Public discourse, even dissent, in India today has increasingly been reduced to a Pavlovian response by what can be called the trinity of nihilism comprising Islamists, Communists and the pseudo-liberals. Given that each component of this trinity has its own concept of utopia – the Islamists seek an Islamic State, the Communists seek the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the garden-variety pseudo-liberals (both the Aam Aadmi type as well as the Lutyens’ Delhi elite) …well, even they are confused as to what they rooting for – they make for strange bed-fellows. But what binds them together is their opposition and in some cases naked hatred, of the ruling dispensation.

While opposition and dissent is the lifeblood of any democracy, this is useful if it is based on some coherent arguments and cogent reasoning, instead of being merely reactive, or worse, reactionary. While there is absolutely nothing wrong in making digs and taking swipes at the ruling dispensation – it adds colour to politics – on substantive issues, the criticism and opposition to government action (or inaction) and policy should be aimed at bettering things rather than making them worse. But instead of coming up with better alternatives, what is being offered is opposition for the sake of opposition of any and every decision of the government and of anything that the government does or doesn’t do. Even though the government has given many openings and opportunities to the opposition to pin it on the mat, the opposition hasn’t really managed to marshal its arguments effectively. One reason for this is that the opposition’s argument and goalpost keep shifting and loses its salience.

Take, for instance, the furore over the issue of the illegal Rohingya migrants. Clearly, the trinity lost the plot by continuously shifting its argument according to convenience and audience. If their accusation of communalism guiding government policy failed (in large part because India has given refuge to not only persecuted Hindus, Sikhs, and Buddhists but also Muslims from Afghanistan) they switched to arguing humanitarianism. Ironically enough, the charge of anti-Muslim communalism was levelled by unabashed Islamists like Asaduddin Owaisi and fulminating mullahs from Bengal who proudly flaunt their Islamism and whose entire defence of the Rohingyas was based on purely communal considerations which they tried to disguise as humanitarianism. The hypocrisy of humanitarianism reached new heights when people who otherwise suffer from acute xenophobia when it comes to giving domicile certificates to Hindu/Sikh refugees from West Punjab, held violent demonstrations in favour of the Rohingyas being allowed to stay not just in India but also in Jammu and Kashmir.

The tailoring of the argument according to convenience didn’t end there. When their questioning of the imperatives of national security didn’t convince anyone, they switched to issuing warnings about how national security will actually be endangered by rising radicalism if the Rohingyas are deported – go figure that out for yourself; if their legal argument fell flat, they switched to a moral argument; and if the moral argument got debunked, they fell back upon India’s traditions, culture and history (ironically enough the same traditions, culture and history which this trinity is otherwise quick to disparage) of giving refuge to people; if the tradition and history argument didn’t work, they changed tack and argued about how India’s image will suffer internationally and how India’s aspiration to sit on the global high table will receive a setback.

But cut through the clap-trap, and it became clear that the advocates of the Rohingyas had no real, solid argument to advance their cause. Worse, their motivation to oppose the deportation of Rohingyas was primarily political and in many ways a continuation of the same insidious drumbeating that started with the farcical award-wapsi campaign. Their objective wasn’t so much to provide relief to the Rohingyas, as it was to use the Rohingyas as a tool to demonise politically the current dispensation while at the same time flaunt their minorityism to consolidate this vote bank. Their idea wasn’t to bring clarity to the issue as it was to confound, confuse and complicate the issue by conflating different things. That in the process, they were throwing security and strategic concerns of the country to the winds and were injecting yet another virus for polarising an already polarised society was something that they didn’t really bother about.

On virtually every issue, the opposition’s criticism of the government is based on the principle of ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’. When the Prime Minister reaches out to Pakistan – a strategic and tactical mistake if ever there was one – he is pilloried and lampooned and asked what happened to his 56-inch chest. When he takes a hard line on Pakistan, he is again pilloried for not talking to the enemy, for indulging in war-mongering and promoting jingoism, and ignoring diplomacy. On the eastern front, if the government downplays intrusions by Chinese troops and handles the situation through diplomacy, the government is taunted for being weak and pusillanimous. But when the government digs in its heels – Doklam crisis – it is accused of indulging in adventurism. In Kashmir, the government is exhorted to open a dialogue with the separatists and excoriated for not talking to the stakeholders. But when a senior member of the ruling party makes a statement hinting that the government is ready to dialogue with the separatists (once again a big mistake), there is ridicule heaped on the government. While on the one hand, the government is criticised for allowing the situation in Kashmir to spiral out of control, when the government initiates measures that restore a modicum of normalcy, it is still castigated.

In the field of economics, which is fast turning out to be something of an Achilles heel for this government, the criticism is mostly misplaced, and not based on policy but on politics. For instance, there was a huge uproar over rising petroleum prices. Reams were written and hours of airtime spent in informing people of the quantum of taxes levied on petroleum products.  Besides the fact that these taxes have been there forever and were not introduced by this government, it was quite a spectacle to see how the very people who raised hell over the rising prices, switched tack and started clobbering the government for cutting some taxes and indulging in cheap populism to bring down the prices of petroleum. The same trend was visible on the GST issue.

That GST is anything but a simple tax and has become a millstone around the neck of many an economic agent is well known. But the responsibility for the way in which this tax has been rolled out has to be borne by the entire political spectrum which is present in the GST council. Be that as it may, the government was severely chastised for not responding to the problems faced by the traders and small businesses. It was accused of being insensitive and callous to the sufferings of millions of Indians. But when the government responded and gave relief, it was again disparaged. If the government takes initiatives to promote industry, it is accused of playing into the hands of and working for corporates; when it ignores corporates and their bottom lines start falling and layoffs start rising, the government is accused of ignoring the economy.

Clearly, as far as its detractors are concerned, the current dispensation is damned if it does, and damned if it doesn’t. The problem with this zero-sum approach is that very often even if the criticism of government policy and action is valid, the perception is that it is just opposition for the sake of opposition and there is neither any sense nor any sensibility in the criticism. It would probably make more sense for the opposition to take credit for any change in tack by the government in response to its clamour rather than swing to the other side and criticise the government for doing what it was asking it to do, and in the process compromising its own credibility. But doing this would mean changing the political paradigm in India, something that no politician really wants. After all, it is so much easier to ride to power by demonising your rivals, cementing your vote banks, mouthing seductive populist political slogans that are impractical, instead of doing the difficult job of worsting your rivals by presenting with solid alternative policies that will deliver on the ground.