Basing political punditry on conversations with taxi drivers is a discredited form of journalism, but that Delhi autowallah was prescient. He was from Bihar and was a Kurmi, the same peasant group to which Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar belongs. Is your vote registered in Delhi or Bihar? Both, he said, nonchalant about doing something illegal. In the Delhi state assembly elections in December, he had voted for the Aam Aadmi Party but in the Lok Sabha elections he said he was going back to his village to vote for Narendra Modi.
You are a Kurmi from Bihar, I said. If even you are not voting for Nitish Kumar, who will? "Nitish-wa PM thodi na baney ga," he replied. Nitish is not in the race to be prime minister. "Abhi chahiye parivartan.” Right now, we need change. Parivartan is a pure Hindi term which is used, especially in the sort of tone he did, to mean emphatic change. This corrupt Congress, he said, needed to be swept out.
Many people will see this election result as a sign of India taking a turn to the right. After all, this is the first time that the Hindu nationalist Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh's political avatar, the Bhartiya Janata Party, has wrested complete control. Yet, the same Indian voter gave the Congress a near-decisive thumbs up in 2009, after it had already ruled for five years.
Ten years ago, the incumbent BJP had campaigned on the slogan “India Shining”. The Congress' counter-campaign had asked, “Aam aadmi ko kya mila?” What did the common man get? That touched a chord with the voter because the idea that India had crossed a prosperity threshold came as an insult to a lot of people trying to make ends meet in a poor country.
Just a few months before the 2009 general elections, the 26/11 terror attacks shook India and the world. The media collectively demanded war with Pakistan. Though the BJP was more restrained, it took the opportunity to call the Manmohan Singh government weak. Governments never lose elections in war time, but war was not an option. The Congress returned to power, increasing its seat tally from 145 to 206. It was the first time since 1991 that they crossed the 200 mark. They did so well because they cared for the common man and his pocket. It was not just a popular rural employment guarantee law, but a host of social welfare measures that made a difference and in terms of messaging, signaling that the government cared about you.
Yesterday, we saw the BJP's vote share increase from 18.8% in 2009 to 31%. The Congress' vote share dipped from 28% in 2009 to 19.4%. This shows both a negative vote for the Congress and a positive one for the BJP. The sweep, the unexpected surprises, the breathtaking margins, all show what many – including this writer – had doubted: a Narendra Modi wave. Thanks to the wave, this is the first time since 1984 that India has a one-party, non-coalition government. The BJP crossed the 272 mark on its own, winning 282 (provisional figure) seats, which means it doesn't even need its pre-poll alliance partners. As Modi pointed out, this is the first time an Indian party other than the Congress has won a simple majority.
Like 2004 and 2009, the explanation for 2014 is also common man economics. Corruption is an issue for the common man because he associates it with inflation. Not only did the UPA-2 government not do much about inflation, it was brazen in its never-ending corruption scandals. This election result, reducing the Congress to a humiliating 44 seats, is the people's reply to Congress leader Raj Babbar's comment that one could have a meal in Mumbai for Rs 12, or Congress leader Rashid Masood's comment that one could have a meal in Delhi for Rs 5.
The government didn't do anything to halt the Commonwealth Games fiasco, claimed there was "zero loss" to the public exchequer from a huge telecom scandal, didn't even appoint a dummy inquiry commission over a corruption scandal involving the Congress president's son-in-law. When Anna Hazare led a popular anti-corruption movement, they put him in jail, when people protested against rape they responded with water cannons. They put an anti-corruption cartoonist in jail and continued to defend the draconian internet censorship law used to allow that detention.
That is the kind of arrogance that led even a Nitish Kumar voter to feel that radical change was necessary and that the Congress had to be kicked out. Voting for regional leaders or on the basis of caste, it was clear, was not going to achieve radical change. This was an extraordinary situation where a well-regarded government was voted back into power and completely betrayed the trust of the people, not even showing humility of a perfunctory course-correction. It was as if the Congress was trying hard to lose.
Compared to this, Modi attempted to project himself as the man of action, the manager, the politician who cared about how the country’s problems could be solved. His authoritarian image perhaps added to his appeal, since it was contrasted with a government that was confused over leadership between a mother, her son, and their appointed prime minister. Modi's authoritarianism, Hindu nationalism, role in the 2002 anti-Muslim pogrom bothered only Muslims and a few liberals. The Modi voter felt the more urgent need was to vote him in to get someone who could run the government, something the Congress seemed unable to do for five years.
