The prime minister of India, Narendra Modi, officially begins his third term Saturday bloodied but unbowed by the blow of falling far short of his hopes and dreams in elections for all 543 members of the Lok Sabha, or parliament.

Mr. Modi’s foes in the Indian National Congress, the party that dominated the country’s political scene starting with India’s only other three-term prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, promised to exploit the failure of Mr. Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party to win a majority of seats in the Lok Sabha.  

The leader of the Congress, Mallikarjun Kharge, predicted the Congress would disrupt Mr. Modi’s rule, possibly in a political crisis that would force another vote in the Lok Sabha, which formally elects the prime minister. “The mandate is decisively against Mr. Modi,” Mr. Kharge told party leaders. “It is a huge political loss for him personally.”

For now, though, Mr. Modi’s title of prime minister, even without all the power he might like, seems secure. Although his party fell short of a majority with just 240 seats, he still has 293 seats on his side thanks to the unanimous support of minor parties in his National Democratic Alliance.

On paper, Mr. Modi’s party appears far stronger than the Congress, which won 99 seats, but the Congress dominates the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance, which claims 232 seats.

“The BJP-led NDA will surely form the next government, but will have to face a stronger opposition in the Parliament,“ a former professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University, Chintamani Mahapatra, told the Sun. “This is good for the health of the Indian democracy.”

No one disputes the right to vote, and vote-fixing or miscounting is hardly reported, though narrowing the endemic rich-poor gap and reforming an ancient caste system that determines social standing from birth seems impossible. Yet the fact that 642 million voters, two-thirds of the billion eligible to cast ballots, could strike a blow against Mr. Modi’s authoritarian rule shows the vibrant nature of Indian democracy.

“The election results symbolize the dynamism of Indian democracy, where elections are regularly, peacefully, and transparently held,” the founder of the Kalinga Institute of Indo-Pacific Studies, Mr. Mahapatra, said. “The intelligence of the Indian electorate gets reflected in the election outcomes and no party is allowed to take the voters for granted.”

In a commentary on the Hindu nationalism that is central to Mr. Modi’s outlook and policies, The Times of London had a clear view of Mr. Modi’s failings.

“The blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the party’s leader,” the paper editorialized. “Mr. Nodi’s platform has been to place Hindu nationalism at the centre of the country’s politics.” There was “a lesson for him in the election result,” it concluded. “Bullying Muslims and making the rich richer is not good enough. India’s poor people want to see a material improvement to their lives.”

The Congress also counts on the star power of Nehru’s great-grandson, Rahul Gandhi. As the party’s best-known figure, Mr. Gandhi might emerge as a contender for prime minister. His father, Rajiv Gandhi, served as prime minister for five years after the assassination of Nehru’s daughter, Indira, then prime minister, in 1984.

Whatever happens, though, Mr. Mahapatra said he doubted if Indian foreign policy would change much. Mr. Modi as prime minister has much improved India’s relations with Washington while joining in what’s known as Quad Four, the quadrilateral security dialog bringing India close to Washington as well as Japan and Australia without rising to the level of a military alliance.

“There is a broad consensus across the political divide in India on critical foreign policy issues that involve national security,” Mr. Mahapatra said. “Indian foreign policy under the next government will be marked by more continuity and less change.”

He predicted that “changes, if any, would be contingent upon external factors and developments,” including “the course of the Ukraine war, Israeli war against Hamas and activities of the terrorist outfits. “

“The fundamentals of Indo-U.S. strategic partnership will endure,” Mr. Mahapatra said, while India maintains a network of sensitive ties with both Russia and Communist China. “Russia will largely be a supplier of energy and defense equipment and India will continue“ to pursue its goals of resolving territorial differences with China” — a constant source of friction and sometimes conflict. 

India’s relationship with China is particularly difficult. India “will strengthen its defense posture along the border and maintain trade with China,” Mr Mahapara said, “but limit Chinese investments in India” — basically as India has been doing for many years.