Pakistan Narrative Likely to Dominate BJP Campaign in Crucial 2026 State Elections

In India, the terms of the legislative assemblies in four key states—Assam, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal—as well as the Union Territory of Puducherry, are set to expire on May 2, 2026. New elections in these states will be held in different phases between March and May. To secure victory in these elections, the Modi government has begun deliberating several plans and is considering using every possible tactic.

A senior leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), speaking on condition of anonymity during a detailed telephone conversation with Baaghi Tv from New Delhi, revealed that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has held an in-depth meeting with Home Minister Amit Shah, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, and a few other top leaders. In this meeting, key responsibilities were assigned for formulating an election strategy.

The meeting was informed that at present, the BJP holds 60 seats in Assam, while the NDA alliance has a total of 75 seats there. In Kerala, the government is led by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)] under the Left Democratic Front, while the NDA does not have a single seat. In Tamil Nadu, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) is in power, and the NDA has 75 seats. In West Bengal, the government is led by the All India Trinamool Congress, where the NDA has 77 seats, most of which belong to the BJP. In Puducherry, the NDA is in power under the leadership of the All India N.R. Congress, with the BJP holding six seats.

It was decided in the meeting that the upcoming elections will not only determine India’s political direction but will also be extremely important for the overall performance and future of various state governments. The meeting resolved that the BJP and its allies would make every possible effort to form full governments in all these states after the elections, regardless of the tactics required.

The meeting also discussed proposals to use various narratives against Pakistan during the election campaign to gain public sympathy and extract political advantage. Several options were presented in this regard. One key proposal was that the most prominent campaign narrative would revolve around allegations of cross-border terrorism, linking the prevailing tense situation in Indian-occupied Kashmir and along the Line of Control to Pakistan, and projecting a hardline stance.

Through this narrative, the government could portray itself as the guarantor of national security while accusing opposition parties of weakness or softness, thereby gaining political leverage. Another proposed narrative involved reminding the public of so-called surgical strikes or limited military actions, highlighting past incidents to convey the message that the current government has taken tough and decisive measures against Pakistan. It was suggested that such references could be used in rallies and media statements to stir public emotions.

Additionally, the Modi government is considering highlighting Pakistan’s relations with China to promote the narrative of a “two-front threat.” Under this narrative, it could be argued that Pakistan, in collaboration with China, is acting against India, and that countering this threat requires strong leadership. The objective of this narrative would be to foster national unity and generate public support for the government’s defence policies.

Another proposal discussed was to promote the narrative of isolating Pakistan diplomatically at the global level during the election period. This would involve claims that India has strengthened its stance against Pakistan on the issue of terrorism within the international community, and that New Delhi is playing a responsible role for peace and stability in the region. Through this narrative, the government could convert its foreign policy claims into electoral gains.

It was also proposed that internal security and strict laws be linked to Pakistan-related threats, creating the impression that stringent security measures across the country are unavoidable due to dangers associated with Pakistan. Under this strategy, national security would be tied to internal governance and electoral promises in an effort to win public support.

The meeting further considered the idea that during the election process, a limited and controlled atmosphere of tension could be created along the Line of Control. In particular, allegations of terrorism and infiltration, along with the use of anti-Pakistan narratives, could lead to increased border tension or political strain. However, the chances of a full-scale war would remain low. In such circumstances, global pressure and nuclear deterrence would be factors compelling both countries to act cautiously, allowing the ruling party to reap political benefits. Under these conditions, the international community—especially the United States and the United Nations—could respond swiftly to ensure that the situation does not spiral out of control.