Immigration Humour Beauty Reflections Health & Fitness Culture Prev Issue Next Issue

Democracy Won! - Sunny Singh Sunny Singh was born in Varanasi. She received her education in various parts of India and the world. She has worked as a journalist, teacher, and as a management executive for multinationals in Mexico, Chile and South Africa. For the last four years, she has been writing full-time. She is also a playwright. Her first play, Birthing Athena, focussed on evolving relationships and the price of ambition in post-liberalisation India. The Times of India described the play as "an intensely cathartic experience." Her first novel, Nani's Book of Suicides, had been published by Harper Collins Publishers India. Described by the Hindustan Times as a "first novel of rare scope and power," the novel explores the cultural identity of an Indian woman through a fund of myths, family lore and contemporary reality. Her second book, Single in the City: The independent woman's handbook was released on Dec 22, 2000 by Penguin India. Visit Sunny Singh's website at: http://www.sunnysingh.net/

India’s Loksabha elections 2004 have been accompanied by the most asinine variety of analysis possible (with a few exceptions of course, including a series of insightful articles by M.J. Akbar). The venerable Economist set the tone by concluding rather farcically that since the new Prime Minister was a Sikh, and Sikhism drew from both Hinduism and Islam, he would be the most appropriate candidate for "resolving" problems with Pakistan. Other publications, both in India and abroad, have not offered much better analysis.

We were told for example that the NDA government was punished by the rural voters who felt left out of the "India Shining" phenomenon. Yet a look at the voting patterns shows a 2 percent difference in the urban and rural voting preferences. So obviously, the rural voter didn’t feel left out of the Reforms process.

Next we were told that NDA suffered because of the Gujarat riots. That version has been echoed recently by the former PM, wanting-to-turn-statesman, Shri Vajpayee. Unfortunately, that theory also does not hold water. The Gujarat riots occurred in 2002. At the end of 2003, the BJP swept through assembly elections in four states including Gujarat, even wresting Rajasthan and MP from long-standing Congress regimes. Through out the assembly election campaign, BJP’s star campaigner was the now maligned Narendra Modi. So obviously the voter did not reject the NDA on the basis of the Gujarat riots.

Finally we were informed by the media that the voter has chosen the Congress, and more importantly, the party’s leadership of Sonia (and now supposedly PM-in-waiting Rahul) Gandhi. We have even been told that that the country chose Sonia as its leader, and it was another great Gandhian sacrifice that she turned down the post. This assertion also needs to be examined a bit more closely.

The election results hardly point to a mandate in favour of the Congress. It is very true that the Congress seat tally has gone up to 145, as compared to the 110 in 1999. However, when we compare the overall percentage of votes cast through out the nation in favor of the Congress, these add up to only 26 percent, which is 2 percent less than its vote share in 1999. Furthermore, the seat tally has gone up primarily due to its improved performance in Andhra Pradesh, although it has managed to perform well with voters in small states like Assam, Jharkhand, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh. Furthermore, Congress had never explicitly named Sonia as the Prime Ministerial candidate, and therefore the elections were hardly a US-presidential style race between the Signora and Shri Vajpayee.

Interestingly enough, the over riding factor in most of these states has not been anything more complex than the anti-incumbency one. This is the reason the TDP lost Andhra, and AIDMK lost Tamil Nadu. Yet the anti-incumbency factor has not worked solely against the NDA alliance. This factor has also contributed to Congress defeat in Karnataka, where the voters whole-heartedly booted out the Krishna administration. However, in that state, instead of accepting the voter’s democratic verdict against it, the Congress has chosen to ally itself with its major poll rival to ensure its continuance in power.

More importantly, in case at least of Andhra, the Congress campaigned on populist planks, including free electricity to farmers (which sounds fabulous in speeches but is undeliverable in practice…but who cares once you are elected), and more importantly, the issue of splitting the Telangana region into a separate state. As we have already commented on the non-issue of difference between rural and urban voters, in Andhra, at least, the major voting issue has been that of Telangana, a demand that has festered for a few decades, kept simmering for political gains, by both the TDP and the Congress. Given the fact that Congress has delayed the formation of Telangana in the past, and that the Left parties oppose a similar measure of dividing West Bengal, the chances of this measure being implemented in the new Loksabha are slim.

However, let us not get bogged down in discussing the reasons why the voter has not chosen the Congress. Let us also take a look at why the BJP could not increase its parliamentary tally from 188 in 1999 to the 240 that had been predicted by pre-election opinion polls. More importantly, why within five months of sweeping assembly polls in four states, could BJP not hold its own in the national elections.

First and foremost, the reality of parliamentary tally shows that the NDA was routed from the centre primarily thanks to the results in two states: Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. Had these two states gone to the NDA alliance, the coalition would have continued in power. The reasons for the defeat in these two states are manifold, although the major one has been that of anti-incumbency.

In case of Tamil Nadu of course, BJP’s choice of Jayalalitha over Karunanidhi proved to be a major blunder. The Amma had already been shown as vindictive by her treatment of Karunanidhi who was manhandled on camera on her orders. BJP chose at that time to not take a stronger stance in favour of its ally, signalling an impending break with the DMK. However, its unwillingness to stand by its allies went against the party’s image of being a "party with a difference."

