Salem Dharanidharan 
Several prominent opposition parties will meet in Patna today, Friday, June 23, to devise an electoral strategy for the 2024 election against the incumbent BJP government. An old phrase is making its entry into India’s electoral lexicon again: opposition unity. It is an electoral strategy to vanquish the BJP by ensuring a direct contest between it and a united opposition in every constituency, preventing a split in votes. In a first-past-the-pole electoral system, it supposes that if India’s multi-party democracy can be turned into a two-party democracy in each state, the ruling BJP can be defeated easily. Reasoning also comes from the fact that the BJP managed to win more than 300 seats by securing just 37% of the vote share. A CSDS survey has also identified that the Congress would gain as much as 10% points in the upcoming elections – which implies that a two-party contest would largely help the opposition.
The importance of the Patna meeting can be gauged from the fact that at least 20 opposition parties have agreed to attend it. Ever since the Karnataka elections, there is a renewed push for opposition unity and parties have realised that the BJP is not invincible. Ten opposition chief ministers skipped the NITI Aayog meeting led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and 19 opposition parties boycotted the inauguration of the new Parliament complex for the sidelining of President Droupadi Murmu. Trinamool Congress and Aam Aadmi Party, which were not keen on an alliance with the Congress, are now coming around. Mamata Banerjee, the chief minister of West Bengal, suggested that the Congress should allow regional parties to contest in their strongholds and that regional parties would support the Congress in its strongholds.
Congress and opposition leaders at Siddaramaiah’s swearing-in ceremony. Photo: Twitter/@Kharge
What is a Dravidian model?
Opposition unity is a potent political force but does not naturally become a powerful electoral force. For the opposition to become a powerful electoral force, it needs to have a strong idea and an ideology. That ideology can be provided by the “Dravidian model”. One may confuse this model to denote a genealogy or a race, but it actually symbolises a political philosophy – one that believes in equitable growth for all and ensures that no one is left behind.
This model of governance can be traced back to the Justice Party that governed the Madras province a century ago. It is this philosophy that made Tamil Nadu inclusive. It was able to uplift all segments of society because the Dravidian parties made significant advances in consolidating people belonging to different castes and religions for the cause of social justice.
The Dravidian model believes that trickle-down economics does not work and focuses on welfare schemes. The state, by using targeted/universal interventions in areas such as food security, health and education and via affirmative action programmes, was able to provide an equitable platform for people from all societal backgrounds. One of the major successes of Tamil Nadu’s model of governance lies in the democratisation of education, health and bureaucracy.
Tamil Nadu’s graduate enrollment ratio, at 52%, is one of the highest in the world (37% in the US), and is way higher than the Indian average of 27%. Tamil Nadu’s emphasis on affirmative action can be seen from the protests against NEET. By reserving 69% of the seats for OBCs, SCs and STs – along with reservations for students from rural backgrounds – the state has ensured education for nearly each and every social group.
Industrial development in Tamil Nadu is also unique. It is one of India’s most industrialised states, behind Maharashtra and Gujarat. Though Gujarat and Maharashtra may have high per capita income, that is due to the extraordinarily high accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few super-rich. M. Vijayabaskar and A. Kalaiyarasan note that through the Dravidian model, Tamil Nadu has achieved diversity in both spatial distribution (spread of industrial units, for example in Tirupur, Sivakasi and Vellore) as well as caste-wise ownership of industries (one in four Dalit entrepreneurs live in Tamil Nadu and the state also has the highest OBC entrepreneurs in India). Now, Tamil Nadu is the first state in India to announce special grants, worth Rs 50 crore, for startups that exclusively have SC/ST entrepreneurs.
In gender parity, India currently ranks 135th out of the 146 countries ranked (the rank has been worsening over the past few years). The country particularly lags behind in the economic participation of women category, ranking fourth from the bottom behind only Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. In health, India is last among the nations ranked. Even here, Tamil Nadu does exceedingly well. A national-level study by McKinsey that measures gender inequality in the workforce with the Female empowerment index (FEMDEX) places Tamil Nadu and Kerala among the best large states in India for gender parity. At 32%, the female labour force participation in Tamil Nadu is nearly twice that of the rest of India. Similarly, the Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) of women entering colleges in Tamil Nadu is 49% compared to 25% for the rest of India.
Also Read: The Opposition’s Task Is To Forgo Particularistic Ambitions for the Larger Good
Economy and social cohesion have tanked under Modi
Prime Minister Modi may claim that under him, the GDP has grown and paint it as an achievement. What has actually happened is that in the past nine years, the “cleavages” between the “haves” and the “have nots” have drastically increased. The country has become more unequal, whereby only a certain handful of corporations have reaped all the benefits. The Gini coefficient, which measures inequality, has risen by 30%, since 2014. As per an Oxfam report, the 21 richest Indians have the same wealth as the bottom 70 crore Indians. India’s youth unemployment rate is one of the highest in the world, farmers’ income has reduced in real terms, and the net demand of the Indian economy has reached an all-time low.
Apart from the economy struggling, the country has also become increasingly polarised. Since Modi took office, religious divides have been deepening. There is a rising tide of majoritarianism and political polarisation. A process of desecularisation has become evident through the specific targeting of India’s largest religious minority group via mass lynchings, the Citizenship Amendment Bill, the building of detention camps in Assam, widespread hate speeches and the dilution of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir. There has also been caste-based polarisation. Violence against Dalits has increased dramatically over the past several years. Such increased incidence of communal hate and nationalism has been stoked by the BJP to hypnotise the masses and win elections irrespective of their abysmal performance on all fronts.
But the BJP’s complete reliance on communal polarisation and charisma does not seem to be working any more. The best example is the recently fought Karnataka elections. The BJP approached the elections with its usual plank – communally polarising people based on emotive issues such as the hijab and annulling the 4% reservation for Muslims. Whereas the Congress fought the elections on the social justice plank: it spoke to the people about widening inequality and that several promises regarding development made by the BJP made remain unfulfilled. Its manifesto borrowed ideas from the “Dravidian model”: free bus passes for women, monthly payments to women folk, etc.
The idea of an inclusive India – with an emphasis on social justice – would definitely attract the masses and serve as an alternative to hate-filled right-wing bigotry. The Dravidian model’s success in Tamil Nadu will serve as a model for the rest of India to emulate.
In northern states such as Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, attempts were made to consolidate different castes to further social justice. In the Mandal region, a perception was created that the socialist parties have only empowered a particular dominant OBC group and the BJP capitalised on it with its polarising agenda. Even in northern states, the Dravidian model would help in the consolidation of backward classes, Dalits and Adivasis on the lines of social justice.
The opposition should also consider the democratic backslide in India. The V-Dem Institute, an independent research institute based at the University of Gothenburg, has observed that India is now an “electoral autocracy”. The democratic institutions of the country have become opaque under the present regime. For example, central agencies like the ED, CBI and Income Tax have become tools to harass the opposition parties. Before the BJP came to power, the ED conducted 112 raids between 2005 and 2014. However, between 2014 and 2022, it conducted more than 3,000. But, the conviction rate is less than 0.5%. Interestingly, as per official data, 95% of all these cases were filed against opposition politicians.
Therefore, every opposition leader and voter who cherish their freedoms should see the 2024 parliamentary election as one that will determine the future of democracy in India.
Salem Dharanidharan is the state deputy secretary of the DMK IT Wing and spokesperson. He was an alumnus of the University of Oxford and Sciences Po, Paris.