There is a strong cry for opposition unity at the national level to counter the BJP and Narendra Modi in the 2024 parliamentary elections. Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar is getting impatient. Last week he said he was waiting for a signal from the Congress to start his mission for opposition unity. But the Congress and Rahul Gandhi don’t seem to be in a hurry. Nobody knows why. Maybe the Congress is waiting for its plenary to get over. But the fact of the matter is that the opposition parties are not in hurry to come together.

When Mamata Banerjee defeated the BJP in the Bengal assembly election, she was projected as the pivot for an anti-BJP grouping but besides a few meetings and visits to Delhi, that did not lead anywhere. 

Similarly, when Nitish Kumar broke ranks with the BJP and formed a new government in Bihar with the RJD, the opposition found a new star for the leadership of its anti-Modi front. Again, that did not go far.

The third event, tracked with great admiration and hope, was Rahul Gandhi’s Bharat Jodo Yatra. But opposition leaders were less than enthusiastic. More than two dozen parties were invited to join the Yatra but except for the top leaders from Kashmir, hardly anyone walked with the Congress MP for even a few miles. It was a big snub to Rahul Gandhi.

So, my question is this – is opposition unity a mirage? Or will it really take shape now, given that no party is unscathed by Modi’s juggernaut?

In another time in history, the political climate which defines India today would have been ideal to galvanise opposition parties to come together and launch a massive assault on the Modi government.

Today, “galvanise” does not come to mind as we picture the opposition. The concept of “opposition unity” is wrapped in mystery. The silence is loud and jarring.

The national elections are 15 months away and despite the Modi government facing serious and troubling questions on price rise, unemployment and Adani, opposition leaders cannot be bothered to leave their burrows.

In a similar scenario in the past, in 1967, 1977 and 1989, opposition parties not only banded together but created so much disruption that it brought the Congress down.

In 1967, when the Congress was thought to be invincible, opposition unity did the impossible; the opposition dislodged the party from power in nine states. In 1977, the Congress lost the national elections for the first time and in 1989, the government, which had more than 400 parliamentary seats in Lok Sabha, crashed over the Bofors scandal.

Today, the Congress has been supplanted by the BJP, which nationally commands only 37% votes – far less than the Congress’s best in its heydays (more than 42% vote share). Today there seems to be no urgency in the opposition camp; they just don’t seem to be getting together.

The obvious question is why?

One has to understand that India has changed in the last few years. The basic template of politics has seen a tectonic shift. On one end, when the ruling dispensation has become more ideological, on the other end the opposition has been stripped of its ideology – “de-ideologised”, if you will.

The parties that claim to fight the BJP are not driven by conviction but compulsion. A majority of the parties and their leaders have no national vision or outlook. Earlier, three main opposition political streams – the Jana Sangh and later the BJP, the socialists and the communist parties – all fighting to replace the Congress, had a clearly defined ideological understanding of India. They had a clear vision of India.

If the Jana Sangh and the BJP wanted to create a Hindu Rashtra, the Communists desired a classless society, and the Socialists dreamt of a welfare state.

Despite the differences in their visions for India’s future, all the parties and their leaders had a common conviction that democracy, federalism and the Constitution had to be saved from the Congress party. That consensus is missing today. None of these parties have any idea what the India of their dreams should be. Their primary motivation is to capture power and form governments.

Mamata Banerjee is happy if she is Chief Minister in Bengal, as are Nitish Kumar, KCR (K Chandrasekhar Rao), Arvind Kejriwal, Bhagwant Mann, Jagan Mohan Reddy, Naveen Patnaik, Hemant Soren and MK Stalin, in their states. Akhilesh Yadav and Tejasvi Yadav will be more than satisfied if they could become Chief Minister someday. These leaders are not in politics for higher goals.

Nitish Kumar has no ideological compulsion – he can swim with ease with the BJP as well as the RJD, two ideological extremes. The same is true for Mamata, Stalin, Uddhav Thackeray and HD Kumaraswamy. Each has been with the BJP in the past.

It is ironic that most of the leaders in the opposition today are sons and daughters of legendary leaders who had clear ideological positions, who struggled to attain high positions.

Mulayam Singh Yadav, Lalu Prasad Yadav, Bala Saheb Thackeray, YS Rajasekhara Reddy, Biju Patnaik, MK Karunanidhi, Shibu Soren, Deve Gowda, Farooq Abdullah and Mufti Mohammad Sayed were stalwarts in their own right but their sons and daughters attained fame and power on the platter. They did not have to fight to reach the top. They are princelings. Ideology is not their forte and power is the driving force. If their parents had not been in politics and sold watches, they would have been happily doing that too. Since power and not conviction defines their politics, they can align with any group and party which can share a slice of power with them. 

In their eyes, Modi and Rahul Gandhi both are the same. Whosoever offers them a better bargain and a greater share in power, will be their friend. In their assessment, if they realise that being with Modi can save them from the vice grip of government agencies, or they can be cabinet ministers at the centre or can run their governments smoothly in states, they will dump the notion of opposition unity and embrace the BJP, forgetting all political differences.

Rumours about Mayawati going soft on the Modi government has some substance. Mamata Banerjee, who was hostile to Modi, has suddenly mellowed down. This happened not without any reason. Naveen Patnaik is happy in Odisha as along as the Centre does not disturb him. So is Jagan Mohan Reddy in Andhra Pradesh. KCR and Kejriwal know that they have to fight the BJP if they have to survive in their states but in the future, they are always open to compromise. Kumaraswamy and Uddhav Thackeray have shared power with the BJP in the past. Sharad Pawar helped save the BJP government in Maharashtra in 2014. Mehbooba Mufti was Chief Minister with support from the BJP. 

