UP Election 2027: BJP Revives SP’s Past as Yogi, Amit Shah Step Up Attacks

LUCKNOW: The political contest for Uttar Pradesh’s 2027 Assembly elections is increasingly taking shape around a familiar question: should voters judge the parties primarily by their performance in office or by the alternative they represent?

The Bharatiya Janata Party appears determined to make the Samajwadi Party’s previous tenure an important part of that debate.

In speeches, campaign material and public statements, Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and senior BJP leaders have repeatedly brought up the period when the SP governed the state, drawing comparisons with the changes they say have taken place since 2017.

The approach was particularly visible in Adityanath’s recent address at Bithoor in Kanpur.

Rather than concentrating exclusively on the achievements of his administration, the Chief Minister devoted much of his speech to allegations concerning the SP government’s record on public safety, communal tensions, corruption and the treatment of Hindu religious traditions.

He portrayed the previous administration as a period marked by political favouritism and disorder, contrasting it with his government’s emphasis on law enforcement and the development of religious destinations.

One of the messages subsequently amplified by the BJP’s Uttar Pradesh unit was Adityanath’s assertion that the SP’s political legacy was associated with riots, corruption, family-based politics and uncertainty for young people.

He also cautioned voters against accepting what he described as a changed public image of the SP, arguing that its present-day references to Lord Ram should not erase its earlier political record.

Using an episode from the Ramayana involving Hanuman and the demon Kaalnemi, he urged supporters to look beyond appearances.

Amit Shah brings the Ayodhya firing back into the political debate

The same political theme was reinforced at the BJP’s state working committee gathering in Lucknow, where Union Home Minister Amit Shah invoked one of the most contentious episodes in Uttar Pradesh’s political history.

Referring to the police firing on kar sevaks in Ayodhya on October 30, 1990, during the government headed by Mulayam Singh Yadav, Shah questioned the SP’s claim to political legitimacy in the state.

He contrasted the incident with the subsequent construction of the Ram temple and said voters would not overlook the events of that period, even when judging future generations of the Yadav political family.

His remarks were part of a wider effort to place the Ram temple movement at the centre of the BJP’s political argument against the SP.

Shah also used the Lucknow meeting to announce that a BJP government returning to office in 2027 would implement a Uniform Civil Code in Uttar Pradesh.

He expressed confidence that the party would secure another term and told workers to put aside internal disagreements and concentrate on election preparations.

The meeting, attended by senior state and national leaders, marked a formal intensification of the party’s organisational preparations for the next Assembly contest.

BJP’s campaign relies on comparisons between two governments

The contrast between the SP and BJP periods is being presented through more than speeches.

The BJP’s state unit has circulated campaign graphics that place developments during the earlier administration alongside actions taken under Adityanath.

Among the subjects used in these comparisons are action against properties linked to gangster-politicians, investment and tourism, religious infrastructure and the treatment of Hindu festivals.

One set of campaign material contrasts the earlier political influence of gangster Atiq Ahmed with the subsequent attachment of properties allegedly linked to him.

Another juxtaposes concerns about security raised by investors in the past with the BJP government’s claims about increased tourism and investment.

Religious issues have also been prominent. BJP material has compared expenditure on graveyard boundary walls during the SP period with the declaration of a holiday on Mahanavami under the present government.

Another comparison links the 1990 Ayodhya firing with the completion of the Ram temple.

These presentations reflect the BJP’s effort to contrast the two administrations easily understandable to voters through familiar political and cultural references.

The party insists that its emphasis on the SP’s past does not mean it is short of achievements to discuss.

BJP spokesperson Rakesh Tripathi has argued that the government is simultaneously highlighting its work in infrastructure, electricity supply, expressways, airports and medical education.

He maintains that presenting the records of successive governments side by side allows voters to assess the changes made since 2017.

Deputy Chief Ministers Keshav Prasad Maurya and Brajesh Pathak have also repeatedly criticised the SP’s earlier tenure, particularly over allegations of criminal influence and deterioration in law and order.

SP says BJP is avoiding questions about its own performance

The Samajwadi Party has rejected the BJP’s portrayal of its years in office and argues that repeatedly invoking the past reflects an unwillingness to discuss the present government’s performance.

SP leaders maintain that the Adityanath administration should be judged on contemporary concerns such as employment, education, healthcare, inflation and the condition of farmers rather than on political controversies dating back several decades.

Rajya Sabha MP Javed Ali has argued that the BJP’s attempt to revive memories of the SP period has lost much of its impact.

He has also pointed to the Opposition’s performance in recent elections as evidence that voters are not necessarily accepting the ruling party’s version of events.

SP spokesperson Fakhrul Hasan has similarly accused the BJP of shifting political discussion towards communal themes instead of addressing public services and economic concerns.

The exchange illustrates the competing narratives likely to shape the next election: the BJP wants voters to compare its record with that of its predecessor, while the SP wants the election to focus on the present administration’s promises and performance.

Recent MLC results add another dimension

The political context has also been influenced by the recently concluded Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council elections.

The BJP won six of the 11 seats contested, while the SP secured five. Although the BJP retained its overall advantage in the contest, the SP increased its tally from three seats in the previous election cycle to five.

The results, particularly the SP victories in the Lucknow and Varanasi Graduates’ constituencies, have given the Opposition additional grounds to challenge the BJP’s political narrative ahead of the Assembly polls.

The outcome has also underlined the importance of the electoral contest between the two parties beyond the traditional Assembly and Lok Sabha battlegrounds.

A political formula previously used in Bihar

The BJP’s approach in Uttar Pradesh has similarities with the campaign strategy adopted by the National Democratic Alliance in Bihar in 2025.

At that time, Nitish Kumar’s long period in office had become a potential source of political vulnerability.

Instead of concentrating solely on defending his government’s record, NDA leaders repeatedly reminded voters of the years associated with Lalu Prasad Yadav and the Rashtriya Janata Dal, using the expression ‘jungle raj’ to describe that period.

The campaign sought to make voters consider what a change in government might mean by recalling the political and administrative conditions associated with the RJD’s earlier tenure.

In Uttar Pradesh, the BJP is employing a comparable argument, although its references extend beyond crime and governance to include the Ram temple movement, religious identity, festival-related issues and allegations of preferential treatment under previous governments.

The challenge of defending a decade in power

The BJP’s political communication presents an interesting situation. Having governed Uttar Pradesh since 2017, the party is seeking another mandate based on its own record, yet a substantial part of its public messaging continues to revolve around the SP’s earlier years in office.

For the SP, this provides an opportunity to question whether the BJP is sufficiently prepared to defend its performance on current issues.

For the BJP, however, comparing the two periods offers a way to frame its achievements against the political alternative represented by Akhilesh Yadav.

With the next Assembly election approaching, the debate is likely to encompass infrastructure, employment, law and order, religious issues, welfare programmes and the performance of the administration.

Ultimately, the two parties are attempting to establish different terms of political comparison: the BJP wants the electorate to remember what Uttar Pradesh was like before 2017, while the SP wants voters to examine what has happened during the decade since.