The Courtroom vs. The Advertising Agency

Why the Opposition keeps losing battles it should be winning

The first week of February 2026 should have been a disaster for the ruling party.

A former Army Chief's unpublished memoir surfaced, alleging that during the 2020 China standoff, the Prime Minister and Defence Minister told the military to figure it out themselves. A hastily announced India-US trade deal raised questions about what India had conceded. Parliament was in session. The Opposition had ammunition.

By the end of the week, the headlines were about Congress MPs throwing papers, eight Opposition members suspended, and the Prime Minister accusing Rahul Gandhi of insulting Sikhs.

The Opposition had the facts. The BJP had the story.

This is not a new pattern. However, it is worth examining why it keeps repeating.

The Evidence Room

Watch any Opposition attack unfold, and you will notice something peculiar. It is structured like a legal argument.

Here is the document. Here is the violation. Here is the precedent. Here is why we are right.

When Rahul Gandhi rose in Parliament to speak about the Naravane memoir, he brought a magazine article, excerpts from the unpublished book, and an explicit accusation: that the government had abdicated its responsibility during a national security crisis. By any reasonable standard, it was a serious charge backed by a credible source.

The Speaker invoked Rule 349. The book was unpublished. Gandhi could not quote from it.

And that was that.

The Opposition spent the rest of the week arguing about procedure and whether the rule was applied fairly. Whether BJP MP Nishikant Dubey should have been allowed to quote from his stack of anti-Nehru books. Whether the Speaker was biased.

All legitimate points. All completely beside the point.

While Congress was litigating the rules of evidence, the BJP had already changed the subject.

The Feeling Factory

Within hours of Rahul Gandhi calling Ravneet Singh Bittu a "traitor" outside Parliament, the BJP had assembled a press conference.

Not with lawyers. With Sikhs.

Hardeep Singh Puri. Manjinder Singh Sirsa. Arvinder Singh Lovely. Three turbaned leaders, standing together, condemning what they called an insult to the entire Sikh community.

The framing was immediate and total. This was not about a politician who switched parties. This was about 1984. About Operation Blue Star. About tyres around necks. About the Gandhi family's history with the Sikh community.

By evening, the Prime Minister himself weighed in from the Rajya Sabha. "The cunning young prince called a Sardar a traitor. This was an insult to Sikhs, to the Gurus. This is the hatred they carry in their hearts."

Notice what happened. Rahul Gandhi made a political comment about an individual defector. The BJP sold it as an attack on the entire community's honour.

One is an argument. The other is an advertisement.

Arguments require the audience to evaluate evidence, weigh competing claims, and reach a conclusion. Advertisements require only that they feel something: anger, pride, belonging, fear.

The BJP does not waste time on arguments.

The Victimhood Inversion

Here is something that rarely gets discussed. Both sides play victim. Constantly.

The Opposition's victimhood sounds like this: "They did not let me speak." "The Speaker is biased." "Our MPs were unfairly suspended." "Democracy is dying."

It is a complaint to the referee, an appeal to procedural fairness. It assumes that a neutral observer is watching, keeping score, and will eventually intervene on behalf of justice.

No one is watching. No one is keeping score.

Now listen to the BJP's victimhood. "They want to dig Modi's grave." "For twenty-five years, they have insulted me every day." "They cannot tolerate a chaiwala becoming Prime Minister."

This is not a complaint. It is a recruitment pitch.

When Modi says "they" want to destroy him, the "they" is elastic. It includes the Opposition, but also the elite, the entitled, and those who think they own this country by birthright. The "me" is equally elastic. Modi is not just Modi. He is every person who has ever been looked down upon, underestimated, or dismissed.

His victimhood is aspirational. It says: I am you. My enemies are your enemies. My survival is your victory.

The Opposition's victimhood asks for sympathy. Modi's victimhood offers membership.

The Speed of the Sale

There is a technical dimension to this that deserves attention.

The BJP does not just sell better. It sells faster.

The Bittu comment was reframed as an anti-Sikh slur within six hours. The Naravane book was neutralised by the evening news. The "PM is compromised" allegation on the trade deal disappeared entirely, buried under celebrations of a "historic agreement."

This is not luck. This is infrastructure.

Five million WhatsApp groups. An army of supportive news anchors, A 24-hour war room. Pre-positioned spokespersons for every community, every language, every possible angle of attack. When something happens, the BJP does not deliberate; it floods.

The Opposition, meanwhile, holds press conferences, issues statements, and waits for the media to pick up the story.

By the time Congress has drafted its response, the BJP has already moved the conversation somewhere else entirely.

In advertising, there is a concept called "share of voice." The brand that speaks the most, the loudest, and the fastest tends to win, regardless of whether its product is actually better.

The BJP has understood this. The Opposition still thinks the best argument wins.

What Selling Actually Looks Like

This is not an argument for the Opposition to lie or manipulate. It is an argument for understanding the difference between being right and being heard.

Consider the Naravane story. The Opposition's framing was: "The government failed to provide leadership during a national security crisis."

A more effective framing might have been: "When Chinese tanks came to our border, the Prime Minister told our Army: you figure it out."

Same facts. Different sale.

The first framing asks you to assess governmental competence. The second framing makes you feel abandoned.

Or consider the Bittu episode. Once the anti-Sikh charge gained traction, Congress went defensive. "We were not referring to Sikhs. Rahul meant it personally."

Defensive explanations never work. They accept the opponent's frame and try to argue within it.

A counter-sale might have been: "Bittu abandoned the party of his grandfather who gave his life fighting terrorism. We know who the real traitors are in Punjab's history."

Same facts. Offensive framing. Forces the BJP to defend instead of attack.

The Opposition does not lack ammunition. It lacks a sales team.

The Real Contest

Elections are not debates. They are not courtrooms. They are not seminars where the most rigorous argument prevails.

Elections are marketplaces. In marketplaces, the product that sells best is not always the product that performs best.

The BJP has recognised this for over a decade now. It does not try to win arguments. It tries to win feelings. It does not present evidence. It creates identity.

The Opposition continues to arrive at these contests with files and folders, ready to prosecute a case. The BJP arrives with music, slogans, and a simple ask: Are you with us or against us?

Until the Opposition learns to sell, it will keep losing to a party that never bothers to argue.

The courtroom is empty. The mall is crowded.

Guess where the voters are.