Long Live Indian Democracy!
by RK Misra
Now that elections are over and we will have a stable government in place, it is a good time to do some analysis of national mood and trends - what worked and what did not work for various political parties and alliances.
First of all, I would like to talk about the victor - The Congress.
Rahul Gandhi is being credited for this victory and rightly so, as he led the campaign from the front. Everyone in Congress is celebrating the arrival of Rahul. He is being hailed as a visionary and an astute political brain. All this praise & jubilation is also a result of long wait and frustration of Congressmen, who had been waiting to offer legitimacy to Rahul’s leadership and stature in the Congress party.
I wish him luck, as I believe that he is genuinely trying to bring a change in the Congress party. I would also credit him for legitimizing the genuine need for young and fresh faces in Indian politics. Though most young congressmen are sons and daughters of politicians but that’s no reason to complain, they are young nonetheless. His much publicized effort to induct and promote young people in Indian politics are specially laudable as it is forcing other parties to think on similar lines.
I also congratulate Indian electorate for a brilliant performance by giving a clear mandate to a national party. By doing so, they have saved this country from vagaries of regional parties, the opportunistic political outfits disguising themselves as various fronts and alliances.
Congress however needs to look deeper and realize that this victory is not necessarily a national mandate in favor of congress but a combination of several factors, alliances and sheer luck in some cases.
Lets look at UP, which is the most talked about turnaround story of these elections. The decision to go alone was not a considered strategy but a forced consequence of SP’s reluctance to part with seats. Kalyan Singh joining SP was a lucky break as minority community strategically voted for Congress in areas where Congress had winnable candidates. Rest of the congress candidates in UP could not even save their deposits. Moreover people in UP are really fed-up with SP-BSP misrule for the past 20 years. The real test will be 2012 assembly polls and I wish both national parties luck in UP as UP must be developed. Hopefully BJP would have got it’s act together by then.
Bihar too was supposedly the part of the same ‘Go Alone’ strategy of Rahul Gandhi(though we all know that Lalu-Paswan duo forced it). No such electoral dividends accrued here, because people voted for good governance and inclusive agenda of JD(U)-BJP government.
So while Rahul is and should be given credit for working hard and leading from the front in UP (which boosted the morale of cadre and brought discipline), UP victory can not be solely attributed to ‘Go Alone’ strategy, as it wasn’t a strategy but forced consequence.
Delhi & Rajasthan victories of Congress comes on the back of successful assembly wins in the recent past. 0-7 wipe out of BJP in Delhi is most disheartening for the only national alternative to Congress. BJP had not learned from it’s defeat and mistakes in assembly polls in these 2 states and paid a heavy price. Hope they put their act together before 2014.
UPA’s WB and TN victories should be attributed to allies. Rejection of left policies in WB and Mamta’s Singur triumph were solely responsible. Congress just retained it’s tlly of 6 in WB and in fact dropped to 8 (from 10) in TN. Vijayakanth’s DMDK played a spoiler for AIADMK led alliance in TN as most anti DMK vote ended up going to DMDK. Mamata made spectacular gains in WB by cloaking 19 seats (from just 1 seat in 2004). BJP made a blunder by not being able to forge an alliance with Mamta, the erstwhile partner of NDA.
Left will be in real trouble in assembly elections in 2011, after 30 years of political supremacy in WB. This may not be a bad thing for people of WB who have suffered underdevelopment and violence by left cadre for decades now. Though Mamta too is not a good news for industrial development of WB after her tantrums in Singur.
In AP & Maharashtra, MNS and Chiranjeevi’s PRP came to UPA’s rescue. YSR’s development and welfare schemes were also positives for Congress in AP. BJP/Shiv Sena got it completely wrong in Maharashtra by underestimating MNS effect. Their 6-0 tally in Bombay is really something to worry about.
BJP did well in MP, Gujarat, HP and Chattisgarh, primarily due to good governance of incumbent BJP governments. Though 16-10 tally in Gujarat is worrying for BJP. MP victory too wasn’t very convincing. Jharkhand victory of BJP must be attributed to the mess created by Congress, RJD and JMM combine. BJP needs to really work hard to hold these states as anti-incumbency will be the main factor in all these states when they go to polls in next 4 years. Hence BJP can not count on these states for 2014 Lok Sabha elections as given.
Karnataka needs special mention as it gave maximum (19) MPs to BJP. Incumbent BJP swept the polls due to it’s organizational strength and committed grass root cadre. Congress camp was chaotic with too many top leaders. Rahul effect was absent in Karnatka.
Kerala voted for UDF and LDF was routed, as they do every 5 years.
