Indianpolitics has never been free of contradictions. Every political party, at one point or another, has said one thing and done another. But what is increasingly hurting the opposition today is not merely inconsistency; it is the growing gap between its rhetoric and its actions. That gap has become so visible that voters are beginning to question whether the opposition truly stands for the principles it publicly advocates.

Consider the recent examples that have generated political debate. On one hand, Rahul Gandhi has often positioned himself as a critic of aggressive nationalism and strongman politics globally, even describing Donald Trump in critical terms. Yet in Telangana, the government led by A. Revanth Reddy chose to name a road after Trump. Whether the decision was diplomatic, symbolic, or aimed at inviting investments or strengthening international ties is a separate matter. In fact it is not that easy to lure Trump administration to invest here. He is a shrewd businessman and already had investments in real estate in India. He cannot be pleased by naming a road after him. But the main political question is simple: if Trump represents values that Congress leaders oppose, why celebrate him through a public honour?

Similarly, the opposition's stance on industrialist Gautam Adani has become a subject of public scrutiny. Congress leaders, including Rahul Gandhi, have repeatedly accused the Modi government of favouring Adani and have often portrayed him as the principal beneficiary of government policies. Senior Congress leader Ashok Gehlot has also been sharply critical of the Adani Group. Yet he as chief minister met Adani and called him as Adani bhai.

In Kerala, the government led by Pinarayi Vijayan has worked with Adani-linked projects, particularly in infrastructure and ports. The Left has argued that investment is necessary for economic growth and employment generation. Its defence is straightforward: investment can be welcomed while ensuring that no company is allowed to engage in wrongdoing.

That may be a reasonable administrative argument. Governments require private investment. States compete aggressively for capital, jobs, and infrastructure projects. Political leaders know that economic growth cannot be sustained without significant private-sector participation.

However, the problem arises when the same leaders simultaneously describe a businessman as the symbol of crony capitalism and then actively seek his investments. If Adani is indeed the embodiment of everything wrong with the current economic model, why invite him? If his investments are welcome because they create jobs and infrastructure, then the portrayal of him as uniquely problematic becomes difficult to sustain.

The same contradiction can be seen in Telangana. While Congress leaders at the national level continue attacking Adani, the Telangana government has enthusiastically courted investment from the Adani Group. Again, there is nothing unusual about a state government seeking investment. What is unusual is the absence of consistency between national rhetoric and state-level governance.

This inconsistency points to a deeper challenge confronting the opposition. It has become increasingly easier to identify what many opposition leaders oppose than what they actually support. Their criticism of the ruling establishment is often sharp and relentless, but voters also expect a coherent alternative framework.

The opposition frequently attacks corporate concentration, yet welcomes large corporate investments when governing states. It criticises centralisation of power, yet many regional parties remain highly centralised around individual leaders or families. It speaks of internal democracy, but leadership transitions in several parties continue to be determined by dynastic considerations rather than organisational elections.

Such contradictions are not unique to the opposition. The ruling party too has faced accusations of inconsistency on various issues. But the difference is that the ruling establishment currently controls the political narrative because it presents a clearer and more consistent message. Voters may agree or disagree with that message, but they generally understand what it stands for.

The opposition's communication problem becomes even more evident in the statements made by Rahul Gandhi. Following the 2024 general election, he repeatedly suggested that the opposition had achieved a moral or political victory despite not securing power. He has also spoken optimistically about the future, projecting confidence about 2029. There is a political logic behind such statements. Leaders often seek to boost the morale of party workers after an election. Congress undoubtedly improved its parliamentary tally in 2024 compared with its previous performance, and the opposition alliance demonstrated that the ruling party could be challenged electorally.

However, political messaging must eventually align with public perception. In a parliamentary democracy, winning generally means forming the government. When a leader claims victory without actually obtaining power, the message can appear confusing to ordinary voters. Supporters may interpret it as confidence and momentum. Critics may view it as an inability to acknowledge electoral reality.

The larger issue is credibility. Modern voters are far more informed than before. They observe speeches, government decisions, policy announcements, and political alliances in real time. They quickly notice when leaders attack a corporate house nationally while welcoming it locally. They notice when ideological positions shift according to political convenience.

For the opposition, therefore, the challenge is not merely defeating the ruling party. It is establishing a coherent political identity that voters can trust. A successful opposition must offer more than criticism. It must provide consistency between principle and practice.

If private investment is essential, say so clearly. If engagement with large corporate groups is necessary for development, explain the safeguards rather than demonising the investors. If international leaders are to be honoured for diplomatic reasons, articulate that rationale regardless of partisan preferences.

Politics inevitably involves compromise. Governance requires pragmatism. But when pragmatism repeatedly contradicts rhetoric, credibility suffers.

The opposition's real battle today is not only against the ruling alliance. It is against the perception that it speaks in one voice during campaigns and governs in another when in power. Until that gap narrows, questions about hypocrisy will continue to overshadow its political message and weaken its ability to present itself as a convincing national alternative.

(The author is a former Chief Editor at The Hans India)