At the Janata Dal (United)'s national party meeting over the weekend, the talk was of Narendra Modi, presumptive prime ministerial nominee of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which is the JD(U)'s ally in the National Democratic Alliance. Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar led the attacks on his fellow chief minister, declaring that "this country is too huge and too diverse to be whipped into submission". His party resolved to demand that the BJP formally name a prime ministerial candidate before the end of the year, and that the candidate should have "secular credibility" - which, of course, rules out Mr Modi. For Mr Kumar, the calculations are simple: his thumping majority in Bihar is perpetually under threat from Lalu Prasad's "Muslim-Yadav" electoral coalition. If the threat of Mr Modi sets all Bihar's Muslims voting for Lalu Prasad, then the JD(U) is in trouble.
What may work for Mr Kumar, however, may not work for other opponents of Mr Modi, the ruling Congress party in particular. Nor is it going to be a sensible strategy for any national political party in the race to form the next government in New Delhi. It is important to remember that Mr Kumar is, after all, recognised among his voters as someone who values development and governance, and so Mr Modi cannot precisely distinguish himself in that manner to Bihar's electorate. But if the Congress were to similarly focus solely on the secular-versus-communal divide, it runs the very great risk of allowing Mr Modi a walkover when it comes to a vision for governance. And that is not something it can afford. Unlike Mr Kumar, the Congress competes with the BJP across a wide swathe of urban India - and the urban Indian vote did play a significant role in its past two victories in the general elections of 2004 and 2009. In 2014, it is far from clear whether urban India, reeling from industrial stagnation, administrative paralysis, corruption allegations and general governmental inefficiency, will vote for the Congress purely because it is more committed to Indian secularism than the BJP under Narendra Modi. In any case, it is hardly the case that any undecided voter in urban areas is unaware that Mr Modi is something of a threat to Indian secularism; so, if the purpose of an election campaign is to persuade the undecided with new information, that purpose is not served by continually repeating things they already know.
The Congress must, thus, engage and answer Mr Modi on questions of governance. Some in the party may view this as starting from a disadvantage, as India's growth performance is stagnating even as Gujarat continues to produce good outcomes. However, there is no option. Nor is it true that everything Mr Modi takes credit for introducing into his state can work at the Centre, or in other states. The Congress, and its chief campaigners, Sonia and Rahul Gandhi, must shed their aversion to discussing the details of policy and administrative management in public, in order to answer the questions Mr Modi poses. Otherwise, even if the BJP's attractiveness to allies looks shaky under Mr Modi, it will not benefit the Congress at all - for it will be in no position to create an alternative alliance.
