Had drafted this note in longhand on the 9th of November. Lethargy had stopped me from posting it for 8 weeks. Though dated, still posting it so that it at least appears in the timeline of 2015.
Claiming ‘I-told-you-so’ post occurance of an event carries
high credibility risks, particularly when there is like evidence of one
actually having said so. For this reason and this alone, and even after
discounting the lusty cheerleading going on till around 11 AM on October 8,
words of many pundits, who now claim to have had foretold BJP’s debacle, are
flummoxing.
Did not the Modi brigade claim an overwhelming mandate for
development all along? Did it not claim that Modi’s INR 1,75,000 Crores package
was a deal-sealer, that Modi’s personal appeal was transcending caste/class
barriers and that people are voting for Modi in droves or that Modi’s attack on
possibility of reservations for minorities had stymied the desertions of
backward classes and had re-rallied support for the BJP?
Just what did happen in a mere hour that the cheerleading
got replaced with a list of sage reasons, ranging from the lazy intellect of
Biharis to weird conspiracy theories. All sort of reasons but scarcely any
blame getting attributed to the Modi-Shah duo or any the BJP’s lackluster governance.
It was quite striking when you consider that only an hour earlier, paeans were
being sung to them for their vision, sagacity and efforts. Now, if credit was
to be given for good show, how can the same people not be blamed for a bad show?
Just how different from Congress is this ‘party with a difference’. There too,
all victories are by the ‘Grace of Gandhis’ and all defeats ‘collective
responsibility’?
This intermittent blogger, to all those who had cared to
ask, had all along maintained that there was no way the BJP would win in Bihar,
and that too for the most simple and obvious of reasons.
Modi triumphed in 2014, buoyed by a ‘wave’. Then, the
general public voted for an icon, an idea that would deliver them from the hopelessness
all around and guide them to a better future. Seventeen months in power is a
long enough time for people to form impressions whether their hopes are being
fulfilled. If they are not, people may still cling on hope, but definitely will
not rally around the hope-giver like they had done previously. And even
otherwise, Modi wave was a catharsis of frustrations, blood and tears of many. Our
most successful politician ever, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi knew that public
emotions cannot be aroused again and again. Hence, he kept a lag of a decade in
between each of his major mass movements, from the non-cooperation to the Civil
disobedience to Quit India.
Can we rationally expect people to come out and vote in
droves for a messiah who may be false? Can people really be expected to vote
for someone who seems disconnected with the masses, disowns electoral promises,
talks haughtily and most critically, under whose rule, the humble onion, dal and
mustard oil became food for the not-so-humble?
To all those who claim that the outcome of even 2014 would
have been different had Nitish-Lalu allied in those elections, I beg to differ.
History shows that individual vote shares of 2 parties do not translate into an
absolute total when win alliance. Most candidates being their own loyal votes
too, the core vote of the party could be lesser than the increments provided by
the candidates. A case in point would be Maharashtra where the combined vote
shares of NCP-Congress when they had contested separately was over 50%.
If elections were sum of core vote shares, there would not have been any point in strategising, in conducting strenous campaigns. Outsiders like AAP would never have made an impact anywhere. So the claim that the BJP was at a huge disadvantage needs to be dismissed. To say that backward castes polarised is disingneious. Major chunks of even Brahmins and Rajputs have voted for Mahagathbandhan. Moreovr, polarization carries an inherent risk of counter-polarisation. Given
the Modi wave in 2014, there is little to suspect that even a Nitish-Lalu
combine could have worsted NDA in Bihar.
Many Modi apologists keep on claiming that 17 months is too
small a period to undo 60 years of mess.
Was India really a complete mess in these last 60 years?
No, it wasn’t! And does it really take 5 years to make a difference to the
lives of people? Again, no – it doesn’t!
A case in point – only a few months in the NDA’s first
regime in Bihar, there was a perceptible improvement in law and order. The
first few months of UPA saw such momentous (some may say disasterous) actions
in terms of NREGA, RTI and so on. Each spell of Mayawati’s rule in UP invariably
sees an improvement in general administration. Modi’s own 1st stint
in Gujarat saw a dramatic improvement in the relief and rehabilitation measures
being taken for the earthquake survivors. Kayan Singh’s 17 month old
Government, even when pre-occupied with the Ram temple liberation movement,
gave the best governance UP had had in years.
