The heading “BJP-RSS master plan to challenge Congress: ‘Bengal model’ weapons to be tested in Karnataka” is more than just any other news item regarding Indian politics. This is a lesson on how politics could change before the assembly elections in Karnataka in 2028. At present, Karnataka is ruled by the Congress party following its significant win in 2023 when it secured 135 seats out of 224 seats, whereas the BJP was able to secure only 66 seats.
According to the Karnataka minister, Priyank Kharge, the BJP-RSS combination is preparing to unleash their “Bengal model weapons” in Karnataka. As per him, this would include fabricating false narratives, deepening the communal divide, burying local issues amid religious polarization, and portraying booth-level propaganda as community mobilization. Irrespective of whether one accepts his entire narrative or not, the underlying issue is worth debating publicly.
It is not just about BJP vs Congress. It is about the influence of non-democratic ideological organisations which lack transparency and are unaccountable. The RSS sees itself as a cultural body, and its leader Mohan Bhagwat claims that the legality of the organisation lies in the fact that it exists as a “collectivity of persons,” and thus needs no registration. But those who oppose the RSS insist that any organisation having such power and influence cannot be vague about its internal structure and financing.
This is what Karnataka needs to watch out for. Democracy is supposed to be contested based on issues like governance, employment, education, inflation, corruption, infrastructure, farm problems, women’s security, and social justice. Polarisation tactics lie in taking people’s focus off these critical issues and forcing them into identity-driven, emotional confrontations. Rather than raising questions about educational standards, health care facilities, job creation, and implementation of welfare schemes, the citizens will find themselves engaged in discussions about caste, community, and religious hatred.
By “Bengal model,” as described by its critics, one means a model of politics which deliberately polarises the existing social tensions in the region purely for political gains. It has nothing to do with development. In fact, it leads to a continuous state of mistrust. All disputes within the region can be easily communalised. All practices of society can be easily used politically. All the failures of the administration can be justified through a bigger ideological fight. Once all of this is done, rational politics becomes difficult and emotional politics reigns supreme.
Karnataka has its own unique political culture. The region has a proud tradition of social reforms, respect for language, modernity in technology, peasant movements, movements among Dalits and other backward classes and constitutional politics. To reduce a complex state like Karnataka to a mere testing ground for communal politics will only lead to chaos.
The problem worsens further when political activity is conducted through networks which do not come under any voter control. Political parties are at least legally registered organisations. They compete in elections, give affidavits, field their candidates, put forward manifestos, and go before voters themselves. However, when ideological outfits manipulate the content of political messaging through their informal networks, then accountability is difficult to establish. If an untrue narrative takes root, then whose responsibility is it? If communal tensions increase, then whose accountability is it? If misinformation affects voting patterns, then whom does the citizen hold accountable for such matters?
This is not an abstract issue; India has already shown what kind of problem could arise from political finance and transparency issues. In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the electoral bond scheme, stating that anonymous political funding infringed on the right to information of the voters. This was a straightforward democratic principle: citizens have the right to be informed about those who wield influence over politics.
However, it does not imply that no organization has the right to air its voice. In a democratic setup, there exist ideologies, societal organizations, religions, unions, and other forums through which one has the freedom to speak. However, when these influences take root systematically in elections to gain political mileage, there is need for transparency in democracy, which survives only if power comes with responsibility.
In this regard, Karnataka should learn that it should not wait until it is polarized by issues to act. The civil society, journalists, teachers, students, political activists, and common citizenry should raise questions like: who wins from this rhetoric? Is the matter genuine? Is this discussion solving problems of people or diverting their attention? Is religion being used to cover up political shortcomings?
It goes without saying that the BJP has every right to campaign for Karnataka in the year 2028 and so also does the Congress to defend itself and its government. However, the people of Karnataka enjoy even more fundamental rights in the matter – the right to a pristine democratic process. Elections should never become a manufacturing ground for fear.
If the “model” offered to Karnataka is development, let it be debated. If it is governance, let it be examined. But if the model is division, Karnataka has to reject it early. The future of the state cannot be decided by hate, misinformation or hidden political engineering. It has to be decided by citizens who refuse to let their democracy be poisoned. Let it be looked into if it is governance. But if the model is division, Karnataka must eschew it early. The future of the state should not be determined by hate, misinformation or hidden political engineering. Let the citizens decide who will not let their democracy be poisoned.