The voter was left wondering what else the party would "compromise" on. The doubt grew with the Raja Bhaiyya case, where the party chose to stand by and allow the imprisonment and harassment of his family members under POTA. While Raja Bhaiyya is definitely a problematic leader for the BJP, he is no better or worse than other politicians from UP or Bihar. While he was being harassed under POTA by the Congress-backed state government in UP, another leader, Syed Shahabbuddin was being handled with kid gloves for a far more serious offence: the purchase of an illegal LMG (light machine gun) for the tune of one crore rupees.

BJP’s stance in these two cases pointed to a larger phenomenon and raised another doubt in the voter’s mind: Was BJP also moving towards "Muslim appeasement"? Most Indians now know that Ram Mandir shall not be resolved while the issue can yield political dividends. However, BJP’s dropping of its other primary issues including Article 370 and Uniform Civil Code (UCC) has cost the party dearly.

This problem, unfortunately, has its root in Shri Vajpayee, who proved himself a capable leader for much of the past five years. However, in the past year, his obvious wish to be considered a "statesman" rather than a political leader has meant that he has overridden opinions of others in his party. He has also distanced himself increasingly from the party workers and their opinions. In attempting to rise above the quagmire of electoral politics, Vajpayee chose to overlook its demands and exigencies. Perhaps, the 2004 election results shall provide him with the impetus and courage to emulate the example set by Rajju Bhaiyya of the RSS, of stepping aside to allow others to come to the fore.

Shri Vajpayee’s distancing himself from core party planks of UCC and 370 resulted not merely in a difference of opinion within the party leadership, but also reflected in the grass roots activity that the party workers undertook during elections. Few party workers were motivated enough to campaign at the personal level that has marked the BJP political style. This lack of motivation had another fall out: normally BJP party workers would canvass hard not only to get people to vote for them, but also to simply get out of their homes to exercise their franchise. In 2004, the voter turnout has been abysmal. Of course, one cannot deny that the BJP also became overconfident following the assembly election wins of 2003, and as a result of successive opinion polls preceding the elections.

The combined result of these factors was that the party workers did not canvass as they should have. It relied primarily on the mass media, especially television. Its workers did not spread out through the voters to explain its achievements or its promises. That lack of direct involvement with the voters cost the BJP dear. And therein lies the lesson for the BJP!

After the election results were announced, Shri Vajpayee commented that while BJP had lost, Indian democracy had won. That statement was lost in the euphoric cacophony of the Congress that insisted it had won the mandate of the people.

However it is a statement that warrants closer scrutiny. The 2004 elections were marked specially by the lack of drama (although the "Sonia: Main bhi PM banana chahti hoon" soap that followed nearly upset that success). More importantly, for the first time in nearly two decades, caste and religion were not the main issues or emotive vote catching planks. The campaigns from various parties, populist or otherwise, focussed on real issues of development and economic growth: the NDA’s India Shining vs. Sonia’s revisiting of "garibi hatao." That in itself is a sign of India’s maturing as a democracy.

There has been another growth. There is a miniscule difference in seats between Congress and the BJP. In the past, such a fractured mandate would have meant horse trading and instability as both factions tried to out do each other in forming a government. Instead, the BJP has chosen to sit in the opposition, as a mature political party in a functioning democracy ought to do. Another sign of our nation’s maturing as a democracy.

This is an opportunity for the BJP to rethink its party structure, make the necessary leadership changes, and regroup for the next round. This is also an opportunity for the Congress to try and function in a changed scenario of coalition politics that now hallmark our country’s democratic system.

Where do we go from here? The prospects unfortunately look grim. The Congress has shown in the short time it has been in power that it has learned little from the past years of its exile from power. The party is up to its usual tricks: attempting to destabilize elected state governments, appointing party favourites to plum posts in the name of "desaffronisation", and behaving in a generally autocratic manner.

However, this time around the situation is quite different. Its major ally, the Left parties, has chosen a clever way of participating in the governance. By choosing to offer "outside" support, the Left effectively holds the Congress hostage, impacts all functioning of the government, without being held accountable. There is a political element to this stand: Left’s stronghold, West Bengal goes into assembly elections before the end of 2004. The arrangement ensures that the Left can take credit for any of the government’s achievements, while Congress alone will have to take the blame for any mis-steps.

Furthermore, the Congress has managed to cobble together its coalition with the participation of some extremely dubious political players. Laloo’s appointment as Railway minister is bad enough, the presence of other criminals including Taslimuddin in the central cabinet bodes ill for the government.

While a section of the media has tried to fudge the issue by comparing Advani’s involvement in the Ayodhya case, the issue is a particularly messy one. Taslimuddin, for example, is not implicated in any political case, but has been personally charge-sheeted for murder along with other criminal activities. His criminal links extend to anti-nationals including the notorious Dawood Ibrahim. How then can Congress claim to speak on issues of national security while its own cabinet is compromised by the presence of such ministers?

It is customary to give a new government 100 days in office before passing judgement. It is only fair that Congress be given the same opportunity. Unfortunately, after three weeks in power, prospects for this government seem to dim each day.

Till we connect again...

Photo Credits

Pictures provided by The Tribune

View and Post comment on this article