Connect with us

News

India opposition alliance fractures as support for Narendra Modi soars

Published

on

India opposition alliance fractures as support for Narendra Modi soars

India’s best chance of challenging Narendra Modi is disintegrating months before national elections, as a broad but fragile opposition coalition breaks down over internal rivalries, defections and arrests and intimidation by law enforcement.

The alliance of centre-left and regional parties, which was unveiled last July under the patriotic banner of the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance, or INDIA, presented itself as a unity front to prevent India’s powerful prime minister and his majoritarian Hindu Bharatiya Janata party from coasting to a third term in power.

But seven months later, talks among INDIA’s more than two dozen parties on seat-sharing — tactical agreements to avoid competing in some constituencies — have made little headway, while Modi has enjoyed a surge of support after he inaugurated a sprawling Hindu temple complex in Ayodhya.

The opposition has also suffered the desertion of two critical figureheads: Mamata Banerjee, head of the All India Trinamool Congress, said last month that her party would independently field candidates, and Nitish Kumar, the chief minister of Bihar, India’s third most populous state, jumped ship to ally with the BJP. 

Elsewhere, officials have been targeted by raids, arrests and corruption investigations that the opposition says are politically motivated.

Advertisement

“The INDIA alliance is collapsing very rapidly,” said Neerja Chowdhury, a political analyst and contributing editor with the Indian Express newspaper. “The BJP have a formidable election machinery unlike any in the world, a popular leader who has been 10 years in power, and most importantly, they have a hunger for power.”

Nitish Kumar, the chief minister of Bihar, was formerly a crucial supporter of the I.N.D.I.A. opposition alliance, but has since switched sides to back the ruling Bharatiya Janata party © Santosh Kumar/Hindustan Times/Getty Images

India does not publish reliable opinion polls and its electoral commission has not set a date for the election, which is expected over a period of staggered voting in April and May.

But the weakened opposition appears to be heading to a third election loss to an emboldened BJP and its powerful leader, who has built a mass following on religious nationalism.

Modi last week told parliament that his party and its allies were aiming for 400 seats in the upcoming election — a “supermajority” that would give the BJP a historic opportunity to shape Indian politics and life — and that the ruling party alone would target at least 370 seats, up from 290 now.

“The INDIA alliance is over, it’s obliterated, it’s finished,” Rajiv Pratap Rudy, the BJP’s national spokesperson, told the Financial Times.

Advertisement

Rahul Gandhi, standard-bearer for the Indian National Congress, the largest opposition group, has drawn large crowds along a cross-India walk, his second, suggesting the opposition is not yet a spent force.

But most analysts share the ruling party’s prognosis. The BJP is “coming back to power”, Chowdhury said, pointing to Modi’s consecration last month of the Ram Mandir temple, built on the site of a mosque that was razed in 1992, which was widely celebrated among India’s majority Hindus.

Opposition figures argue that their travails are due to a repressive government bent on debilitating its political rivals, often with the use of the state’s powerful enforcement agencies.

Several TMS leaders have been summoned by police or subject to raids by the Enforcement Directorate, according to party officials. The Aam Aadmi party, which controls governments in the Delhi’s national capital region and the northern Punjab state, is also in disarray, its leaders jailed over accusations of receiving kickbacks and offering special favours to companies awarded lucrative liquor licences, which they deny. 

Arvind Kejriwal, the AAP’s head, said this week that the party planned to contest all 13 of Punjab’s lower house seats alone, in effect ruling out a poll alliance with his INDIA partners in the state.

Advertisement
India National Congress leader Rahul Gandhi greets supporters during his walk across India to raise support for the opposition
India National Congress leader Rahul Gandhi greets supporters during his walk across India to raise support for the opposition © ANI/Hindustan Times/Sipa USA/Reuters

“Over the past 10 years, the Modi government has unleashed federal agencies, especially the ED, on opposition leaders using a draconian money laundering law,” said Saket Gokhale, an MP with Banerjee’s party. Its activity has “only gotten more active in the last two months”, he added.

In India’s eastern Jharkhand state, former chief minister Hemant Soren, whose party leads the local government in coalition with Congress, was jailed late last month in connection with multiple corruption probes, including allegations of illegally acquiring land while in office. 

Modi’s party denies using law enforcement to target the opposition, maintaining the agencies’ independence. “Corruption is corruption, whether it is a chief minister or a common person,” said Rudy, the BJP spokesperson.

But veteran observers of Indian politics said that weaponising the legal system by the party in power was a recurring theme. Under Congress governments, its opponents, including Modi, referred to India’s Central Bureau of Investigation as the “Congress Bureau of Investigation”. 

