Assembly Elections 2026: The INDIA Bloc’s Contradictions And Challenges

The INDIA bloc was born out of a shared political necessity. But in the states, it is defined by rivalry. 

In West Bengal, the Trinamool Congress and the Congress are locked in a bitter contest. In Kerala, the Left and the Congress remain entrenched rivals. In Tamil Nadu, even within an alliance, equations between the Congress and the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) are not without strain.

As India heads into a fresh round of Assembly elections, these state-level rivalries raise a fundamental question: where does the INDIA bloc stand when its principal constituents are fighting each other on the ground?

Forged as a united front against the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, the alliance now finds itself pulled between moments of convergence, such as joint protests over institutional concerns, and sharp political divergence, including disagreements over moves like the proposed action against Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla. The challenge before it is no longer just unity against a common adversary, but coherence within.

In West Bengal, Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Saket Gokhale says that the TMC does not need the Congress as it has repeatedly defeated the BJP on its own. Calling Banerjee the strongest leader in the state, Gokhale says that she has managed to create an unmatched grassroots connect and a proven electoral track record. “From building the party through movements like Singur to consistently winning mandates, her leadership and the organisation’s strength are what make us confident of taking on the BJP without alliances,” he says. 

Saravanan Annadurai, the DMK spokesperson calls INDIA bloc an “ideological alliance” and says that the alliance is not based on electoral arithmetic but to ensure that the BJP is defeated and the “communalism it represents is rooted out.” He says that DMK is one of the strongest members of the bloc both ideologically and numerically, highlighting a smooth seat-sharing arrangement and confidence in a strong electoral performance. 

Reflecting on the Communist Party of India(Marxist's) position in Kerala and the ongoing conflict between the Governor and the state government, V. D. Satheesan, Leader of the Opposition in the in the Kerala Legislative Assembly, says that the situation has steadily deteriorated. “The CPI(M) is heading towards disintegration. In Bengal it took 33 years; here it has taken just 10. This is the beginning of that process,” he notes.

Pointing to these differences, senior journalist and political analyst Neerja Chowdhury observes that the alliance was “never designed to function as a permanent, ideological coalition,” but rather as a “strategic convergence for a specific electoral moment [2024 Lok Sabha elections].”

Alliance at Odds

Pointing out the diverse ideologies of different members of the INDIA bloc, Senior journalist and political analyst Neerja Chowdhury observes, the alliance was “never designed to function as a permanent, ideological coalition,” but rather as a “strategic convergence for a specific electoral moment [2024 Lok Sabha elections].” 

That moment, however, has passed, as experts point out that what remains now is an uneasy question about whether the alliance can now evolve into something more durable with the faultlines exposed including the select successes and missteps? 

“The INDIA alliance is better at coordination in Parliament than at working out seat-sharing on the ground,” says Chowdhury, explaining that during different state elections, the different members of INDIA alliance are in opposition with each other, unlike their collective opposition to the BJP. 

This has led to a situation where some of the recent elections, including the ones held in Haryana, Maharashtra, New Delhi and in Bihar, revealed the Alliance’s vulnerabilities. 

In Haryana, the election results exposed weaknesses within the INDIA bloc, particularly the Congress’ inability to build a strong coalition beyond its reliance on Jat voters, alongside internal factionalism leading to the absence of effective alliances while the BJP focused on localised caste management and booth-level mobilisation.

Political commentator Rasheed Kidwai points out that such incidents reflect a deeper malaise within the Congress, suggesting that “election management failures are not episodic but symptomatic of a leadership structure that has yet to regain full control over state units.” He says, “In state elections contradictions become sharper; parties are often competing against each other. It is a broad political grouping, not a structured electoral alliance, with no clear leadership or coordination mechanism.” 

These internal fissures are mirrored in alliance-level failures. The Delhi Assembly elections offered a stark illustration. The decision of the Congress and the Aam Aadmi Party to contest separately split the opposition vote, enabling a decisive victory for the BJP.  While the arithmetic suggests that a combined vote share could have altered outcomes in several constituencies, the reality is more complex; mutual distrust and competing ambitions made such an alliance politically untenable. 

The Congress’ approach in these elections has drawn criticism from its INDIA bloc partners who argue that its campaign was disproportionately focused on targeting the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and portraying its leader, Arvind Kejriwal, as corrupt. This line of attack, many note, was reinforced by Rahul Gandhi himself, who set the tone for the party’s messaging. 

In such a situation, the BJP won the Delhi assembly election with a tally of 48 seats, polling 45.6 per cent of the vote. The  (AAP) won 22 seats getting 43.6 per cent of the vote while the Congress did not win any seats. The Congress received more votes than the winning margin in 14 constituencies where the BJP emerged victorious, defeating AAP candidates, including former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and his deputy Manish Sisodia.

During these internal fractures and constant criticism of each other, Jammu & Kashmir chief minister Omar Abdullah even went on write:  “Aur lado aapas mein! (Keep on fighting each other),” on X with a meme. 

As Kartikeya Batra, an Economics professor at Azim Premji University and a political expert,  notes, the Delhi result demonstrates that “alliances cannot be engineered purely on numbers, they require a political chemistry that simply doesn’t exist in many states.” Yet, the story is not uniformly bleak.

In Jharkhand, opposition coordination has been relatively more effective, with alliance partners managing to align their strategies and avoid destructive competition. This suggests that where political incentives align and leadership coordination is stronger, the INDIA bloc can function as intended.

