In the politics of Indian elections, there is nothing more stark than the comparison that sometimes arises not between two slogans but two different approaches. One is an approach where the voter is asked to evaluate the party based on what it says it will do for the people in terms of policy promises, welfare, and performance in government. The other approach is one where emotion plays a much larger role, especially when it comes to identity and religion. The differences that exist between these two approaches have long characterized the differences between the DMK and BJP, especially in Tamil Nadu.
Typically, the politics of the DMK has involved messaging around practical matters that impact peoples’ lives. For example, in their 2024 Lok Sabha manifesto, the DMK promised to lower the prices of LPG, petrol, and diesel; give Tamil Nadu relief from the National Eligibility Test for admissions to medical and dental colleges in India; abolish the Citizenship Amendment Act; stop the enforcement of the Uniform Civil Code; carry out a caste census; increase the participation of women; provide women with a monthly allowance of ₹1,000 throughout the nation; increase autonomy of the states; seek Chief Ministers’ advice in selecting Governors; and establish a Supreme Court Bench at Chennai. No matter how many of these promises one agrees with, the manifesto itself is an indication of a politics of governance and rights, rather than religion.
This is crucial because the elections in a democratic nation must be centered on questions like: Who will provide better education? Who will lower the price levels? Who will generate employment? Who will make public services better? Who will ensure that the states within the Union are protected? The manifesto of the DMK, as well as their campaign rhetoric regarding the “Dravidian Model,” is an attempt to address politics in this manner. It tries to win the votes of people on the basis of policies, including those that are related to welfare of women, representation of communities, linguistic rights, and Center-State issues. Even the opponents of the DMK do not dispute that it has an ideological stance.
It goes without saying that the BJP has also released its own manifesto with welfare-promises and pledges of development. In fact, in its election campaign of 2024, the BJP promised welfare schemes and support for its infrastructure projects and manufacturing industries and, according to Reuters, the party’s message was “on jobs, infrastructure and welfare – not economic change”. Hence, one cannot simply state that the BJP had no agenda of policies to offer. What makes the BJP susceptible to criticism is that their message went beyond politics to governance. According to reports from Reuters, after the first round of voting, BJP’s campaign took a turn and began targeting its competitors for being Muslim-friendly.
This change is important in that it impacts the quality of democracy. Religion, which takes center stage in politics, ends up overshadowing important civic matters. Those facing challenges such as unemployment, rising inflation rates, tuition hikes, healthcare issues, water shortages, transport challenges, or casteism might end up having their campaigns focus on religious indignation rather than addressing these issues. According to Reuters, there were reports by analysts that the most pressing issues for voters were jobs and inflation despite the election rhetoric focusing on the divide between Hindus and Muslims. This is precisely the reason why religion ends up being a pocket political tool.
In this sense, the counter-argument presented by the DMK towards the BJP goes beyond ideology. Politics must be judged by its ability to provide, not by its devotion and religiosity. And this distinction between the BJP and the DMK in particular has historical significance. While the Dravidian movement in Tamil Nadu has been grounded in social reform, rationalism, pride in language, reservation, and welfare measures, the BJP has its primary sources of legitimacy in a wider imagination of Hindu nationalism. It is not only two rivaling political parties that engage with each other here; it is also two different approaches to election campaigning. The former asks voters to consider themselves beneficiaries, workers, students, women, and residents of a particular state.
Ultimately, any healthy democracy would reward those political entities that resonate with the electorate on the level of their own reality. Issues such as roads, schools, reservations, the price of fuel, women’s welfare payments, linguistic rights, equal representation in the central government, and dignity for the individual are all tangible. Devout religious fervour can generate a cacophony of voices, but it alone will not reduce the cost of fuel, provide quality schooling, or address entrenched socio-economic disparities. It is perhaps for this reason that many believe that the politics of the DMK is more realistic, while that of the BJP is too often reduced to an appeal to religion to energize the masses in an election year.
