Editorial

As External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar hosts his counterparts — US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Japan’s Toshimitsu Motegi, and Australia’s Penny Wong — in New Delhi today, the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) convenes at a pivotal juncture. This marks the first such ministerial meeting on Indian soil since 2023, coming amid heightened West Asian tensions, maritime disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, and persistent concerns over an assertive China in the Indo-Pacific. The gathering underscores the Quad’s evolution from a loose diplomatic forum into a platform delivering tangible cooperation on security, technology, and regional resilience.

The core agenda — advancing a free, open, and inclusive Indo-Pacific — remains as relevant as ever. Discussions are expected to cover maritime security, critical minerals supply chains, infrastructure development, humanitarian assistance, and disaster relief. These are not abstract ideals. Disruptions in key sea lanes directly impact energy security and global trade, issues India knows intimately as it balances its strategic autonomy with deepening partnerships. The presence of Rubio, fresh from bilateral engagements, signals strong US interest under the current administration in leveraging the Quad to share burdens and promote a rules-based order.

India’s hosting role carries symbolic and substantive weight. New Delhi has consistently championed an inclusive approach — one that avoids overt militarization while focusing on practical deliverables like vaccine diplomacy during COVID and satellite-based disaster management. This pragmatic streak helps the Quad appeal beyond traditional allies, reassuring ASEAN nations wary of great-power rivalry. Yet challenges persist. Coordinating four democracies with distinct domestic priorities and threat perceptions is never seamless. Questions remain about sustained momentum, especially as global attention oscillates between Ukraine, the Middle East, and Indo-Pacific flashpoints.

The meeting also offers an opportunity to address emerging domains: critical and emerging technologies, cyber security, and resilient supply chains. In an era of economic coercion and technological decoupling, collaborative efforts on semiconductors, clean energy, and secure communications can reduce vulnerabilities for all members. India’s growing role as a technology and manufacturing hub positions it well to contribute meaningfully here.

Critics sometimes dismiss the Quad as an anti-China construct. That view misses the point. The grouping is not a formal alliance but a flexible response to shared concerns over unilateral actions that undermine sovereignty and international norms. Its strength lies in positive agenda-setting — building capacity in smaller nations rather than confrontation.

As the ministers meet, possibly calling on Prime Minister Narendra Modi, expectations should be tempered but hopeful. Concrete outcomes — whether new initiatives on maritime domain awareness or expanded scholarships — will matter more than joint statements. This New Delhi gathering can reinvigorate the Quad, demonstrating that like-minded democracies can cooperate effectively without rigid blocs. In an increasingly fragmented world, such platforms are vital for preserving stability and prosperity across the world’s most dynamic region.

The Bharatiya Janata Party’s massive victory in the Falta Assembly bypoll in West Bengal, where Debangshu Panda reportedly won by more than 1.09 lakh votes, is more than just a routine electoral upset. It is politically significant because the seat was considered a Trinamool Congress stronghold, and because the contest eventually turned into a direct BJP-versus-Congress battle after the withdrawal of the TMC candidate. The result has triggered fresh debate over whether traditional electoral arithmetic is losing relevance in Indian politics.

For decades, Indian elections were often understood through social combinations, vote transfers, caste equations, and tactical alliances. In Bengal too, anti-BJP votes were expected to consolidate behind the strongest available non-BJP force. On paper, the withdrawal of the TMC candidate should have helped the Congress consolidate anti-BJP sentiment. Yet the result suggests precisely the opposite.

The first major takeaway is that political arithmetic does not always translate into political chemistry. Voters are not transferable commodities. A party’s support base does not automatically move to another party merely because leaders decide so. Many TMC supporters may have chosen to abstain, while others may have shifted to the BJP rather than back the Congress. This reflects the growing importance of perception, leadership image, and ideological positioning over traditional alliance mathematics.

Secondly, the BJP appears to have succeeded in expanding beyond its earlier urban and polarised pockets into areas once considered electorally inaccessible. The party’s campaign likely benefited from a narrative of organisational discipline, aggressive booth management, and projection of itself as the principal challenger to the ruling establishment in Bengal.

At the same time, the Congress faces a deeper crisis of relevance in the state. Even when presented with a direct fight against the BJP, it failed to emerge as a credible alternative. This points toward an erosion not just of electoral machinery but also of emotional connect with voters.

The more controversial question being asked after the result is whether people are “terrorised” by the BJP. Such claims are frequently made by opposition parties across India, arguing that fear of central agencies, political pressure, or ideological dominance influences electoral behaviour. However, election results of this scale cannot be explained only through fear. Voters may support a party for multiple reasons.

Reducing every BJP victory to intimidation risks ignoring genuine political shifts taking place on the ground. Equally, dismissing opposition concerns entirely would overlook anxieties about democratic space and political competitiveness. The truth perhaps lies somewhere in between: strong political messaging and organisational strength matter, but so do perceptions of institutional imbalance.

The Falta bypoll therefore signals a larger transformation in Indian politics. Electoral arithmetic alone is no longer sufficient. Voters are increasingly independent, unpredictable, and driven by broader narratives rather than old alliance formulas. For the opposition, the lesson is clear: defeating the BJP requires more than tactical adjustments. It demands credibility, clarity, leadership, and a compelling political vision.

• SAS Kirmani