There is an old, contested adage that “leaders are born, not made.” In the sphere of modern politics, however, a different truth seems to have emerged: political sustenance is made, but the materials have changed. The crucible of leadership is no longer forged primarily in the intellectual rigor of policy or the moral clarity of statesmanship. Instead, it is increasingly crafted from the raw, potent, and often volatile elements of mass sentiment. History may have once celebrated the orator who appealed to our better angels, but the contemporary democratic landscape often seems to reward the “firebrand” who can most effectively channel our deepest anxieties.

This marks a profound shift from the political discourse that characterized the nascent decades of many post-colonial democracies. That era, personified by figures like Jawaharlal Nehru, was defined by a commitment, at least in principle, to a Gandhian approach of constructive, unifying oratory. The content of political speech was substantive, centered on foundational questions: What is the nation’s economic model? What is our place in the world? How do we build a just, equitable society? The debates were grand, ideological, and policy-driven. While certainly not devoid of passion, the appeal was directed at the electorate’s intellect and their hopes for a collective future.

This model, however, has slowly atrophied. The pivotal turning point, as argued by many analysts, was the tectonic shift in the global economic consensus.

The Great Economic Convergence and Ideological Hollowing

The era of globalisation, crystallised in many nations by the reforms of the early 1990s—such as those under India’s P.V. Narasimha Rao—fundamentally altered the political battlefield. The triumph of market capitalism created a new global hegemony of thought. The stringent logic of international finance, trade agreements, and global supply chains forced a reluctant uniformity upon political parties of all stripes.

This new reality, often described as the “neoliberal consensus,” effectively hollowed out the core ideological differences between left and right. Whether a party was founded on socialist, communist, or conservative principles, it found itself constrained by the same set of economic imperatives. To attract foreign investment, maintain a stable currency, and drive growth, all were compelled to adopt market-friendly policies. The contest over grand economic vision was reduced to a tactical bidding war of “freebies” and subsidies—promises that are more about redistribution than fundamental ideological divergence.

When economic policies become functionally indistinguishable, the political machinery loses its primary source of intellectual differentiation and partisan conflict. This ideological hollowing-out left a profound and dangerous vacuum at the heart of political discourse, prompting a desperate, existential search for a new source of electoral momentum.

The Pivot to Identity and the Rise of Vitriol

Nature, and politics, abhors a vacuum. With the grand stage of economic policy rendered inert, political energies and electoral ambitions had to be redirected. If politicians could no longer differentiate themselves on what they would do for the economy, they had to pivot to who they would do it for. The shift was immediate and instinctive, moving from the rational domain of policy to the deeply emotional and visceral domain of identity.

This search for a defining cleavage began by tapping into regionalism. This was a logical first step, exploiting linguistic pride, local grievances, and the “us versus them” dynamic against a perceived “central” or “outsider” power. However, to build a truly massive, national-level coalition, a more expansive and profoundly emotive identity was required: religion. Religion transcends local boundaries, providing a pre-existing, deeply embedded framework of belief, community, and atavistic loyalty that a skilled political entrepreneur can easily weaponise.

This pivot necessitates a dramatic change in rhetorical style. Policy appeals to the brain; identity appeals to the gut. To activate these deep-seated loyalties, a different kind of speech is required: the rhetoric must be sharp, unambiguous, and emotionally charged. This is the domain of the “firebrand” orator and the politics of division. In this new paradigm, vitriolic rhetoric—fanning regionalism, religious sentiment, or communal tensions—is not a political liability; it is the core formula for sustainable electoral success. It defines the in-group by aggressively defining and attacking the out-group, thereby ensuring the loyalty of the core base.

Bihar: The Synthesis of Regionalism and the Right-Wing

The recent sweeping victory of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) in the Bihar Assembly elections serves as a powerful and unambiguous case study of this political evolution. This resounding mandate was secured not by relying exclusively on one form of identity politics, but by forging a seamless synthesis of regional appeal and national right-wing consolidation.

The regional component, championed by the Janata Dal (United) [JD(U)], focused on governance continuity, strong caste arithmetic and targeted welfare delivery. This is the politics of localised identity, caste-based loyalty, and immediate economic incentive (“freebies” and women-centric welfare schemes). Crucially, the JD(U) has historically been founded on principles of socialism and secularism. The fact that a party with this core ideological heritage can form a dominant and electorally devastating alliance with the right-wing, nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is the starkest evidence that ideological consistency has been wholly supplanted by strategic, electoral arithmetic.

This regional engine was fused with the ideological ballast and formidable organizational power of the BJP. The BJP brings the national, right-wing ideological framework, the immense popularity of the Prime Minister, and a rhetoric that elevates the political battle to a national, cultural, and religious mandate.

The NDA’s success lies in their ability to present a unified front that simultaneously delivers the local identity-based gratification (the regional focus on caste and welfare) while leveraging the expansive, pan-Indian religious and national identity (the right-wing appeal). The combination is politically devastating to the opposition: it manages to appeal to both the voter’s local, immediate concerns and their broader, ideological, and cultural loyalties. The opposition, often left to fight on a single axis (either regional grievance or economic policy), is overwhelmed by this dual-pronged strategic attack.

The lesson from this outcome is stark: the politician who sustains is not the best policymaker, but the most effective alchemist of identity. The modern political formula demands a masterful blend of inflammatory rhetoric that can successfully mobilize regional, caste, and religious sentiment to fill the void left by the great convergence of economic policy. The “how”—the mastery of vitriolic and divisive speech—has become functionally more important than the “what”—the substance of policy—in securing the democratic mandate.

(The writer is a senior Advocate)