In this game, the Congress is the curious case. It can’t go with the BJP but is not in a position to offer anything substantial to opposition parties, except for a few seats in a few states.

The Congress promises to offer an anti-BJP narrative, a counter to Hindutva, but has no structured ideology. Rahul Gandhi has but a few stray ideas. The Congress talks about democracy, constitutionalism, and federalism, but its record on these issues is iffy. Besides, the Congress is not sure the opposition parties won’t ditch it if the BJP were to offer a better bargain or if government agencies got into the picture.

In 1977 and 1989, the Jansangh/BJP, communists and socialists joined hands despite deep differences because they had a basic understanding of universal values. There was consensus on basic issues. Democracy, Constitutionalism and federalism were not open to compromise. Power was important but not the only incentive. Politics of conviction was important. Leaders were born and raised in a value system that was the product of the freedom movement.

In India, the new generation of leaders has a disconnect with the freedom movement. Modi’s BJP is not the same it used to be during Atal-Advani’s (Atal Behari Vajpayee and LK Advani) time. For today’s BJP, power is everything and it will stop at nothing to get it.

On the other hand, Rahul Gandhi is neither Sonia Gandhi nor Rajiv Gandhi, who had a different understanding of party politics. He is fighting for his own survival and is suspicious of his own party colleagues. Modi and Rahul Gandhi are the two main players, and they are nothing like their illustrious predecessors. For them, political opponents are not rivals but enemies. They have changed the rules of the game, so the grammar of political engagement has also changed.

Opposition unity has grown more complicated than before, and if we try to understand its mechanism through the old prism, it will be a mistake.

“Are you kidding me? In what world is this okay and allowed?” Alia Bhatt’s question, unfortunately, has a non-palatable answer.

In the social media-verse where it is all about getting clicks, reels and instant gratification, privacy is collateral damage. The word ‘privacy’ is not in the lexicon of that entitled bunch called the paparazzi.

Boundaries have been crossed quicker than a Suryakumar Yadav’s blink-and-miss hit to the fence, and everything is fine, until it’s not. 

What happened with Alia is not just an invasion of her privacy but also terrifying. Imagine relaxing in the safe space of your own living room and realising, suddenly, that you are exposed, being watched. “I was at my house having a perfectly normal afternoon sitting in my living room when I felt something watching me… I looked up and saw two men on the terrace of my neighbouring building with a camera right at me!” she posted, clearly shaken. Who would not be?

25 years after the British paparazzi chased Lady Diana to her death, their Indian versions have come into their own and that is not a compliment.

They are bloodthirsty. They are relentless. They may even be unhinged in the hunt for “exclusive” shots. Their disdain for an individual’s privacy is remarkable.

Alia has a baby daughter at home, and she rightfully shields her from the cameras. When does the pursuit become an obsession, crossing the line? What next? Celebrity home invasion using our cameras? They are closing in and, some may argue, have crossed into stalker territory.

It is not just the camera. On most days, only a phone will do. Even for a so-called ‘influencer’ or an ordinary citizen on the street, celebrities are fair game. Click, upload, post. Wait for the likes.

Even ChatGPT will have no answer for this interplay of roles – a fan or a camera person one moment and a stalker the next. Social media, the world where non-entities become celebrities, is a gift that keeps on giving.

When cricketer Prithvi Shaw reportedly refused a selfie with a social media influencer, she took it so badly that not only was the cricketer manhandled by her group but they also attacked his car with a baseball bat. Also over a selfie, singer Sonu Nigam was pushed by a man on stage during a show.

In India, privacy debates have by and large centred around data protection, and individuals are left to fight their own battles. The lines may be blurred but there are some unwritten rules. Children, for one. Anushka Sharma says repeated requests to not click her and cricketer Virat Kohli’s daughter have gone unheard and ignored. The paparazzi think nothing of zooming in on little Vamika in her mother’s arms, watching her father play. Much like Alia, this couple was also clicked unguarded at home. But two years after they called it out, the rot is spreading.

There are some like Kareena Kapoor who pop up on our timelines almost daily and clearly don’t mind the cameras. Quite a few actors solicit the attention. Their PR agencies share “tip-offs” and the paparazzi just happen to catch them outside gyms, salons, and the airport.

But how does the search for content lead to someone’s living room?

If there is even a fraction of voyeurism involved in all this – as it certainly appears to be – then let’s just call it like it is. They are not even the paparazzi, just a bunch of sleazy men.

Many Bollywood stars have come out in support of Alia and have slammed the publication that posted the photos.

In the name of content, social media has taken tabloid journalism and shredded it even more. Anyone with a smartphone and ambition can start chasing stars.

But the buck doesn’t stop with the paparazzi. Editors who sanction these photos and allow them to be posted cannot shrug off responsibility.

Consent is absent and silence is implied consent. Tomayto, tomahto for paps.

Truth be told, Bollywood itself has not championed the concept of consent, unless the impact is personal.

Sushmita Sen isn’t wrong when she says privacy is a myth. But look around you, it is not just the celebs who suffer intrusions into their daily lives. Standing in a queue, whether at the airport or at a supermarket, people and their armpits breath down your neck, tech companies mine personal data as though it is their right, and personal space – er, what is that?

Privacy, then, is subjective. It depends on how badly we want it. For now, it seems, not badly enough. Will the noise over Alia’s privacy violation inspire a course correction? I wouldn’t hold my breath.