The widely predicted break-up of the BJD-BJP alliance reveals some important trends in Indian politics. In this season of open political possibilities, alliance negotiations are open to multiple interpretations. Is this about the BJD taking a principled stand against the BJP? Or is this about Naveen Patnaik looking to expand his national possibilities? In some cases does it pay off for a party to not commit to a pre-poll alliance and keep options open for post-poll bargaining? While these contingent questions are important there are also some long-term structural issues that propelled this outcome.

The first issue is this. Whenever a national party like the BJP or Congress aligns with a regional party, the national party begins to lose in the long run. To put it pointedly, there

is now, in national politics, a contradiction between the imperatives of power and the imperatives of expanding your base. The imperatives of power invariably push

towards alliance politics, and even give parties a temporary boost. But in the long run they also limit possibilities of expansion and put severe constraints on forms of political mobilisation. Going alone is not always an option. Nor is it sufficient for success; that depends on a lot of factors. The BJP has done well in places like Karnataka where it has played on its own for the long haul; wherever it has gone into alliances it has limited its possibilities. This tension is still an issue in Bihar for instance. Similarly, the Congress has a dilemma. While it has not been able to make much headway in Uttar Pradesh on its own, an alliance with the SP will limit its future prospects in the state even more.

... contd.