Coming to the under performers -
BJP was not able to perform to it’s potential. While Congress exceeded it’s own expectation on the up-side, BJP did the same on the down. BJP highlighted UPA’s failures but failed to communicate their agenda effectively. This wasn’t appreciated by the voters, as they did not want to take chances with the unknown. BJP did not talk enough about their progressive manifesto as well, which itself came very late. Some pre-poll incidents and speeches also hurt BJP’s prospects in several constituencies, primarily in urban India. While Rahul Gandhi symbolized and projected youth agenda of the Congress, BJP could not counter it effectively.
Overall, it would seem that in the case of BJP, there was a disconnect from the expectations of the electorate. This is the second time in a row and needs serious thinking and remedial measures.
As far as other parties are concerned- Left, SP, BSP and other regional parties, this election has clearly demonstrated that only thing electorate cares for, is the DEVELOPMENT & GOOD GOVERNANCE. This is a great change in post Mandal politics of India.
Left paid for it’s opportunistic politics, which believed in enjoying the power without shouldering the responsibility. This was a fitting reply to the arrogant & non-electable red brigade which controls the power strings sitting in cool comforts of Delhi while preaching supposedly pro-poor agenda.
Poor governance and under performance of BSP government in UP paid rest to the Prime Ministerial ambitions of Mayawati, who believed that being Dalit-ki-Beti is the necessary and sufficient condition for being the Prime Minister. This will be a fitting lesson to other non-performing regional Satraps of Indian politics. Similarly Lalu ji is still paying for his sins of keeping Bihar poor for 14 years.
This result has done good to our democracy and country. It showed that non performing regional outfits which survive only on caste and social engineering will not survive, while performing will be rewarded, as in the case of Bihar and Orissa. It would seem that Post Mandal caste politics is on it’s last leg.
Overall, these elections are a victory for our democracy. The electorate has given a decisive verdict and expects the government to perform. Indian democracy is maturing much faster than our political parties. In all recent elections, the electorate had been wiser and has voted only on development & governance agenda. We must salute our electorate for displaying this discerning ability to make the ‘Right Choice’. Our democracy is in safe hands.
Mind the real ‘E’s now
Ananth Nageswaran, in an article first published in the Mint, writes that in recent times, economic crises have facilitated the loosening of the iron grip of the State on economic affairs, but this crisis has done the opposite.
Paeans have been sung and will be sung in honour of the Indian voters, and deservedly so. The voters have bailed the country out of several dire scenarios, and for many right-thinking Indians, the significant losses suffered by the Leftists taste sweeter than even the decisive mandate in favour of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA).
In contrast, the Indian media ought to be both embarrassed and relieved. The embarrassment is not because of their exit poll predictions that have been wrong far too often to merit any serious comment, let alone attention in the future. The embarrassment should be because the media had not held a non-performing and a dysfunctional (for the most part) government to account thoroughly enough for it to struggle to retain power, if at all. The relief must be, of course, because had they done so, the election might have really delivered a fractured verdict.
Of course, that the results speak volumes about the depths or heights of ineptitude on part of the principal opposition party, is beside the point. We should leave it to the BJP to figure out how to be a centre-right party without having to polarize the country.
The outgoing UPA government had the good fortune of being in power when the economy experienced a high growth rate, thanks to some of the important reforms of the previous National Democratic Alliance government, low global interest rates, high flow of capital and global growth. It did precious little to cement the high growth rate.
It has returned empty on the important Es for India-education, economy, employment, energy and environment. On education, we got reservations; on economy, we got deficits; on employment, we have the labour laws; on energy, we have subsidies and administered prices; and on environment, indifference and inaction.
Manmohan Singh has sounded less and less sure of his commitment to economic reforms and even apologetic about his role in the reforms of 1991. Thus, while the Western media still hails him as the architect of India’s economic reforms, it has become less clear if he was a reformer by choice, by conviction or out of compulsion. He has his chance to prove the sceptics wrong.
Economic reforms are not about cosying up to multinational companies. It is not about being pro-big business. In fact, both can be anti-reform and anti-good governance. It is about doing the right thing by the country. It is about preparing the political and intellectual climate in the nation for essential policy changes in all areas-agriculture, education, labour, energy, environment, urban planning and administrative reforms. Admittedly, it is not easy.
Even in a highly educated and aware society such as Finland, the government that wanted to raise retirement age and reduce retirement benefits met with protests and strikes and lost the election last year. Pension entitlements and commitments made in good years are simply not feasible in Western European nations, given dwindling birth rates and ageing populations. But sensible solutions remain unpopular.