Just how long is incrementalism or planted stories on Modi’s
work ethics going to sway the gullible masses? If we believe that Modi’s
promises led people to vote for him, how can we reject the hypothesis that his
u-turns on those promises disillusioned at least some of his voters, who if not
voting for his opponents, did not vote for him this time? That if people
rallied to vote for him driven by his promise to get black money stashed abroad
back to India, would at least some of them, not reacted with disgust when the
party president called those promises mere jumla?
In isolation, neither Modi’s taste for rich dressing, his insipid
governance, his u-turns would have been strong enough to prompt people not to
vote for the BJP. But together, they certainly take away the sheen off the
self-proclaimed deliverer and show him to be just another politician, a glib
talker, a jumla master, an
alliterating demagogue, but at the end of the day, just another self-serving
politician, in service to the suited-booted of the world.
Now, if the voter had to choose between just another politician
and his own caste brethren, why would he overlook his caste loyalties? On the
other hand, if he had felt that the great leader was actually working to change
his (the voter’s) life for the better, he would have cared little for caste or
the contrived controversy over Mohan Bhagwat’s comments (which I maintain,
going against conventional wisdom, was factual and had nothing objectionable in
it)
On governance, just how credible an attack on Nitish for
his mis-governance when the BJP was very much a part of his government for 8
years? Personally, I had relied on the average Bihari’s appreciation of Nitish’s
efforts in delivering them from jungle raj to bless him with their votes. They
did. I dare say that Nitish could have fought alone and still managed a
comfortable number of seats to gain support from Congress and RJD to form a
government with less dependence on Lalu for survival.
Ever since the impact of Nitish’s governance had been
manifest on ground, the NDA had hardly lost any election in Bihar, be it the
general elections or bypolls. Hence, to claim that the Bihari does not reward
good governance is plain lazy blame-shifting,
Finally, the Lalu factor. The media loves to write off
people. It loves to deify people. Then it loves to write them off again only to
deify at a later date. It is simply because extreme tales grab eyeballs much
more than plaid staid facts. Even in the worst of times, Lalu commanded some
20% vote share in Bihar. Any commander of 1 in 5 voters in the state is a
formidable force, particularly in the 1st-past-the-post electoral
system of India. That the RJD came back from the dead is a story only for those
who confuse sensationalism with news. RJD was never dead. It simply prospered again
in the right conditions.
If anything, the story of RJD’s rejuvenation should provide
a jolt to those Modi-worshippers who had actually started believing in fanciful
tales of a Congress-mukt Bharat.
In its worst ever performance, the Congress has managed to
win over 18% of votes. A few right alliances, a few more failures of Modi, a
little more of people shedding their hopes and it won’t be long before the
Congress, aided by dispirited Modi supporters staying at home, wins a vote
share of 23%-25%, sufficient enough for them to form Government once again.
Some optimistic right-wingers believe that Modi/BJP will
learn their lessons from this defeat. Lessons they will surely learn, but all
the wrong ones!
Rather than focusing on making people’s lives better, the trio
of Modi-Shah-Jaitely is likely to focus on keeping the ‘fringe’ in control. That
the BJP’s performance post ‘cow-polarisation’ in Seemanchal was comparatively much
better than in rest of Bihar would be lost.
We know what happened in 2004. Then, the arch-secular BJP
was routed and it took 10 years of UPA misrule for it to make a comeback. Let’s
make no mistakes; Modi would not have become the phenomenon that he became had
the UPA under Rahul Gandhi not been his alternate.
Today, if elections are conducted, inspite of all the
disillusionment, Modi may still emerge as the leader of choice, though by a
much reduced majority. The same Bihar which has voted for Nitish-Lalu now may
still vote for Modi as PM. All this for 2 reasons. There are still vestiges of
hope. People do not want to lose hope till they can. And even more importantly,
there is no credible alternative to Modi on the horizon right now.
Yet, it will take only a few more mis-steps and a sustained
campaign by a re-branded Rahul or a Priyanka or even a Nitish, to ensure that
Modi and the BJP get confined to history in 2019. The diiference with 2004
would be that this time, the exile would be much longer. While Modi could not
deliver a Congresss-mukt Bharat, the next rulers would definitely ensure a
BJP-RSS mukt Bharat in their rule.
