Why Has Modi Gone Missing From BJP’s Campaign?

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was on the back foot after the 2024 general elections held in May. Though, given the fact that Narendra Modi was making a pitch for the third term, it was not a bad result to end up with 240 seats, but given the hyperbole it created around `Ab ki baar 400 paar`, the perception war looked like it was slipping away from BJP.

Just when the Opposition seemed to be getting its counter-narrative in place, they lost comprehensively in both the Assembly elections in Haryana and Maharashtra. BJP, as of now, looks like it has got itself back into the driver`s seat.

However, in this din over narratives and electoral outcomes a significant change in the BJP campaigns did not get as much attention as it deserved. Why did Modi go missing from the electoral campaigns? The party is now winning in spite of Modi’s relatively thin presence. He is no longer the driving force as compared to the heyday of BJP’s electoral campaign that was exclusively centered around Modi, and he attended and spoke at length at an overwhelming number of public meetings.

This visible shift in BJP’s campaign style signifies important things about how the party is now approaching its electoral campaign. To begin with, BJP is acutely aware of not only the dominant narrative but also about the counter-narratives taking shape. They, in fact, understand that every narrative has a counter and to remain hegemonic, one needs to occupy not only the dominant space but also the potential counter-publics.

The BJP began with hyperbolic nationalism, pan-India Hindu identity and civilisational resurgence. This was matched with a ‘towering’ leader -- Hindu Hriday Samrat, campaigns for ‘Congress-mukt Bharat’ and ‘One Nation, One Market’ policy frame. This style of campaign obviously created micro-spaces, regional and sub-nationalist sentiments. In the economy, it created the narrative for small and medium-scale industries.

Just when the space was growing for counter-regional narratives, BJP has created a new style of campaign for Assembly elections where its central leadership takes a backseat. Modi occupies limited space. This shift goes along with the party’s strategy of changing chief ministers, like ML Khattar in Haryana, and not repeating local candidates. This helps it beat the fatigue factor and project itself afresh.

Modi is now more about managing his image globally. He is more of a projected ‘global leader’ than a national heavyweight. The BJP shifted from slogans of `Abki baar Modi sarkar` to a more decentralised campaign without Modi at its centre.

The electoral victories continue, but with a shift in BJP’s campaign style. Modi is still at the helm of the affairs but not the centre-piece. This is no ordinary change to bring about. Earlier, when the campaign of ‘Hum do Humare do’ by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi was picking up, BJP leader and Union Home Minister Amit Shah was replaced on the hoardings with JP Nadda (BJP president). It’s interesting to note that the process of extreme centralisation in BJP also allows for extreme flexibility.

This flexibility by BJP is not merely an electoral strategy; it demonstrates an acute awareness of the need to co-opt oppositional spaces to continue political domination. Critical German theorist, Theodor Adorno, once remarked that authoritarian figures project themselves as a combination of `King Kong and suburban barber`. They combine unlikely imageries open to multiple significations. In complex and layered societies, this allows communities to make sense of the processes and imageries from their own exclusivist social positions. This also speaks about the organisational heft of the BJP. It developed an organisational structure that has the ability to transform any narrative into a reality and become electorally viable.

This kind of flexibility, however, is possible because of lack of alternatives in social and economic policy. Flexibility is structured around a rigid ‘neoliberal consensus’. The similarity in economic policy is allowing for minute organisational and leadership issues to matter more than they should in representative democracies.

It is clear that it is difficult for the Opposition to do better than what the BJP is doing on this front. The only realistic choice they have is to break the ‘neoliberal consensus’. There is today a convergence between neoliberal consensus and majoritarian psyche. One cannot be stopped without halting the other. Part of the reason for the repeated failure of the Opposition is to continue along neoliberal policies but arrest majoritarianism; to continue with secularism without empowering, against transactional, welfarism. Monopoly capitalism is finding its social roots in majoritarianism.

The only way forward for the Opposition is to come up with transformative welfarism. In the current context this could mean a guaranteed basic income scheme for all unemployed youth; common school system, which should mean, ‘KG to PG’ free and quality education for all; and a robust health care system for all.

The Opposition has to think in terms of greater budgetary allocations for social welfare. BJP is fine with transactional welfarism, but it will have serious problems with transformative welfarism as it will impinge on their social vision.

The social vision of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh or RSS-BJP combine is necessarily related to creating greater vulnerability and shrinking the opportunity structure. In their understanding, an independent, confident and empowered citizenry will not succumb to majoritarian dictates.

An aspirational momentum without real-time opportunities helped Modi`s model of politics. The Opposition cannot now bank on aspirations, and has to move to empowerment. It is in creating a social citizenry through transformative welfare policy that ‘mere’ electoral strategies of shifting campaign styles will begin to matter less. But is the Opposition willing to push the envelope?

The writer is Associate Professor at the Centre for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi. The views are personal.