The Biju Janata Dal (BJD), as a formidable regional party, dominated the political landscape of Odisha and governed the state for twenty-four years without facing any direct or indirect political opposition capable of threatening its government. In 2024, however, the BJD lost to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in both the national and state elections, paving the way for the rise of a BJP-led Hindutva government in Odisha. The BJD leadership’s opportunistic politics of equidistance, coupled with its close engagement with the BJP at the Centre, created an opposition-free democracy in the state.
During this period of 24 years of BJD rule, the BJP failed to perform its role as an opposition party and instead acted as a second fiddle to the BJD in Odisha, while the BJD provided crucial support to the BJP at the Centre for more than two decades. Following the BJP’s victory in the 2024 state election, the BJD appears to be repaying its political debt by refraining from forming any meaningful opposition to the BJP government. As a result, the BJP now enjoys an opposition-free government in Odisha, while democratic accountability in the state continues to dwindle.
The BJD leadership has squandered its popular mass base in the state and has failed to consolidate public support even for its own leadership—particularly Naveen Patnaik—after its defeat in 2024. This failure is largely due to its invisible understanding with the current BJP government, both at the Centre and in the state. The consequences were clearly reflected in the Nuapada by-election, where the BJD lost by a margin of over 83,748 votes and was pushed to third place in November 2025 by-election. This result demonstrates that despite the BJD’s longstanding mass base in Odisha, voters chose not to support the party because of its ineffective role as an opposition to the BJP government in the state.
The tacit understanding between the BJP and the BJD has weakened opposition politics and eroded democratic practices in Odisha. The singularity of governance by the ruling party, without any form of formidable opposition, threatens the very foundations of democracy in the state. Both the BJP and the BJD have effectively destroyed anti-Congress and anti-BJP politics in Odisha.
The BJD’s mass base and its long-standing dominance in state politics continue to constrain the opposition space in Odisha, thereby deterring the emergence of alternative political forces capable of challenging Hindutva. The party’s ambiguous ideology, invissible and retreating leadership have undermined the conditions necessary for democratic renewal in the state. The BJD continues to outsource its leadership responsibilities to bureaucrats, a practice that has cost the party dearly. Despite this, the culture of political outsourcing remains the party’s dominant working strategy.
The singularity of BJD leadership renders the party politically transient. While its collapse appears imminent, an accelerated decline is crucial for the emergence of robust alternative politics and the revitalisation of democracy in the state. It would be impossible to shape alternative policies and progressive politics in the state as long as the BJD continues to exist and dominate state politics.
Ideologically speaking, the BJD lacks a coherent ideological core capable of anchoring the political voice of the working people of the state. As a regional party, it has continued to align itself closely with the BJP at the Centre, undermining any claim to ideological independence. There is little doubt that Patnaik is personally secular; however, his politics lacks substantive secular credentials. This contradiction is clearly reflected in the BJD’s relationship with the BJP, giving the impression that the party exists primarily to facilitate the BJP’s expansion in Odisha.
Furthermore, if the so-called dreams of Biju Patnaik constitute the ideological foundation of the BJD, the people of Odisha have already given the party twenty-four years to realise them. No political vision can remain unfulfilled after such an extended period of uninterrupted governance. If the BJD has failed to achieve Patnaik’s dreams and vision in twenty-four years, there is little reason to believe it can do so in another twenty-four years in future. So, the BJD has lost its ideological and political relevance as a regional party. Its strategy of equidistance from both the Congress and the BJP amounts to sheer political opportunism, serving primarily to conceal its internal understanding and tacit alliance with the BJP.
In contemporary Odisha politics, democracy and its praxis are facing a historic crisis. The collapse of the BJD is likely to further deepen this crisis in the state. However, every political crisis also creates opportunities for progressive forces to consolidate their base and offer an alternative direction to state politics—one that is fundamentally opposed to Hindutva and its ideological apparatus of governance. Hindutva politics, under the guise of narrow cultural nationalism, facilitates the deepening of capitalism while concealing its crony capitalist character.
Hindutva is fundamentally opposed to Odisha’s pluriversal progressive cultural traditions and its inclusive form of nationalism. It cannot uphold the interests of Odisha or its people. Therefore, for any meaningful alternative politics and effective democratic opposition to emerge in the state, resisting Hindutva is essential to safeguarding the interests of the working people of Odisha and to deepening democracy in the state. In this context, the BJD must disintegrate and undergo a natural political decay to make way for the rise of alternative politics grounded in resource redistribution, secularism, and social justice—values rooted in the Constitution of India and Odisha’s progressive cultural traditions.
Alternative politics must revive and strengthen Odisha’s vibrant democratic tradition by clearly articulating secular, democratic, progressive and pluralistic alternatives. Such politics should empower the people of Odisha to consciously decide the state’s path of economic development and its broader political direction, rather than having these choices imposed by entrenched power structures or dominant ideologies and structures created by existing national and regional parties in the state.
(This article draws on insights from my discussions with SPP bhai)