Therefore, the task is bound to be far more onerous in India. Even more reason that sustained energies have to be devoted to building up consensus. Suresh Prabhu did that on electricity reforms. He built consensus and obtained consent painstakingly. The previous UPA government not only frittered it away but also might have, as in the case of Finland, encouraged and entrenched popular preferences for entitlements with its many welfare schemes, handouts, wage revisions unrelated to administrative restructuring or productivity and waivers.
With many commentators claiming that the government actually allowed rural India to flourish with its populist schemes and that it helped the Congress party to win elections, there is every danger of a permanent U-turn on economic reforms in India. In fact, this election might have ended not just two decades of regionalism in India, but also two decades of half-hearted economic liberalization.
In recent times, economic crises have facilitated the loosening of the iron grip of the State on economic affairs, but this crisis has done the opposite. It has not encountered a vigorous counter-response since everyone is appalled by the excesses of financial capitalism. But the financial sector was never the same as the real sector and never deserved to play by its own rules. That point has been missed. Internationally or in India, no one cares to make the distinction loud enough and repeatedly enough. Consequently, bank nationalization has been hailed as the saviour of the Indian financial system.
Deep down, at least some members of the UPA government would concede that they have been very lucky. Hence, instead of treating the election verdict as a vindication of their non-governance, they should treat it as an opportunity for redemption. If they do not, it is up to the educated and the elite to be energetically engaged. Else, there won’t be euphoria to greet the results of the 2014 elections.
V. Anantha Nageswaran is chief investment officer for an international wealth manager. These are his personal views.
How BJP Lost the Plot
R Jagannathan writes in DNA that “the BJP lost the plot not in March 2009, when the bugle was sounded for the latest election, but in 2004, when it stumbled to a shock defeat.”
….The BJP was in self-destruct mode from May 2004.
[The] tactics could, perhaps, have worked when the nation itself was in an angry mood, but 2004-08 — the first four years of the UPA — was a period of economic optimism, with the rural areas receiving good monsoons and government bounties.
The BJP was completely out of sync with this optimism by injecting sourness into the political atmosphere. Even though the mood has been more sombre since September, 2008, the urban electorate has squarely cast BJP in the role of Cassandra. No one will vote for a Cassandra, for elections are about looking at the future with hope.
BJP apes Congress, fails
Koenraad Elst writes: “Right-wing parties all over the world have a common trait: Once in or near power, they betray their own support base. The BJP is no different. It is needlessly described as a ‘Hindu chauvinist’ party which it is not. To prove its ‘secular’ credentials, the BJP chose to become the ‘B’ team of the Congress. And was rejected by the voters.”
During the latest campaign, the BJP downplayed ideology (except erratically in the Varun Gandhi incident) and betted all on ‘good governance’. Some BJP State Governments have provided that, to be sure, and in these States the BJP has been rewarded. But it could never be a decisive election-winner because Congress hasn’t done too bad in that regard either. Ever since Mr Manmohan Singh read out the 1992 Budget, the world sees his signature written all over India’s economic success. Even BJP contributors to that success, like erstwhile Disinvestment Minister Arun Shourie, won’t deny him that honour.
In these circumstances, only a clear ideological profile, mature but distinct, could have won the election for the BJP. If it didn’t want that ideological distinctness and was content to remain the Congress’s B-team, the party could have learned from Mr Sarkozy to show this only after the election. Before, it should at least have kept up the pretence of being a party with a difference.
Myths and Misrepresentations of Election 2009 Results
by Arun Narendhranath
Though the results are over-whelming in favor of the congress, it is very superficial & too simplistic to conclude that there was a sub-national mood favoring the national parties (especially the congress). I respectfully disagree with some of the conclusions made by most journalists on a national mandate. Even after counting, I still feel that it was more of an aggregate of 40-50 regional elections (much more than 28 state elections) if not 543 elections.
Myth 1: Vote was for national parties
The results as such appear as a vote for the national parties (especially for the congress). But it was too coincidental that the state aggregates ended up favoring the UPA. The congress-leaning states were swept by the UPA and BJP-leaning states gave a split verdict. It was a major surprise for the BJP and many pollsters when the BJP-leaning states (Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkand, Assam) gave a split verdict and the congress leaning states (Kerala, Andhra, Bengal, TN) gave a one-sided verdict, when it was expected the other way around. The fact that BJP lost over 40 seats by margins less than 20K votes ensured that the results were very much one-sided.