Modi should learn from this experience and be aware that the people could turn against him too, if the economy doesn't give them food to eat.
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
You are a Kurmi from Bihar, I said. If even you are not voting for Nitish Kumar, who will? "Nitish-wa PM thodi na baney ga," he replied. Nitish is not in the race to be prime minister. "Abhi chahiye parivartan.” Right now, we need change. Parivartan is a pure Hindi term which is used, especially in the sort of tone he did, to mean emphatic change. This corrupt Congress, he said, needed to be swept out.
Many people will see this election result as a sign of India taking a turn to the right. After all, this is the first time that the Hindu nationalist Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh's political avatar, the Bhartiya Janata Party, has wrested complete control. Yet, the same Indian voter gave the Congress a near-decisive thumbs up in 2009, after it had already ruled for five years.
Ten years ago, the incumbent BJP had campaigned on the slogan “India Shining”. The Congress' counter-campaign had asked, “Aam aadmi ko kya mila?” What did the common man get? That touched a chord with the voter because the idea that India had crossed a prosperity threshold came as an insult to a lot of people trying to make ends meet in a poor country.
Just a few months before the 2009 general elections, the 26/11 terror attacks shook India and the world. The media collectively demanded war with Pakistan. Though the BJP was more restrained, it took the opportunity to call the Manmohan Singh government weak. Governments never lose elections in war time, but war was not an option. The Congress returned to power, increasing its seat tally from 145 to 206. It was the first time since 1991 that they crossed the 200 mark. They did so well because they cared for the common man and his pocket. It was not just a popular rural employment guarantee law, but a host of social welfare measures that made a difference and in terms of messaging, signaling that the government cared about you.
Yesterday, we saw the BJP's vote share increase from 18.8% in 2009 to 31%. The Congress' vote share dipped from 28% in 2009 to 19.4%. This shows both a negative vote for the Congress and a positive one for the BJP. The sweep, the unexpected surprises, the breathtaking margins, all show what many – including this writer – had doubted: a Narendra Modi wave. Thanks to the wave, this is the first time since 1984 that India has a one-party, non-coalition government. The BJP crossed the 272 mark on its own, winning 282 (provisional figure) seats, which means it doesn't even need its pre-poll alliance partners. As Modi pointed out, this is the first time an Indian party other than the Congress has won a simple majority.
Like 2004 and 2009, the explanation for 2014 is also common man economics. Corruption is an issue for the common man because he associates it with inflation. Not only did the UPA-2 government not do much about inflation, it was brazen in its never-ending corruption scandals. This election result, reducing the Congress to a humiliating 44 seats, is the people's reply to Congress leader Raj Babbar's comment that one could have a meal in Mumbai for Rs 12, or Congress leader Rashid Masood's comment that one could have a meal in Delhi for Rs 5.
The government didn't do anything to halt the Commonwealth Games fiasco, claimed there was "zero loss" to the public exchequer from a huge telecom scandal, didn't even appoint a dummy inquiry commission over a corruption scandal involving the Congress president's son-in-law. When Anna Hazare led a popular anti-corruption movement, they put him in jail, when people protested against rape they responded with water cannons. They put an anti-corruption cartoonist in jail and continued to defend the draconian internet censorship law used to allow that detention.
That is the kind of arrogance that led even a Nitish Kumar voter to feel that radical change was necessary and that the Congress had to be kicked out. Voting for regional leaders or on the basis of caste, it was clear, was not going to achieve radical change. This was an extraordinary situation where a well-regarded government was voted back into power and completely betrayed the trust of the people, not even showing humility of a perfunctory course-correction. It was as if the Congress was trying hard to lose.
Compared to this, Modi attempted to project himself as the man of action, the manager, the politician who cared about how the country’s problems could be solved. His authoritarian image perhaps added to his appeal, since it was contrasted with a government that was confused over leadership between a mother, her son, and their appointed prime minister. Modi's authoritarianism, Hindu nationalism, role in the 2002 anti-Muslim pogrom bothered only Muslims and a few liberals. The Modi voter felt the more urgent need was to vote him in to get someone who could run the government, something the Congress seemed unable to do for five years.
Modi should learn from this experience and be aware that the people could turn against him too, if the economy doesn't give them food to eat.
