Equidistance or opportunism? BJD’s politics of abstention in Odisha

By Bhabani Shankar Nayak 

The politics of abstention is an established strategy in both national and international parliamentary traditions. In Westminster practice, abstention refers to the deliberate refusal to vote either for or against a motion. Political leaders, parties, interest groups, trade unions, and members of assemblies often adopt this tactic for varied reasons, choosing not to take a clear position on political, ideological, or policy questions. Abstention has been employed as a tool for progressive, regressive, opportunistic, and apathetic ends depending on the context.

Progressive forces use abstention when taking a position on an issue appears contradictory or meaningless to the interests of the working masses. Regressive forces use it to maintain the status quo or allow governing elites to win without challenge. Both anarchists and libertarians have at times seen abstention as a form of moral politics, rejecting participation in votes they deem incapable of delivering real change. Parties and their members may also abstain when facing conflicts of interest that could compromise their political or public integrity.

Abstention can act as active or passive opposition, a way to reject the duality of dominant politics, or a sign of uncertainty when there is insufficient information to take a clear stance. It can also signal political apathy—a depoliticised convenience that benefits ruling classes. For opportunistic politicians, abstention often serves as an escape route. By contributing to quorum while avoiding a decisive vote, they make it easier for ruling elites to secure a majority. Such abstention is neither an independent stance nor a genuine path of equidistance.

Mr. Naveen Patnaik and his party, the Biju Janata Dal (BJD), have often resorted to abstention to project independence in their dealings with both the Congress Party and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The BJD claims to maintain equal distance from these parties to pursue Odisha’s interests. In practice, however, equidistance has functioned as a doctrine of opportunism, one that strengthens ruling-class interests while weakening the people’s voice. On many occasions, the BJD has either supported the BJP on crucial issues or abstained in ways that benefited the ruling party. This has been justified as “issue-based support,” but the criteria for what constitutes Odisha’s interests remain vague and undefined.

The people of Odisha have given Mr. Patnaik and the BJD two decades of power. Even after their defeat in the last state election, they retained a strong role as the principal opposition. That position carries responsibilities. The electorate therefore has the right to question why the BJD’s abstention repeatedly strengthens the BJP. The myth of equidistance collapses when abstention translates into quiet support. When the BJD ruled Odisha, the BJP failed to act as a real opposition. Now, with the BJP in power, the BJD seems to be returning the favour. The result is a democracy without a meaningful opposition in Odisha, where the BJD functions less as a counterweight and more as a dependable ally of the BJP.

In the forthcoming Vice-Presidential elections, the BJD’s strategy is again poised to bolster the BJP candidate. Can Mr. Patnaik explain how this abstention aligns with claims of independence? How does it advance Odisha’s development or protect the interests of Odia voters? These questions remain unanswered, and perhaps unanswerable. The pattern exposes abstention and equidistance as forms of opportunism that empower the BJP while weakening the secular standing of the BJD. By taking such positions, the BJD undermines itself at the state level and strengthens the BJP nationally.

History rarely remembers absentee leaders with honour. Instead, it consigns them to irrelevance. If the BJD persists with this politics of compromise, it risks erasing its own legacy and damaging both Odisha’s political future and India’s constitutional democracy. Abstention dressed up as equidistance is, in truth, hypocrisy—revealing not political maturity but a poverty of conviction and commitment.