Myth 2: Urban voters are leaning towards the INC:
The defeat of BJP in the urban areas (Delhi & Mumbai) is taken as a case for shift in urban voters from the BJP towards the Congress. In Delhi, Shiela’s magic worked once again. It would be erroneous to conclude that Mumbai voters have shifted their loyalties from BJP to INC. The effect of MNS was very clear in Maharashtra (even I was one who under estimated the MNS, my conclusions was based on the urban body election). The case of Bangalore is another example of urban votes still preferring BJP. Major urban centers of UP (Meerut, Lucknow, Varanasi, Kanpur (though BJP lost it was by a wafer margin)), Gujarat (Ahmedabad), Bihar (Patna Sahib, Paliputra) voted for BJP. Even in states were BJP has little presence the BJP did well in urban areas – TN (south Chennai), AP (Secunderabad, Malkajagiri, Chevlla).
Myth 3: Manmohan effect:
After UPA’s sweep in the elections, Journalists have put too much emphasis on the credits Dr. MMS deserves. The effect of MMS (in swinging the votes in INC favor) has been over-estimated, which is evident from the results of Punjab. Even after having a Sikh PM and the advantage of anti-incumbency generated by a lackluster SAD government, the INC could not sweep the state. The performance of the SAD government has been no less than dismal; the congress should have swept the state even if MMS effect was to swing an extra 2% votes in the Congress favor. The Dera chief had more effect in this election (Haryana & Punjab) than Manmohan. The two states were Dr. MMS had some effect were Delhi & Uttaracand. In Delhi, he was just adding on to the margins of victory, but in Uttaracand he swung the deciding sikh voters in Congress favor (thanks to internal rift in the BJP, the cadres were more than willing to defeat the party in Ucand).
Myth 4: Muslim votes are leaving SP in large numbers:
The success of INC has been attributed to the shifting Muslim votes. The Muslim voters have been as tactical as ever before in defeating the BJP. As SP was losing support among upper castes (especially Thakurs) and certain OBCs (Kurmis), the Muslim voters have shifted to other parties to defeat the BJP. In certain areas they voted BSP (were there was a strong dalit block) and in certain areas they voted INC (where the Upper castes preferred the INC candidate over the BJP).
But the only change that can be noticed in this election is the change in party of preference. Now INC has a higher priority than SP. This was clearly visible in Moradabad where Muslims were ruthless is defeating their long-time sitting MP of SP (Haji Ali) in favor of INC. But in eastern UP were the congress is still non-existent they still prefer SP over other parties.
Myth 5: Rise of Congress in UP & R Factor:
There has been a lot of BUZZ over the resurgence of the congress in Uttar Pradesh. Though this is how the media has the projected the story, the congress party machinery is still in a very bad state. This is much evident from the number of votes the congress candidates polled in Eastern UP. The congress derived more strength from the financial capacity of its candidates than from the party machinery or from any particular vote bank. The victory of money power is visible when one compares the average worth of INC MPs from UP to the average worth of the candidates it had put up in UP. The number of seats the Congress won has to be attributed more to the money power of the candidates than to the R factor.
There has been few commonalities in terms of strategy adopted by the congress party in 2007 assembly elections & 2009 general elections in UP
a) Congress went alone in both the elections
b) Rahul Gandhi led the campaign
The major difference was that congress had to put up 400 candidates then and 65-70 candidates now. This is where money played an important role. This time the congress found itself in a much comfortable position to find about 25-30 money bags who can spend and win the elections for them.
Myth 6: BJP is dead in UP:
The number of seats the BJP has won in this election gives an impression that the BJP is a dead party in UP If someone takes into account the number of seats the BJP had come second and the number of seats the BJP has come close third then he/she would appreciate the fact that BJP as a party has more life in it in UP. Though the party lost deposit in a number of seats, in about 50 plus seats the party was in first, second or third position in the quadrangular fight.
Myth 7: Varun spoilt the chances of BJP in UP:
Many senior leaders have put the blame on Varun for the debacle in UP. They have expressed the opinion that Varun’s incident polarized the minorities against the BJP. It is wishful thinking that minorities would have voted for BJP, if Varun’s incident had not happened. The fact is that is minorities are always polarized against the BJP and incidences like that of Varun lead to counter-polarization of Hindu votes. The theory goes thus: Polarisation helps the anti-BJP forces and counter polarization helps the BJP. This was evident from the results of Philibit, Azamgarh & Dakshina Kannada. Voter of UP (mainly upper caste) outside Pilibhit had no incentive to vote for the BJP as Varun was not their candidate. I am confident about the fact that the ‘Hindu Yuva Samrat’ can change the prospects of BJP in the 2012 UP assembly elections if he is given a larger role to play in the state politics. Mr. Varun has to now start making some noise over development also.