“There is a well-documented history of ruling parties, including Congress during its time, of using all levers in their power to tilt the playing field in their favour,” said Milan Vaishnav, director of the Carnegie Endowment’s South Asia programme. “It is a tried and true tactic.” 

The opposition face an array of other built-in disadvantages, including a domestic media that largely bows to the BJP and a political fundraising scheme built around “electoral bonds” that favours incumbents.

Advertisement

“A third term for Modi will finish off whatever semblance of democracy is left in India,” said Gokhale. “These elections are existential — not only for opposition parties, but also for Indian democracy itself.”

News

California’s primary for governor is undecided as candidates vie to be in the top two

Published

on

California’s primary for governor is undecided as candidates vie to be in the top two

Xavier Becerra, Democratic gubernatorial candidate for California, and Steve Hilton, Republican gubernatorial candidate for California, shake hands while arriving for a gubernatorial debate at KRON Studios in San Francisco in April.

Jason Henry/Getty Images North America


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Jason Henry/Getty Images North America

SAN FRANCISCO — The primary election for California governor is too close to call, with vote counting continuing Wednesday. Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican business executive Steve Hilton lead the field with Democrat Tom Steyer in third place.

In California’s unusual primary system, all candidates, regardless of party, appear on a single ballot open to any registered voter. The top two candidates then move on to the general election, even if they’re from the same party. This year, voters had 60 names for governor to choose from.

Advertisement

The winner will lead the country’s most populous state, where leaders often take on national political prominence. Incumbent Gov. Gavin Newsom is at his two-term limit and could be a Democratic contender for president.

Becerra, former Health and Human Services secretary under President Joe Biden, pitched himself to voters as an experienced political leader who isn’t afraid of President Trump, but his lead caps one of the most surprising and dramatic comebacks in recent state political history. As recently as April, polls were showing Becerra — also a former member of Congress and California attorney general — languishing in single digits in a crowded field.

In his remarks at his watch party in Los Angeles, Becerra noted his underdog status.

“Here in Hollywood’s hometown, we love a good underdog success story,” he said, drawing parallels between his campaign and his immigrant parents’ success story in California. “Guess what? The underdog stayed in the fight. Like my parents, I never gave up. Never stopped putting one foot in front of the other. Never stopped believing in the beacon-like goodness of California. And thankfully, neither did you.”

Hilton is a former Fox News commentator who also served as a political adviser to former British Prime Minister David Cameron. He was endorsed by President Trump in April, helping him to pull ahead of Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, the other major Republican in the race. Hilton has campaigned on the idea that California needs change after 16 years under total Democratic control.

Advertisement

The race is narrowing down after a tumultuous campaign

At his watch party in Huntington Beach, the British-born candidate — who became an American citizen five years ago — said it was the “honor of his lifetime” to receive over 1 million votes so far.

“Change is coming to California and it’s long overdue,” Hilton said. “We’re not there yet, but it’s looking good. It looks very much as if Californians really will have the chance to vote for change in November and take our state in a new direction.”

Democratic billionaire activist Steyer spent more than $213 million of his own money to boost his candidacy and push a progressive, populist message. While he was trailing Becerra and Hilton on Tuesday night, he said at his watch party in San Francisco that he remains confident he can close the gap in the days ahead.

“Together, we’ve scared the hell out of the corporate interests used to getting their way,” Steyer said. “It might take some time to figure out where this is going. We’re going to wait until every ballot is counted. We’re gonna give democracy a time to work. And we know we finished really strong.”

The early results are not certain to hold, in part because of unusual voting patterns in this primary election: Ballot-tracking data heading into Tuesday evening showed that Republicans were more likely to vote early by mail, while Democratic voters in this deep-blue state held onto their mail-in ballots or chose to vote in person. That’s the reverse of recent elections, which saw more Democrats voting by mail and Republicans tending to vote in person on Election Day.

Advertisement

The uncertainty on election night capped a race that remained crowded and unsettled to the end. To some extent, the race was defined by who wasn’t running.

Some of the state’s most high-profile Democrats — former Vice President Kamala Harris, U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla and California Attorney General Rob Bonta — all passed on a potential bid to succeed Newsom.

The race was disrupted in April when then-U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell’s campaign for governor imploded amid allegations of sexual assault and harassment. Swalwell resigned from Congress shortly after the accusations surfaced and has denied assault allegations.

Swalwell had been gaining in polls and racking up high-profile endorsements, and his exit seemed to primarily benefit Becerra, who had been stuck in single digits in many polls. Ultimately, it quieted fears among Democrats who worried that the messy Democratic field could result in Bianco and Hilton winning the top spots in the June primary.

