follow us:
The BJD's electoral debacle underscored its failure to groom a credible second-tier leadership. With Patnaik monopolizing decision-making, few senior leaders were empowered to manage the party effectively. This unpreparedness was glaring for a party that had enjoyed unbroken electoral success since its inception in 1997.
The once bustling Naveen Niwas, emblematic of Odisha’s political power center under Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik’s 24-year reign, now stood eerily silent. Its palpable stillness mirrored the sudden decline of the Patnaik government. Similarly, the nearby Biju Janata Dal (BJD) headquarters, Sankha Bhavan, lacked its usual vigor. This silence symbolized the BJD’s downfall, primarily rooted in the erosion of Odia Asmita (pride), a narrative the party had meticulously cultivated over the years.
The BJD’s significant defeat in both Lok Sabha and Assembly polls stemmed from a relentless campaign by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) against Patnaik’s health and the perceived influence of his close aide, V K Pandian, a Tamil Nadu native-turned-party leader.
During the campaign, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, previously supportive of Patnaik, questioned his knowledge of Odisha’s districts and their headquarters. Modi hinted at forming a committee to probe Patnaik’s health decline, leveraging it as a potent political tool.
Modi also seized upon the controversy surrounding the missing keys of the Ratna Bhandar of the Lord Jagannath temple, insinuating Pandian’s involvement. Patnaik’s delayed response denying Pandian’s succession only amplified the BJP’s narrative, further eroding public confidence.
Pandian’s ascent within the BJD coincided with Patnaik’s distancing from party colleagues post the BJD’s support for the BJP’s Rajya Sabha candidate, Ashwini Vaishnaw, shortly after the 2019 elections. Despite Patnaik’s appointment of Pranab Prakash Das as the BJD’s organisational secretary, Pandian emerged as a de facto successor, strengthening rumors of his growing influence.
The BJD’s electoral debacle also underscored its failure to groom a credible second-tier leadership. With Patnaik monopolizing decision-making, few senior leaders were empowered to manage the party effectively. This unpreparedness was glaring for a party that had enjoyed unbroken electoral success since its inception in 1997.
The BJP capitalized on the BJD’s vulnerability, spearheading a campaign centered on Odia pride. Patnaik’s inability to counter this narrative or inspire voter confidence exposed the BJD’s diminishing national relevance, culminating in a humiliating defeat in the Lok Sabha polls.
Internal mismanagement further exacerbated the BJD’s plight. Das’s candidacy in Sambalpur tied him down, leaving Patnaik and Pandian to carry the campaign burden. Unfortunately for the BJD, Pandian’s involvement seemed to worsen their prospects.
The party’s inability to address discontent among ticket aspirants and manage dissidents further compounded its electoral woes. While the BJP secured a commanding victory, winning 20 of 21 Lok Sabha seats and 78 Assembly seats, the BJD failed to secure a single Lok Sabha seat and settled for 51 Assembly seats. The Congress, meanwhile, retained Koraput and secured 14 Assembly seats.
The BJP’s triumph heralds a new era in Odisha’s political landscape, reminiscent of Biju Patnaik’s unexpected defeat in 1995. As the dust settles, Patnaik’s legacy stands tarnished, marking the end of an era in Odisha’s political narrative.