Myth 8: Politics of (left & right) extremism have got rejected:
After the debacle of the BJP and the Left in this elections, lot of experts have come out with the theory that politics of extremism (both left & right) have not been accepted by the people of India. I don’t know were these experts will find an answer for the success of Mr. Nitish Kumar in Bihar. He is a socialist who is now practicing extreme right wing politics.
One lesson to be learnt from the results of this election is not to follow politics of extremism in candidate selection. This was evident from the results of Gujarat (were most of the candidates were changed) and Madhya Pradesh (were candidates having more than 4 terms of anti-incumbency were repeated). The best Model of candidate selection was adopted by Chattisgarh and it paid off.
Myth 9: Rahul Gandhi the youth icon:
As expected now Rahul has been made large than life by the media. Some left-leaning political experts have gone to the extent of writing off Varun in this context. Rahul has been made the monolithic youth icon of the country. The reason given by these political experts is than today’s youth are uncomfortable about extreme politics and hence are looking at a sober and sensible leader like Rahul Gandhi.
I hope these experts also appreciate the fact that Raj Thackery won more than 70% of his votes from the youth of Maharashtra. The youth of Maharashtra give a damn to Mr. Rahul Gandhi. The young population of India is even more aggressive and demanding than the previous generation. Mr. Rahul Gandhi is definitely the youth icon of Delhi, but to extrapolate the same to a pan-India scale is too premature.
Postscript: The critics, media and political analysts can find enough reasons for the Congress success in 2009 elections. Some credit it to the image of MMS; some to the gamble of Rahul, some to the NREGA, some to Sonia, but the numbers say a different story. The cruel numbers show that BJP scored a self goal once again. If a party can lose about 42 seats by a margin less than 20k votes it has to blame itself for the defeat. If in 2014 the parivar (BJP, RSS, ABVP, BJYM, VHP) does not work in sync., we would once again be forced to search for few more myths and misinterpretations. (between we would also be forced to accept the words of wisdom of Mr. Vinod Metha, Mr. Vinod Sharma and Mr. Vir Sangvi).
Elections 2009 Analysis: What Next for the BJP
by Rajesh Jain
Every crisis presents an opportunity, and that is what needs to be thought of now. BJP at 116 is on a road downwards even though the decline this time was only 21 seats. The time to rethink and reinvent is now. There needs to be a sense of urgency.
The BJP now faces a clear fork in the road. Either it has to become more Hindu-oriented and thus aim to win the majority Hindu vote, or it needs to discard its religious overtones and become a clear right of centre party. The former is not going to be easy since that is where the roots of the party lie, and the latter will end up making it look almost like a clone of the Congress without any cadre support.
The BJP needs to take the moderate approach with a tinge of inclusive cultural nationalism. It needs to come out with a strong statement that India belongs to all, and not just the Hindus. It needs to take on the “secular” word everytime it is mentioned in the context of the Congress. It needs to remove the aura of untouchability that has been created - for some voters and potential allies. This is perhaps the most important challenge facing the leadership. BJP needs to combine its good governance message with a strong message about an inclusive India to start re-connecting to the growing Middle India, because that has historically been the BJP’s strength.
There are other things that the BJP needs to start working on:
- The BJP must forget about allies in most states and build on its own. It has to start thinking of itself as a real, national party with a presence of its own in every constituency of India. Allies are ephemeral. Even if they fight elections together, there is no guarantee that they will stay on after the elections. Also, with allies, the party is hobbled in building its own base. Orissa was a classic case and Bihar could head the same way next year when assembly elections take place.
- Establish a presence in the four key states where it doesn’t exist - West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala. In the two Left states of WB and Kerala, it has a 7-10% vote share which can be grown. Mamta is not really the exciting alternative that the people of WB are looking for.
- Focus on Uttar Pradesh to build the base. This is going to be hard, and needs a leader and lot of work on the ground. A lot of time has been lost. But the good news is that the politics of UP is shifting from caste and identity to aspirations (as Shekhar Gupta also wrote in his recent Indian Express article).
- BJP needs to bring out its next-gen leadership - and develop leaders at various levels (local, state, national). The old guard needs to hand the torch and to the next level, and mentor it. This includes building leaders from minority communities and establishing a dialogue with them with the central message being around governance and development.
- Effort needs to be also made to ensure nurturing of good candidates who do work at the grassroots, engage and connect with the voters constantly, and are seen as honest and genuine. The MPs who have won must keep the dialogue going on a formal basis with the voters.
- The BJP needs to play the role of a constructive opposition. It should appoint a “shadow cabinet” so it can start training and showcasing its leaders, and also keeping the real spirit of Parliamentary democracy and debate alive.
