The depleted BJP's decision to retain key Ministries is a double-edged sword

There are a number of ways to look at the depleted-in-strength BJP decision to hold onto important Ministries within the Union Government, despite pressure from coalition partners like the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) and Janata Dal United (JDU) for a larger share of the pie. For its part, the BJP has sought to guarantee itself centralisation of power over significant policy choices by holding onto important ministries. This will obviously support upholding a constant course for policy and governance, besides facilitating the quick execution of its agenda and cutting down on red tape. Sitting in significant Ministries enables the party to present its accomplishments and capacity for governance to the public, which is essential for retaining and growing its support base. On the flip sides, disagreements within the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) may arise from coalition partners feeling excluded. Relationship tension could result from this being seen as a lack of respect or trust by powerful regional parties like the TDP and JDU. The partners may utilise their ability to bargain to obtain greater sway, which could spark arguments or even inspire threats of abandoning the relationship. This might cause the partnership to become unstable, particularly since the BJP does not have the numbers to prop a Government on its own.  On the other hand, it also means that the coalition will not be able to take use of the variety of perspectives and knowledge that its partners can offer. Policies as a result may be less sensitive to local quirks or inclusive. Sometimes, having all the authority in one place results in lack of accountability.

Sharing Ministries within a coalition can encourage a more balanced Government and serve as a check on decisions made by one person. In the long run, political instability could result from coalition partners feeling consistently ignored. In maintaining control, the BJP must make sure that its coalition partners are respected and feel included. However, the BJP's chances in States where these allies have sizeable support bases may suffer if coalition members leave over discontent. This might be harmful in elections that are hotly contested. Even if they do not hold important Ministries, the BJP is still able to include coalition partners in significant decision-making processes. This may lessen feelings of isolation. Keeping a stable alliance and addressing coalition partners' concerns can be achieved by regular consultations and talks. Providing them with strategic ministries or other types of political recompense might assist maintain coalition members' commitment and satisfaction. Maintaining important Ministries, therefore, is a two-edged sword for the BJP. It can guarantee policy continuity and improve governance efficiency, but it also runs the danger of upsetting coalition partners, which could result in political instability. The outcome will mostly depend on how the BJP humours its alliances and strikes a balance between inclusiveness and shared authority and centralised control.