The hottest phrase in Indian politics right now is “Operation Tiger.” The goal is simple: secure 362 seats in the Lok Sabha, the two-thirds majority mark. But why this number? What agenda requires such overwhelming parliamentary strength? And more importantly, will this agenda benefit India's 1.4 billion people—or harm them? That question remains unanswered. 

 

 

The game reportedly began in West Bengal. A group of Trinamool Congress MPs was allegedly being encouraged to move into a little-known outfit called the Nationalist Citizen Party of India (NCP-I).

The next battleground appeared to be Maharashtra, where sections of Uddhav Thackeray's Shiv Sena were said to be under pressure. Sharad Pawar's camp is widely rumored to be another target.

Now the focus has shifted to Uttar Pradesh. The formula is straightforward: move MPs from larger opposition parties into smaller, friendly outfits and gradually increase the ruling coalition's numbers.

 

 

Two names frequently discussed in political circles are Om Prakash Rajbhar and Sanjay Nishad. There is also speculation about possible roles for Anupriya Patel and Jayant Chaudhary.

 

The primary target is believed to be the Samajwadi Party (SP), currently the third-largest party in the Lok Sabha with 37 MPs. Under anti-defection laws, at least 25 MPs—two-thirds of the parliamentary party—would be needed for a split to be legally viable.

 

The obvious question: can that number really be achieved? 

 

 

The NDA currently has around 293–300 seats. With support from parties like YSRCP and some independents, it could touch the 300 mark.

 

If significant support comes from Trinamool Congress MPs, the tally could move closer to 320.

 

Additional support from factions linked to Uddhav Thackeray and Sharad Pawar could push the number toward 335.

 

That still leaves a gap of roughly 27 seats before reaching the magic figure of 362. According to this theory, breaking the Samajwadi Party becomes almost essential.

 

 

Some political observers believed that if Congress aligned with actor-politician Thalapathy Vijay's TVK, the DMK might move closer to the NDA.

 

That never happened.

 

The reason is believed to be the contentious issue of delimitation. The DMK has strongly opposed any move that could reduce southern India's parliamentary influence while increasing the weight of more populous northern states.

 

Thus, even if differences emerge between the DMK and Congress, that does not automatically translate into support for the BJP.

 

 

Congress has 98 MPs. Splitting the party would require about 66 MPs, an extraordinarily difficult task. Most Congress MPs are concentrated in southern India and Punjab—regions where the BJP faces stronger resistance.

The delimitation debate has also strengthened anti-BJP sentiment in parts of the South, making such a move even less realistic.

 

 

Political allegations have produced startling figures. In Bengal, MP Kirti Azad reportedly alleged that MPs were being offered ₹5 crore. In Maharashtra, Sanjay Raut claimed offers ranged between ₹15–20 crore, while some political insiders have suggested figures as high as ₹50 crore. In Uttar Pradesh, rumors have even touched the ₹100 crore mark.

Whether true or exaggerated, the question resonates loudly: Has democracy become a marketplace where elected representatives are commodities? 

 

 

Unlike some other political formations, many SP leaders come from long-established socialist backgrounds and are not viewed as politically vulnerable through financial pressure alone. The party's PDA coalition—backward classes, Dalits, minorities, and allied caste groups—provides a strong grassroots base. In Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, political veterans often say: "Money follows power, not the other way around." With the 2027 Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections approaching, many leaders may see greater value in preserving their political future than accepting short-term incentive

 

 

Critics argue that several developments have increased pressure on the ruling establishment. Rahul Gandhi's outreach to students, particularly his criticism of what he calls a "rejection system" rather than a "selection system," has resonated with sections of the youth.

 

Questions around the Constitution, reservations, unemployment, and social justice are also spreading beyond traditional opposition constituencies.

 

History offers another lesson: even after the major delimitation exercise of the 1970s, Indira Gandhi still lost power. Simply changing electoral arithmetic does not guarantee political success.

 

 

Political observers also point to internal calculations within the BJP. There is speculation about bringing Devendra Fadnavis into the BJP's Central Parliamentary Board. Some note that Narendra Modi entered the board in 2013 before becoming the party's prime ministerial candidate. If Fadnavis rises further, it could alter internal equations involving Amit Shah and Yogi Adityanath.

 

Another theory suggests that if the BJP performs poorly in Uttar Pradesh, the influence of the Gujarat leadership could weaken, potentially benefiting Yogi Adityanath's future ambitions. These are, of course, political interpretations rather than established facts.

 

 

If politics becomes a constant exercise in engineering defections, what happens to the voters who elected those representatives? If 788 MPs cannot adequately solve the country's problems, will 1,200 or even 2,000 MPs make governance better—or simply more expensive?

 

Critics argue that New Delhi increasingly resembles a capital driven by political ambition, ego, and strategic intrigue. Their fear is that weakening the opposition and consolidating numbers could pave the way for an early election and a longer hold on power. Whether these fears are justified or exaggerated remains a matter of political debate. But one question continues to hover over Indian democracy: Is the race to 362 about better governance—or about reshaping the political system itself?

 

That is a question every citizen will have to answer.

 

0000