Former Congress leader and commentator Sanjay Jha says that the alliance’s success in the upcoming elections depends less on grand declarations and more on “granular, state-specific negotiations,” arguing that the INDIA bloc is “united”. 

“The INDIA bloc remains united, with no major partner exits, and a shared view that opposition leaders have faced sustained institutional pressure,” he says, pointing toward the cases of former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal and Jharkhand CM Hemant Soren. At the core of Jha’s argument is a political reality, “People will only be convinced when we start winning elections, that is the real fight.”

Jha argues that India is facing a deep, multi-layered crisis under the BJP government, spanning the economy, foreign policy, and social cohesion, with rising unemployment, rural distress, and concerns over institutional credibility. In this context, he stresses that public trust in the INDIA bloc will depend on electoral performance, not just critique.

He adds that the Congress’ repeated losses have weakened its authority within the alliance, making organisational revival essential. The focus, he says, should be on strengthening the party internally while allowing regional leaders like Akhilesh Yadav, Mamata Banerjee, and M. K. Stalin to manage alliance coordination. “The Congress should focus on reviving itself organisationally and not worry too much about managing the INDIA alliance,” he says.

Beyond internal dynamics, INDIA Bloc members and political experts have increasingly pointed to what they describe as an uneven institutional landscape.

Annadurai, the DMK spokesperson, acknowledges that negotiations involve some compromises but credited M. K. Stalin with keeping allies united and satisfied. “As a DMK member, I would be proud to see M. K. Stalin take on a larger national role, but he has made it clear that this is about numerical strength, not capability, Tamil Nadu’s limited seats mean we are not in a position to dominate national politics,” says Annadurai. “This is purely about numerical strength… he knows his height in national politics.”

Institutional Roadblocks

Concerns about the functioning of Parliament under Om Birla have been raised by several Opposition figures, who argue that legislative debate has been curtailed and dissent marginalised. Similarly, the role of the Election Commission of India has come under scrutiny, with allegations, strongly denied by the government, that the electoral process is not entirely neutral or “bipartisan”. 

The Opposition MPs moved the no-confidence motion against Birla during the Budget Session, alleging that he has conducted parliamentary proceedings in a partisan and biased manner, favouring the ruling BJP. The Opposition pointed to repeated instances where Opposition leaders, especially Rahul Gandhi, were denied opportunities to speak, while similar or more serious violations by ruling party MPs were overlooked. 

Recent media reports reveal that more MPs have been suspended under Birla than any Speaker in the last 20 years. Between 2004-26, the Lok Sabha saw 245 suspensions, out of which 112 were under Birla. 

Tamil Nadu-based Congress leader Rangarajan Mohan Kumaramangalam argues that Parliament under Birla has become increasingly one-sided, with established norms and conventions eroding over time. He points out that the continued absence of a Deputy Speaker, traditionally from the opposition, reflects a deeper institutional imbalance. 

While acknowledging that the government has the numbers, he stresses that democracy requires space for dissent, noting that “for Parliament to function, the opposition must have its say.” The Speaker’s role, he says, envisioned as bipartisan, has shifted, with rising suspensions, limited speaking opportunities for opposition leaders, and what he describes as an unprecedented curbing of the Leader of the Opposition’s voice. In his view, this has hollowed out Parliament’s core function, pushing debates outside the House and weakening accountability. 

“Earlier there were complaints of microphones being turned off, now even the Leader of the Opposition is not allowed to speak, which is unprecedented,” he says, adding that in a democracy, both a government and an Opposition are elected, and “silencing the latter effectively silences a majority of voices. Even the impeachment motion against the Speaker, though unlikely to succeed, carries important symbolism.”

Another key point of contention for the INDIA bloc has been the Election Commission of India, with the Opposition parties arguing that its actions increasingly affect the fairness of the electoral playing field. Concerns centre around electoral roll revisions, transparency, and responsiveness, with critics alleging that processes like the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) risk excluding vulnerable voters and lack adequate safeguards. 

Mangalam says the Commission offers vague or unconvincing explanations to the Opposition's concerns. Raising issues such as transparency in voter data and allegations of irregularities, he argues that the Commission has become defensive rather than corrective. “If there is nothing to hide, they should welcome scrutiny and correct errors,” he says, adding that the reluctance to engage meaningfully has contributed to a growing perception that key democratic institutions are being compromised.

While institutional concerns are real and significant, “they cannot substitute for political organisation on the ground,” says Chowdhury. Voters, she suggests, respond not just to claims of unfairness, but to credible alternatives.

Leadership Conundrum

At the centre of the INDIA bloc’s future lies the question of leadership, and, inevitably, the role of Rahul Gandhi. The Congress’ improved performance in 2024, winning 99 seats, has been interpreted by some as a sign of revival. Gandhi’s campaigns, particularly his emphasis on inequality and social justice, have resonated with sections of the electorate.

Yet, questions remain about whether this translates into a coherent, nationwide alternative.

Gokhale suggests the INDIA bloc’s strength lies in its collective leadership rather than any single figure, arguing that “this is not about projecting one face, but about building a coalition of ideas.”

Within the Congress, however, there is a growing recognition that critique alone is insufficient. Mangalam says the party must move beyond being seen as merely oppositional and articulate a clearer policy framework that can compete with the BJP’s narrative, especially in the upcoming elections, perhaps being the most significant challenge before the alliance. 

As Jha puts it, the INDIA bloc must transition from being “a coalition against something to a coalition for something.”