Marisa Lagos covers California politics at KQED and co-hosts the Political Breakdown show and podcast.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Supreme Court reinstates Republican-favored Alabama congressional districts

Published

on

Supreme Court reinstates Republican-favored Alabama congressional districts

The U.S. Supreme Court

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for Alabama to use a congressional district map favored by Republicans.

The court, in an unsigned order, overturned a three-judge district court panel that found that the map is “tainted by intentional race-based discrimination.” The court’s three liberals publicly dissented.

The ruling means that Alabama’s 2026 midterm elections will feature six Republican-leaning districts and one Democratic-leaning one, as opposed to a map with only five safe Republican seats. Democrat Shomari Figures, who represents Alabama’s Second District, will likely lose his seat as a result of the high court’s ruling.

Advertisement

The story of Alabama’s congressional map is long and tortured. It began in 2021, when the state implemented a new map to account for population changes in the census. The map featured only one majority-black district out of seven, even though the state is more than one-quarter Black.

Voters immediately sued, claiming the map illegally diluted minority votes in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution. Lower court judges agreed, ruling that the state must draw a map with two districts where Black voters have a realistic chance of electing their candidate of choice. The Supreme Court more than once has ordered Alabama to draw a compliant map.

But the state has refused and instead continued to litigate the case. On Tuesday, that tactic paid off.

What changed? In April, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority all but gutted what remains of the Voting Rights Act, ruling that states cannot purposefully draw districts that are majority-minority.

Alabama then asked the high court to reinstate the state’s old map, under the theory that this new ruling meant that it was permissible to use a map with only one majority-Black district. In an unsigned, unexplained order in May, the high court essentially reversed its previous opinions, and allowed Alabama to use the old map for the upcoming midterm elections.

Advertisement

This set off a flurry of activity in Alabama. By the time the Supreme Court issued its May order, absentee balloting had already begun, using the court-drawn map. So Republican Governor Kay Ivey cancelled elections and scheduled a special primary for August for the affected congressional races.

The case, however, was not over.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court had ordered a lower court panel to continue evaluating Alabama’s map in light of its recent Voting Rights Act decision. And just 15 days after that order, the panel, composed of three Republican judges—two of them Trump appointees—concluded unanimously that even under the Supreme Court’s new standards, the plan for a single black district was “intentionally discriminatory.”

So, once again, Alabama returned to the Supreme Court, arguing that the map was partisan, not racially discriminatory. In short, that the Republican legislature simply drew the map to elect more Republicans. And that under the Supreme Court’s new interpretation of the Voting Rights Act, the GOP map should be allowed to stand.

The court’s conservative agreed, writing that the lower court “did not heed the presumption of legislative good faith.”

Advertisement

The court’s three liberals publicly dissented, castigating the conservative majority for failing to abide by its 2006 decision in the case of Purcell v. Gonzalez. That decision declared that courts should not change election rules too close to an election.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, said the court “debases the democratic process” and “corrodes the rule of law by rewarding Alabama’s gamesmanship and outright defiance of court orders.”

Tuesday’s decision is the latest in a series of Supreme Court rulings that could well reshape the 2026 midterm elections, making it much harder for Democrats to prevail.

Continue Reading

News

Map: 3.7-Magnitude Earthquake Shakes the San Francisco Bay Area

Published

on

Map: 3.7-Magnitude Earthquake Shakes the San Francisco Bay Area

Advertisement

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

Advertisement

A minor, 3.7-magnitude earthquake struck in the San Francisco Bay Area on Tuesday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 9:44 a.m. Pacific time about 4 miles southeast of Cloverdale, Calif., data from the agency shows.

Advertisement

U.S.G.S. data earlier reported that the magnitude was 3.6.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Aftershocks detected

Subsequent quakes have been reported in the same area. Such temblors are typically aftershocks caused by minor adjustments along the portion of a fault that slipped at the time of the initial earthquake.

Advertisement

Quakes and aftershocks within 100 miles

Aftershocks can occur days, weeks or even years after the first earthquake. These events can be of equal or larger magnitude to the initial earthquake, and they can continue to affect already damaged locations.

Advertisement

When quakes and aftershocks occurred

 All times are Pacific time. The New York Times

Advertisement

Advertisement

Sources: United States Geological Survey (epicenter, aftershocks, shake intensity); LandScan via Oak Ridge National Laboratory (population density) | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Tuesday, June 2 at 12:59 p.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Tuesday, June 2 at 1:59 p.m. Eastern.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending