined the NDA once again.
In a political landscape where consistency is key, how much can Modi rely on a party that has demonstrated its willingness to switch sides at the drop of a hat, as per its own interest rather than the interest of the alliance at large? Moreover, what does JD(U)’s political ambivalence mean for the stability and strength of the new coalition government, as well as the BJP’s ability to consolidate power in the alliance?
This relationship was not always tumultuous – during the 2010 Bihar state assembly elections, the JD(U)-BJP coalition was extremely successful, bagging a 75% majority in the assembly. Despite this success in Bihar – perhaps a testament to the strategic relevance of the JD(U)-BJP relationship – Nitish made the decision to leave the NDA in 2013 after 17 years in the alliance.
This sudden exit from the NDA sparked intense political dialogue to settle the debate as to why the JD(U) left the NDA. It came soon after the BJP’s announcement of Modi being their prime ministerial candidate for the 2014 elections, allowing Nitish to fall back on his alleged anti-Modi stance to justify the exit.
However, the damning 2002 Gujarat riots that led to the condemnation of Modi in the eyes of many had clearly not been reason enough for Nitish to leave the alliance, despite the hue and cry he made when he finally exited about Modi’s inherently divisive leadership. This pointed the debate away from a moral denunciation of the BJP on Nitish’s part, and towards the JD(U)’s political motives in Bihar.
While the results of the 2010 elections in Bihar had been viewed as a victory of the JD(U-)BJP coalition, the reality was far bleaker for the state party, as the BJP’s vote share outstripped that of the JD(U). Nitish’s choice to dismiss the BJP from Bihar’s ruling coalition seemed to be his effort to counter the BJP’s growing influence in the state and shield the existent power of the JD(U).
This switching of sides in 2013 was the first of many for Nitish, as he rejoined the NDA in 2017, left once again in 2022, and then finally made the move back to the NDA in the lead-up to the 2024 general elections. An evidently capricious leader with jaded sentiments towards Modi, Nitish is the last person our prime minister would have chosen to rely on in the formation of this new government, yet is now facing a situation centering Nitish as one of his kingmakers.
Nitish’s repeated shifts in allegiance – making him known for his ‘flip-flops’ – reveal a deeper tension between personal political ambition and ideological consistency. As he continues to navigate this complex landscape, one must wonder: is his latest move truly a calculated strategy, or simply another chapter in his history of opportunism?
For Modi, who seeks a stable and unified coalition, Nitish’s unpredictability poses a liability that the BJP did not see coming. As per his previous political swings, Nitish is likely to still play both sides, making this partnership more fragile than ever, and perhaps finally tipping the power dynamic away from Modi and towards Nitish.
Chandrababu Naidu: The strong-willed ally who gets his way
An arguably more important ally that outperformed the JD(U) in this election was the TDP, led by the fierce Chandrababu Naidu. Naidu’s political debut was inspired by none other than Indira Gandhi, prompting him to pursue a Congress ticket in Andhra Pradesh.
His initial stint in politics was in the Congress, until he switched alliances to the TDP in the 80s, eventually rising to the chief ministerial position in Andhra Pradesh – a position that he has now commenced his fourth term in. Despite Naidu’s efforts to create a third alliance during the 1996 Lok Sabha elections that was separate from the Congress and the BJP, he conceded and joined the NDA when elections were held in 1998.
A seemingly positive inauguration of Naidu’s relationship with the BJP, and still, the aftermath of the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh was enough to shatter the long-standing alliance in 2018. The Telangana debate had been a problem for the TDP-BJP alliance in earlier years too, as Naidu clashed with BJP leadership in their stance on the issue back in 2001.
Despite harmony broadly prevailing in this alliance for the better part of the last two decades, Naidu made an abrupt call to split from the NDA in the early months of 2018. In retaliation to the BJP’s decision to deny Andhra Pradesh Special Category Status following the bifurcation of the state, Naidu announced the exit of the TDP from the NDA.
Immediately following this announcement, the TDP launched a no-confidence motion against the Modi government, which, while comfortably defeated, marked a decisive rift in TDP-BJP ties. Amit Shah, the national president of the BJP in 2019, even said that the NDA’s doors were “permanently closed” to Naidu and the TDP, highlighting the dramatic erosion of this marriage of convenience.
But a mere month before the 2024 general elections, these doors seemed to magically reopen, as the TDP announced its return to the NDA in an unforeseen turn of events. While less accustomed to switching loyalties than his fellow kingmaker, Naidu is a man with a mission when it comes to Andhra – one that may not align with that of the BJP.
And yet, with the TDP having secured the most seats in the NDA following the BJP itself, Modi has little choice but to respect Naidu’s wants and needs in order to hold together the coalition in the center – a less than ideal situation for a two-term prime minister used to getting his own way.
Naidu’s unexpected return to the NDA raises critical questions about the stability of an alliance that seems to be more about convenience than conviction. For Modi, who is accustomed to wielding significant control within his coalition, the return of a strong-willed ally like Naidu introduces a new layer of complexity – one that might threaten Modi’s supreme leadership and hopefully revive a balance of power, as well as a system of checks and balances that have been vital to India’s democratic legitimacy.
A comeback of democratic values?
Perhaps the democratic values we once ascribed to – values that were dismantled one by one by the dissent-suppressing, free speech-restricting, media-controlling government we have recently experienced – will finally make a comeback.
It is crucial to keep in mind, however, that both Naidu and Nitish are regional politicians. Their focus will seldom deviate from their respective states despite gaining such traction on the national stage – a traction they will simply leverage to advance Andhra Pradesh and Bihar. For the first time in a decade, Indian politics is being determined by the back and forth that comes with a coalition government.
Nitish and Naidu are both calling for Special Category Status for their states, among several other demands, in return for their support of the Modi government; bills and decisions that would have been agreed upon with overwhelming majorities in the past are now subject to much more scrutiny.
For a leader habituated to unbridled political sovereignty, Modi must now answer, in some measure, to Nitish and Naidu, who represent the precise boundary conditions India has been looking for – a reminder that the world’s largest democracy is not governed as per the whims and fancies of one man.
As India stands at the crossroads of its political future, the 2024 general elections have revealed the resilience of its democracy. The rise of kingmakers like Nitish Kumar and Chandrababu Naidu have underscored the unpredictable nature of coalition politics, where regional interests can significantly shape national outcomes.
While the BJP remains a dominant force, the reduced majority and reliance on allies signals a shift in power dynamics that could challenge Modi’s previously unassailable position. So far, this change seems to be leading to a genuine revival of democratic principles, with the slew of policy changes that have been made since the inception of the Modi 3.0 government. What is clear, however, is that the days of uncontested power may be behind us, and the need for checks and balances has never been more apparent in the world’s largest democracy.
Alina Vaidya Mahadevan is from Mumbai and is currently a sophomore in Yale College, studying Economics and Global Affairs
