Mark Tully, the veteran British commentator, is not off the mark when he asserts that verdict 2009 is largely an accumulation of regional impulses that don’t have a national or ideological character, at least not the way corporate media would like us to believe. His point is corroborated by the fact that leaders who delivered on good governance won in their respective states irrespective of their ideology and party affiliations. Indian voters have a mind of their own. They gave Rajiv Gandhi a record 4/5th majority in the Lok Sabha in 1984 but have steadfastly denied even a simple majority to those who followed him, including in 2009. Mandate in this election is clearly in favour of the Congress but not a decisive one. It needs to be welcomed in the context of the ruling party crossing the 200-seat mark on its own – for the first time since 1991 – and decimation of several caste based regional outfits with narrow personal agendas sans ideology. The result augurs well for the development of a two party system – both the national parties supported by regional outfits in the interim period. There was an undercurrent of sympathy for the Congress party over large swath or territory that no one could see but enabled the ruling party to make considerable gains. Fatal decision by the SP, RJD and LJP to leave too little space to the Congress in seat sharing arrangements forced the ruling party to go it alone in UP and Bihar. It was a courageous decision that helped the party to garner substantial seats in UP and increase its vote share in Bihar. With sections of Muslims drifting towards Congress after three decades, the Congress party seems to be on the revival path. Alliances are at best a necessary evil. These may bring in short-term gains but stunt national parties’ growth and expansion. Is there any lesson for the BJP in this phenomenon? The Congress won despite its monumental failures on several fronts. Its strength in the Lower House went up from 145 to 206 and vote share rose from 26.44 per cent 29.67 per cent—an increase of 3.23 percentage points—in five years. Its alliance partners brought in eight per cent of popular votes and additional 52 seats for the UPA raising its tally to 258 seats in 543-seat Lok Sabha – just 15 short of the magic figure. Too many parties have extended outside support to UPA to share a piece of the cake. That has ensured a stable Government, at least for the time being. An angry commentator wants to know if the upswing in the Congress fortune means the Indian electorate likes a government that is soft on terror and indulges in blatant minority appeasement. Does the Indian electorate want a government which has seen such a high price rise of essential commodities? Does the Indian electorate want a government that gave short shrift to armed forces by denying them their due in wage revision? Do the people want a Government that angered ex-servicemen to such an extent that they issued an advisory to vote for a particular party? Does the Indian electorate want a government which failed to prevent more than 10,000 farmers committing suicide year after year during its tenure? Does the Indian voter not care about the illegal bank accounts maintained by corrupt Indian businessmen, politicians and bureaucrats abroad? Although the voter has responded with a “yes”, it is not the complete answer. The positive side is that the voters have punished petty, egoistic, regional political leaders so that they are in no position to call the shots. They have ensured that the communists are in no position to stop progress in the name of an outdated ideology. They have also rejected politicians who show their faces in their constituencies once in five years. BJP got a drubbing in 2004 as well – it got 42 seats less than its tally in the previous House – when party stalwart and popular PM A B Vajpayee was still in command. This year, it lost another 22 seats. The loss in numbers can’t be explained away by intricacies of first-past the post-system. It lost three percentage points votes as compared to its share of 22.16 per cent in 2004. What is more alarming is that the gap between the vote shares of the Congress and the BJP is widening. Congress secured three to four percentage points more than BJP in all parliamentary elections since 1996, including 98 and 99 when the saffron party rode to power. This time round the gap is a little more than 10 percentage points. What led to this marked erosion in BJP’s popularity? Has the dissensions torn the party asunder and incapacitated it to sustain a focused campaign and motivate millions of cadres and supporters? Did the party falter in not preventing upstarts to hijack its agenda and ideology for their petty personal gains? Was it because the party fell into media traps and gave rise to unnecessary and untimely controversies regarding its ideological clarity and leadership. Or is it that the BJP couldn’t effectively communicate its vision of India and where the country would be heading if it was not given the opportunity to run the affairs of the state? Verdict is indeed a setback for the BJP but is certainly not a catastrophe. Ups and downs are part of political life. The Congress is now roaring as if it represents the soul of India. It would do well to remember that under Rajiv Gandhi’s leadership the party had lost more than half the seats it won in 1984. Sonia Gandhi-led party could manage only 110 seats in the parliamentary elections held in 1998. This time round, it is a reversal of fortunes, nothing more nothing less. Two decades ago, BJP got 182 and Congress 110 and now Congress has 206 and BJP just 116. The Hindu nationalist party has the resilience to bounce back. What is required is an honest soul searching to identify the fault lines and to take resolute measures to plug the holes. For the BJP that is perceived to be largely urban phenomenon loss of several urban constituencies in 2009 polls is a cause of serious concern. Out of 45 major urban constituencies in the country, BJP won only 14 seats against 19 captured by the Congress. It indicates a clear shift towards the Congress among the urban voters, particularly the youth. A case in point is Delhi where BJP lost badly in all the constituencies though there was a better urban middle class turn out on polling day. Mumbai defeat has a different connotation. Raj Thackery’s MNS made a big dent in Shiv Sena’s vote bank. On an average, the spoiler party poached more than one lakh votes in 15 constituencies in Mumbai and Konkan. BJP can take pride that it has spread its tentacles in rural and tribal areas – largely due to the dedicated services rendered to Tribals by the parivar outfits. It is now a force to reckon with in both these segments. Yet, there are massive gaps in social and geographical spread of the party. Most backwards amongst OBCs and Scheduled Castes are a neglected lot. They have no or little voice. Same is true of extremely depressed sections amongst Muslims. BJP has not made enough investment in these segments that continue to suffer in silence. Is it prudent to leave deprived sections of society to the mercy of “secular” industry, mullahas and evangelists? Social harmony needs to be a significant dimension of the Hindu nationalist party’s agenda. No political party can survive for long, not to talk of grow, if it ignores good governance and inclusive development. But to talk of idealism as a substitute for ideology is suicidal. Dithering and questioning ideological moorings after every electoral setback is not what make inspiring leaders. Let the party decide, once for all, what it means by Hindu nationalism. BJP will have no rationale, not to talk of future, if it is not a Hindu savvy party. That doesn’t mean it has to take anti-minority postures in the misplaced belief that it would get her votes. Assertive and inclusive Hindutava propounded by Deendayal Upadhyay and Mohan Bhagwat is the mantra for its survival and growth of BJP. Policy formulations need to be more transparent and democratised. On countless issues, party’s policies don’t inspire the cadres and well wishers. BJP’s opposition to the nuclear deal is a case in point. It cost it a lot of urban middle class votes. Elections may be won on waves, but BJP’s USP is millions of trained, dedicated and selfless workers. For too long, they have been ignored. They have neither been listened to nor spoken to. Not enough effort has been made to build the party from the grass roots. Entrenched small time leaders resist entry of enlightened and ideology-driven citizens from occupying positions of power in the party. Internal democracy is in deficit. Somewhere down the line the party has become a machine to contest elections. BJP needs to reinvent itself as a nationalist party with a clear vision of a new development paradigm aimed at taking the fruits of development to the poorest of the poor. PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS, 2009
PARTY-WISE POSITION
Comments