- It has to build an Institutional memory. The data, learning and contacts from this election must be leveraged.
- The BJP needs to start a membership and funds drive to collect small amounts of money from a lot of people, rather than just relying on the big donors (many of whom are going to be disappointed and frustrated with the result). With a small contribution will come the offer of help from the people, and that is why this is so important.
Most important, the BJP needs a strong leader who is given a freehand for the next five years. This is no time for consensus thinking which will put the party in a state of analysis paralysis, or create factions. The greater goal for the country must override individual ambitions.
Election 2009: Looking Under The Hood
by Prashanth Kumar
There are many articles appearing in newspapers, crediting Congress victory to reasons such as:
- Voters’ yearning for stability
- Voters’ preference for progress (as Leftists lost heavily)
- Charisma of Gandhi family
- Rural prosperity and pro-poor policy
- Voter’s rejection of BJP’s communalism
- Pan-Indian national outlook by voters
My detailed analysis suggests otherwise. This was clearly an election, which was a collection of individual state results. Admittedly, there was some undercurrent of support to Congress due to pro-poor policies. But, mainly Congress won in many states on parochial issues such as Muslim communalism, casteism etc. Each state voted based on local issues. Let us take each major state:
1. Uttar Pradesh – Congress did not perform better due to Rahul Gandhi’s charisma. As per exit polls, 6% Muslim voters switched from SP to Congress, in seats where Congress was more likely to win, instead of blindly voting for SP. It clearly shows nothing worked except communal polarisation. Of course, farm loan waiver was a big issue too. Varun Gandhi caused some damage here.
2. West Bengal – Congress/Trinamul has won all the seats on the Bangladesh border. This clearly suggests that Muslims deserted Leftists due to Singur/Nano controversy which primarily impacted local Muslims! So this is a pro-minority voting by illegal immigrants against development. Again communal polarisation.
3. Bihar – In the neighbouring state, good performance by JD(U) was rewarded by voters.
4. Maharashtra – UPA won 29 seats in this state, mainly because of Raj Thackarey’s MNS, which won enough votes in 8-10 seats, to cause losses to BJP/SS. Without the UPA-sponsored MNS campaign, NDA would have won 29 seats. MNS made BJP/SS combine loose 3 seats in Mumbai alone. Especially Mumbai South where 11/26 attacks happened was never in favour of electing Milind Devora.
5. Orissa – a vote for good governance by Biju Patnaik.
6. Punjab – Anti-incumbency against Akalis. Badal’s family rule, to some extent farm loan waivers worked in the state of Punjab.
7. Gujarat, MP, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, HP – BJP performed very well. They may not have swept elections, but won a decent majority in each state.
8. Rajasthan, Delhi, Haryana, Uttarakhand, Assam – These are the only states that Congress can claim to have won due to good performance. Of these, Rajasthan is a state that has traditionally flip-flopped every 5 years for Congress and against its opponents. BJP swept 2004, Congress is merely returning the favour this year.
9. Karnataka – BJP turned in great performance.
10. Andhra Pradesh – If Chiranjivi factor had not been present, TDP/TRS would have unseated Congress. Another spoiler like Thackarey.
11. Tamil Nadu – Sri Lanka issue was the main driver why DMK managed to win, in a traditionally flip-flop state. Jayalalitha tried her best, but, Tamil sub-nationalism is a strong undercurrent. DMK also managed these elections by cash. In Madurai, voter list was on toss, Karunanidhi’s son got over 100,000 valid AIADMK voters deleted from the list using revenue officials who are also responsible for voter registration. Vijaykanth caused some damage to AIADMK.
12. Kerala – This is a state that has flip-flopped each and every election since 70s, and this one is just continuation of the trend. Congress did not have to do much to win.
I, therefore, believe that Congress has managed this election better, with the horse for each course. BJP, on the other hand, did not get right allies and could not neutralise spoilers. There is no strong national mandate in favour of Congress on economic, social or security issues.
During the course of time BJP concentrated more on non-core issues like personal attack on MMS and Modi’s future PM candidature. BJP should have touched issues like price rise, terrorism and strong nationalism.
Elections 2009 Analysis: What the Congress did Right
by Rajesh Jain
- It used the troika very effectively to send out its message: MMS as the honest face who can do the economic good, Sonia with her larger than life presence with her 2004 renunciation, and Rahul with his youth connect. The party based its campaign on its pro-poor work (NREGA and farm loan waiver), its economic credentials of the top person, and the aspirations via its youth face. (The BJP could have countered all three aggressively - but in the midst of those 10 Varun Gandhi days much of the positive messaging got lost.) In short, the Congress promised both Continuity and Change - and that worked for them.
