news details |
|
|
| The Opposition is Defeating Itself on Its Own Chessboard | | | Lalit Garg
India is celebrated worldwide as the largest democracy on the planet. With nearly one billion voters, countless political parties, and a rich tradition of free elections, Indian democracy has been hailed as a miracle of diversity and resilience. Yet, the health of any democracy does not depend only on the ruling government. It equally depends on the quality, maturity, and constructive role of the opposition. In theory, the opposition is not an enemy of the state, nor merely a critic of the ruling party. It is a vital pillar of democracy—responsible for questioning the government’s actions, voicing public grievances, and presenting alternative policies. A strong opposition makes the government accountable and ensures that power does not become absolute. However, in practice, the current Indian opposition seems to have lost its sense of direction. Instead of offering vision, it has fallen into a trap of negativity, baseless allegations, and disruptive politics. In doing so, it is not the ruling party that loses, but democracy itself.
The latest example of this downward spiral came when Congress leader Rahul Gandhi alleged large-scale “vote theft,” EVM tampering, and manipulation of voter rolls. These charges, made without evidence, were not just political rhetoric; they were direct attacks on the credibility of the Election Commission of India, one of the most respected constitutional institutions of the country. Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, in a rare and firm intervention, responded point by point, dismissing Gandhi’s accusations as baseless. He even issued an ultimatum: either submit an affidavit with proof or apologize to the nation within seven days. This incident highlights the danger of reckless opposition politics—when constitutional institutions themselves are painted as corrupt or biased without evidence, the very foundation of public trust in democracy begins to crack. Democracy survives on credibility. Political Parties may win or lose elections, but if citizens begin to doubt the fairness of elections, then the soul of democracy is endangered. The opposition, by making unverified allegations, is ironically undermining the very system that allows it to exist.
This is not an isolated incident. Over the past decade, the opposition has repeatedly opposed reforms, not on rational grounds, but seemingly out of political compulsions. Consider a few examples: Linking Aadhaar with bank accounts: a measure aimed at reducing corruption and leakage in subsidies. Abrogation of Article 370: a historic step to fully integrate Jammu and Kashmir into India’s constitutional framework. Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and NRC: aimed at providing refuge to persecuted minorities, yet turned into grounds for violent protests. Electoral reforms in Bihar: where voter verification exercises were portrayed as sinister conspiracies. In each of these cases, the opposition failed to provide a constructive counter-narrative. Instead, it resorted to fear-mongering, street agitation, and obstruction in Parliament.
Contrast this with the role of opposition in mature democracies. In the United States, for instance, while Republicans and Democrats often clash fiercely, bipartisan cooperation is seen during times of national crisis. In the United Kingdom, the “Shadow Cabinet” functions as a responsible alternative government, scrutinizing policies but also proposing clear alternatives. Unfortunately, in India, the opposition often seems more interested in blocking legislation than in shaping it. Parliament is meant to be the temple of democracy, where elected representatives deliberate on the nation’s most pressing issues. Yet, in recent years, parliamentary sessions have increasingly been disrupted by the opposition’s strategy of sloganeering, walkouts, and boycotts. Critical bills on women’s safety, environmental protection, and economic reforms have been stalled not because of genuine disagreement but because the opposition has sought to embarrass the government at any cost. This approach weakens not only the government but also the institution of Parliament itself. When citizens watch televised sessions filled with chaos rather than debate, their faith in democratic processes diminishes.
India’s democratic history offers important lessons. During the Emergency (1975–77), opposition leaders across ideological lines united to restore democracy, ultimately defeating authoritarianism at the ballot box. Again in 1989, a strong opposition coalition challenged the ruling Congress party, leading to an era of coalition politics that balanced power. These were times when the opposition acted not merely as a critic, but as a guardian of democracy. But since 2014, the opposition has struggled to present a Narrow vision. Fragmented leadership, internal rivalries, and the absence of a unifying narrative have left it weak and reactionary. Rather than offering hope, it has focused on negativity.
A weak and irresponsible opposition also has international consequences. When Indian opposition leaders question the integrity of the armed forces or cast doubts on foreign policy, it provides propaganda opportunities to hostile neighbors like Pakistan and China. For instance, dismissing India’s military actions or questioning its global diplomacy weakens India’s standing in international forums. Democratic disagreement is natural. But when disagreement turns into disruption, it emboldens foreign adversaries and damages national unity.
Of course, responsibility does not rest on the opposition alone. The ruling party must also recognize that democracy is not sustained by majority rule alone but by consensus and transparency. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has repeatedly emphasized that criticism is essential in a democracy. His government has often shown patience in addressing questions, but true democratic maturity demands continuous dialogue and openness to scrutiny.
Is there a need for comprehensive change in the opposition for a strong democracy? Opposition must move from rhetoric to responsibility. Its task is not merely to oppose, but to propose. Parliament must be restored as a place of debate, not disruption. A culture of discussion, negotiation, and compromise is essential. Constructive criticism must replace destructive politics. Allegations should be evidence-based, not propaganda-driven. A vision for the future. The opposition must present credible policies on unemployment, inflation, education, healthcare, and security—issues that directly impact citizens.
The strength of democracy lies not only in a powerful government but also in a strong, creative, and credible opposition. By confining itself to obstruction and negativity, the current opposition is not just harming its own credibility—it is endangering India’s democratic fabric. The time has come for deep introspection. The opposition must abandon the politics of “opposing for the sake of opposition” and instead reinvent itself as a responsible stakeholder in the nation’s future. Only then can Indian democracy shine as a model for the world. Democracy is not a battle between enemies—it is a dialogue between partners in nation-building. Unless the opposition realizes this truth, it will continue to lose not only elections but also its relevance. In that case, it will not be the ruling party that triumphs—it will be democracy itself that suffers defeat. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
