• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Milan Vaishnav"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "SAP",
  "programs": [
    "South Asia"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "South Asia",
    "India"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Political Reform"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

What the 2024 Battle May Look Like

The BJP is preparing for a third term. The Congress is still reeling from its loss of 2014.

Link Copied
By Milan Vaishnav
Published on Sep 18, 2019
Program mobile hero image

Program

South Asia

The South Asia Program informs policy debates relating to the region’s security, economy, and political development. From strategic competition in the Indo-Pacific to India’s internal dynamics and U.S. engagement with the region, the program offers in-depth, rigorous research and analysis on South Asia’s most critical challenges.

Learn More

Source: Hindustan Times

“Watershed” or “realigning” elections signal a structural break in a country’s political dynamics and the marking of a new era of political competition. They herald a shifting political geography, destruction of old political bedfellows, and the construction of new ones. The 1980 US presidential election that created a generation of white, working class “Reagan Democrats” is an archetypal example.

Realigning elections are difficult to discern ex ante; their impact on the party system is typically only apparent with the benefit of hindsight. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)’s 2019 election triumph leaves no doubt that 2014 was the harbinger of a new era in Indian politics rather than an aberrant black swan. Watershed elections typically prompt soul-searching by the opposition and a sense of complacency among the victorious. In India, one party has conducted a thorough post-election evaluation, dissecting the reasons for its under-performance and establishing new systems to deliver better outcomes. Ironically, this party is the victor, not the vanquished.

 

If one had to summarise the state of national-level politics in one sentence, it would be this: One hundred days into its second term, the BJP is focused on securing a third mandate in 2024 while the Congress is still reeling from the debacle of 2014. “Keep striving hard to win all that you’ve lost. Win over your opponents and focus on winning 2024 election from now on,” Prime Minister Narendra Modi told BJP legislators in early August, even before the dust had settled on the 2019 race.

Indeed, the BJP is troubled by its underwhelming performance in southern India, outside of Karnataka and the four seats it snatched in Telangana. In Andhra Pradesh, the BJP’s vote share plummeted below one percent. In Kerala, the BJP failed to make much of a dent. And this too in the wake of the Sabarimala affair, which the party hoped would galvanise Hindu voters. Rather than dithering, the party has set the wheels in motion on a new “southern strategy” it hopes will pay dividends in 2024. At present, turning the south saffron sounds like a pipe dream. Talk of the BJP winning 18 seats in West Bengal and 40% of the vote once sounded outlandish too — and, yet, here we are.

While political scientists debate the factors that fuelled the BJP’s 2019 victory, there is no dispute that the party — backed by the Sangh Parivar — succeeded in convincing voters that any temporary succour the state may have brought, from a gas connection to regular electricity, is thanks to one man and one man alone. To propagate the government’s work, the party is strengthening its coordination with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). As first reported in this paper, the latter will appoint sangathan mantris in every district to foster closer grassroots linkages between the RSS and its political affiliate.

The contrast with the Congress could not be starker. Like generals obsessed with fighting the last war, irritated Congress leaders regularly dismissed talk of India’s de facto presidential elections. They insisted that India was a parliamentary system in which the alliance that earned a majority would later decide who to name as their prime ministerial face. In retrospect, a fight between the most popular politician in India and a question mark was never much of a match at all.

In Rahul Gandhi’s abrupt departure, the Congress had a golden opportunity to publicly commit to a revolution from within. By insisting that Sonia Gandhi reclaim the presidency, Congress bosses have suffocated any such hopes. This is not a judgment on the Gandhi matriarch’s political mettle. Rather, it is an acknowledgment that the Congress is trapped by its defining feature: The supremacy of the dynasty has held the party together in the past, but it also limits its future rebirth.

In the battle of ideas, the BJP has also cornered the Congress. As Suhas Palshikar has noted, the BJP’s ideological hegemony is built on the twin planks of nationalism and a new welfarism. There are appear to be fewer takers for the brand of Nehruvian secularism the Congress has long advanced; the Congress opportunism and the BJP’s attempts to equate secularism with “minority appeasement” have dealt it a harsh blow. There may be a silent majority in favour of secularism, but not in the way it’s been practiced. Furthermore, the BJP has succeeded in saturating the pro-welfare space the Congress once occupied by dressing up old Congress schemes with advertising that would make Madison Avenue blush. The Congress can only gnash its teeth and accuse the BJP of pilfering its ideas.

In the short term, that leaves the sinking economy as the grounds on which the Congress can best mount a sustained attack. An underwhelming budget, troubling global headwinds, and the BJP’s half-hearted policy response have left the ruling party vulnerable. The government can invalidate 86% of currency overnight, strike terror camps in Pakistani territory, and undo Jammu and Kashmir’s constitutional status within hours. And, yet, it cannot make the case for labour reform or disinvestment? The failure to enact audacious reform can no longer be chalked up to political resistance — it is a concerted choice. The Congress could try to outflank the BJP by rebranding itself as the progenitor of liberal reforms, as the party of PV Narasimha Rao and the 1991 opening. This, too, is a choice. Alas, it is not one the Congress is likely to make.

This article was originally published by the Hindustan Times.

About the Author

Milan Vaishnav

Director and Senior Fellow, South Asia Program

Milan Vaishnav is a senior fellow and director of the South Asia Program and the host of the Grand Tamasha podcast at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. His primary research focus is the political economy of India, and he examines issues such as corruption and governance, state capacity, distributive politics, and electoral behavior. He also conducts research on the Indian diaspora.

    Recent Work

  • Research
    India and a Changing Global Order: Foreign Policy in the Trump 2.0 Era
      • Sameer Lalwani
      • +6

      Milan Vaishnav, Sameer Lalwani, Tanvi Madan, …

  • Commentary
    Indian Americans Still Lean Left. Just Not as Reliably.
      • +1

      Sumitra Badrinathan, Devesh Kapur, Andy Robaina, …

Milan Vaishnav
Director and Senior Fellow, South Asia Program
Milan Vaishnav
Political ReformSouth AsiaIndia

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Who Is Responsible for the Demise of the Russian Internet?

    The Russian state has opted for complete ideological control of the internet and is prepared to bear the associated costs.

      Maria Kolomychenko

  • Duterte stands with his fist raised and a crowd of people stand behind him
    Paper
    Duterte’s Populist Foreign Policy as Illiberal Defiance: Consequences and Prospects

    In the Philippines, Duterte-era discourse emphasizing sovereignty, anti-Western skepticism, and strongman diplomacy mirrors tenets of populist foreign policy around the world.

      Aries A. Arugay

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Is Opposition to Online Restrictions an Inflection Point for the Russian Regime?

    After four years of war, there is no one who can stand up to the security establishment, and President Vladimir Putin is increasingly passive. 

      Tatiana Stanovaya

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Is Frustration With Armenia’s Pashinyan Enough to Bring the Pro-Russia Opposition to Power?

    It’s true that many Armenians would vote for anyone just to be rid of Pashinyan, whom they blame for the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh, but the pro-Russia opposition is unlikely to be able to channel that frustration into an electoral victory.

      Mikayel Zolyan

  • Army personnel stand guard after a pro-monarchy protest turns violent in Kathmandu, Nepal, on March 28, 2025.
    Article
    The Shadow of the Military in Modern South Asia

    Military rule is now a defining political factor in South Asia. Here’s how analysts can understand and account for it.

      Paul Staniland

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600Fax: 202 483 1840
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.