- The decision to go it alone was without a strong pre-poll alliance with the parties in the Third and Fourth Fronts, in hindsight, a master-stroke. This emanated not as much from the focus on 2009, but from a long view. It paid them dividends immediately and that is what came as big surprise.
- Rahul Gandhi’s work in UP is paying dividends. He has become a face that people in the state are now looking up to. Mayawati is the past which has disappointed, while Rahul is seen as the future which can deliver a better tomorrow. On these aspirations, UP can only improve for the Congress.
- Also, and we do not know the full impact of this, the efforts by Rahul Gandhi to bring in inner-party democracy and revitalise the youth wing, perhaps yielded some dividends - via perception and fresh candidates.
So, what worked for the Congress was that in urban India, Rahul Gandhi and the “secular” message (as compared to the Hindutva branding of the BJP) helped, while in the rural areas, the NREGA and farm loan waivers definitely created the right image for the party.
In a sense, the Congress built a rainbow coalition comprising Muslims (and other minorities), the Poor, the Youth (with Rahul as the mascot), and the growing base of Disenchanted Hindus (who don’t like the BJP’s linkages - however loose and distant - with religious elements).
Perhaps, the Congress was willing to think out-of-the-box and long-term this election. It gambled - and their bets paid off (much faster than they expected). In some ways, it was prepared to lose in 2009 to build a stronger foundation for the party. After five years out of power, the BJP was much more desperate to win in 2009 and may have been over-cautious.
A Karmayogi’s Last Marathon
by Sudheendra Kulkarni
In the last lap of the marathon election campaign, two wisdom-filled books, both by Japanese authors, helped turn the focus of my thoughts inwards. In the din of the election battle, when much of my energy was taken up in arguments and counter-arguments, I regularly felt the need for moments of quiet contemplation to know if I was doing the right thing the right way. Of course, it helped to have a session of collective meditation each evening along with fellow volunteers in the campaign office. But the dialogue with oneself was also aided by a remarkable book The Secret Life of Water by Masaru Emoto, who has written another best-selling book The Hidden Messages in Water. He presents a revolutionary theory that our thoughts, positive or negative, have a direct effect on water and, by implication, on all life and on the creation of our world tomorrow. “Water reflects the human soul,” he writes. “If you say ‘Thank you’ to water, it will be reflected in the formation of beautiful crystals overflowing with gratitude in return. If the hearts of those who live on the planet are contaminated, then the earth will become that way.” In other words, perform every action, including electioneering, with the right attitude if you want the right results.
The question that I frequently asked myself over the past few months was this: “Our party says that it wants to contribute to the building of a better India tomorrow. Are we, therefore, participating in this election campaign with the purest of thoughts, feelings and actions?” The honest answer is that many of us — above all, our leader L.K. Advani — tried with as much honesty as we could summon. True, we lost the election, and defeat always brings a terrible feeling of disappointment. But we have the satisfaction that we did nothing that would ever shame us or belittle us in our own esteem. If anything, we were elevated by working for a leader who motivated us with his selfless character, his indefatigable personal effort, which daily exceeded the limits of human capacity at his age, and his inspirational thoughts for the nation (“Let’s make the 21st century India’s century.”) Even in this moment of defeat, that is some victory in itself.
“The act of living,” writes Emoto, “is the act of flowing like water.” The life of our party will flow on. Our party, founded by a great brave-heart patriot like Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee, guided by a seer like Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya, and built to its present level of strength by dedicated leaders like Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Advani, is not going to stop its journey because of this electoral setback. We’ll introspect, learn the right lessons, apply correctives, and move on, with purer thoughts, feelings and actions.
The second book that figured in my campaign-time reading was Haruki Murakami’s What I Talk About When I Talk About Running. Murakami, Japan’s most famous living novelist, weaves his stories with incredibly fine threads of imagination and insight, almost resembling laser-beams, into human psychology. This book is not a novel; rather, it is a memoir of his reflections as a long-distance runner. Murakami, probably the only novelist who is also a marathon runner, states that running is both a physical exercise and a catalyst for philosophical reflection about oneself. “Running day after day, piling up the races, bit by bit I raise the bar, and by clearing each level I elevate myself.” Murakami says that as a runner, and also as a novelist, he is not particularly competitive. “I am much more interested in whether I reach the goals that I set for myself, so in this sense long-distance running is the perfect fit for a mindset like mine.”
Advani’s life is also that of a long-distance runner. In his long political career spanning over six decades — longer than any active political leader in India — he has never stopped running. He has also never stopped looking within, in moments of triumph or defeat. He is one of the rare leaders who puts a very high premium on right thoughts, right expression and right action. He knows that it is very difficult to do so in politics, but he has never stopped trying, and never given up.
Advani’s weakness in this election was that he did not display enough of a winner’s instinct. There are, of course, many factors behind the BJP’s defeat, but one of them is that he did not take the several ruthless decisions that needed to be taken at different points after the BJP’s 2004 defeat. Advani proved to be too much of a gentleman to hurt others. In running the most important marathon of his life, he no doubt grew as an even better human being but, as a leader, he ought to have asserted himself more.
At a thanks-giving function at the BJP headquarters a few days ago, Advani, while addressing all the party workers who had worked on the campaign, said, “The people have voted. We will know their verdict on May 16. The right thing for us to do is to follow the teaching of the Bhagawad Gita. We have done our karma to the best of our abilities and with utmost sincerity. As far as the outcome of our karma is concerned, let us leave it to the Almighty. Whatever be the people’s verdict, let us accept it with humility.”
Advani, the greatest long-distance runner in Indian politics, has lived the life of a karma yogi. Sad he certainly is in this hour of defeat. But on many higher criteria that determine success in life, he has risen even higher in the esteem of all those who know him.
(This article was first published in Indian Express on May 17, 2009.)
Elections 2009 Analysis: What the BJP did Wrong
by Rajesh Jain
As we look back at the past six months, here are two key things which stand out:
- 26/11 and the assembly election results of Delhi and Rajasthan completely turned the momentum away from the BJP. Till then, its twin planks were terrorism and the economy. Both got neutralised in the past six months - or perhaps, the BJP was not able to convince voters how it would handle the two areas differently and better. Even as food prices have increased and jobs are being lost, the message that the BJP is the better alternative did not get through. The negative campaign around terrorism in the Delhi assembly elections was seen by the electorate an attempt by the BJP to exploit a vulnerable situation.
- The campaign itself had the right ideas (good governance, development, security with the need for strong leadership), but the message went off-track for multiple reasons.
- LK Advani (LKA) was not seen as strong and decisive in the two opportunities that he had to make a mark: the Jaitley-Rajnath argument, and the Varun Gandhi moment. This in some ways undermined the main plank of the campaign.
- The “weak PM” argument backfired when Manmohan Singh (MMS), along with Sonia, Rahul) hit back with a vengeance, and Ayodhya and Kandahar were brought up. MMS played the role of the “bechara” perfectly. The BJP did not have a counter to that - and it could not possibly have been that the party would have expected the Congress to not respond.
- Most importantly, the BJP let the old fears re-surface with its decision to not drop Varun Gandhi even after the advice from CEC (Gopalswami). In contrast, the Congress decision to drop Jagdish Tytler and Sajjan Kumar was seen as positive (and gained in Punjab.) Basically, the Varun Gandhi incident coming on the back of what happened in Mangalore (and the ensuing media coverage) turned away moderate Hindus and youth (approx 40mn new voters) in urban areas for whom harmony matters more. For many, between the slippery road of religion and the slippery road of dynasty, the former is a definite No-No. LKA should have used the Varun moment to make a decisive statement on the inclusiveness of Hinduism, and taken the discussion completely away from the “secular-communal” issue - just like what Obama did with his race speech in Philadelphia at the height of his campaign.
There are many other factors which can also be thought of:
- Disconnect with the voters: What explains the huge gap between expectations (160+ seats) and reality (120 seats). The party - and its cadre - are seen to have lost touch with on-ground realities in many parts of the country, and the disconnect with Urban Middle India is especially deep. (Of course, it could be argued that the Congress too did not expect its result. But that is not the answer.)
- Selection of Candidates: This issue is more important than it is given credit for. If the party thinks it can thrust someone a month before voting day and they can win, there is something wrong. In many cities and states, the BJP lacks leadership and suitable candidates. It didn’t even experiment this election - and it was the Congress that fielded different, younger candidates.
- Media management: This has always been a challenge for the BJP. An important segment does tend to watch the English channels more and get influenced. The BJP gave them the Varun Moment.
In some ways, the out-of-the-box, disruptive thinking that the BJP needed to do this election did not happen. It started off as an underdog and ended as one. In some ways, nothing changed between the start and finish, except that the UPA cleaned up some of the states the BJP was not present in. (That was predictable in the sense that even if the Left or AIADMK had done well, the Congress would still have managed to get them. So, in some ways, 100+ seats for the UPA from these states were always in the bag for the UPA.)