Key learnings from poll outcome
BJP is dominant, but faces challenge. Local, rooted leaders matter. Local issues and concerns prevail. Identity politics is alive but fluid
The Maharashtra and Haryana results have confounded observers. The Bharatiya Janata Party-Shiv Sena (BJP-SS) alliance will form the government in Maharashtra — but the win is not as resounding as the BJP, in particular, expected. Haryana has been the biggest surprise in the elections, throwing up a hung assembly. Let alone get to its stated target of 75 seats, the BJP will likely fail to get to the majority mark. Government formation in the state remains fluid. The results have energised the Opposition — but also thrown up sobering lessons on the scale of challenges it faces in taking on the BJP’s dominance. Here are four key learnings from the elections for the state of Indian politics at the moment:
1. BJP DOMINANT BUT HEGEMONY CHALLENGED
The BJP remains India’s most dominant party. It is the single largest force in both the states. And it may well form the government with smart political engineering and alliances in Haryana. The mix of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s popularity, its organisational muscle, its resources, and its narrative dominance are still in place.
Yet, so soon after its spectacular win in the Lok Sabha, the elections also throw up key questions about this very dominance.
In a stark reminder of the electoral checks and balances that exist in India, and the richness and vibrancy of democracy, the BJP has now encountered voices of discontent. Its governance record at both the Centre and in the states will face renewed questions, especially on the economy. Many believe that the growing agrarian distress, slowing economic growth, and rising unemployment, has slowly begun affecting its electoral performance. Its ability to manage social contradictions, especially the Jat and non-Jat matrix in Haryana and the Maratha and non-Maratha matrix in Maharashtra , will also come under question.
The BJP will have to clearly reset its governance and politics button, for riding on the popularity of just one national leader (Modi) in each election may not be enough. It is dominant for sure, but will it remain hegemonic? There are initial stirrings of trouble.
2. LOCAL, ROOTED, EXPERIENCED LEADERS MATTER
The Congress continues to face a crisis at the national level. Its ability to mount a challenge to Modi is limited; its ideological confusion remains deep; and its decision-making is riddled with errors and delays.
But the party can draw a sigh of relief from the Haryana verdict, where it has more than doubled its previous performance of 15 seats in the assembly of 90. And this has to do largely with the role of one person — Bhupinder Singh Hooda.
In Hooda’s campaign, the lesson is that the party’s “old guard”, particularly those leaders who remain rooted to the ground (Hooda did multiple yatras in the past five years and stayed connected to the state) matter. These are people who have capital and resources and are willing to invest (a lot of the campaign funds came directly from his abilities to generate money); and also those who have a solid social base (Jats in his case).
Finally, these are also people who possess the shrewdness to expand their social base for a better chance of success. This was visible in Punjab in 2017, when Captain Amarinder Singh scored a victory; it was also apparent in Madhya Pradesh to a lesser extent when Kamal Nath and Digvijaya Singh, along with the younger leader, Jyotiraditya Scindia, pulled off a victory; and it was clear in Rajasthan, when the duo of Ashok Gehlot and Sachin Pilot, ousted BJP.
In all cases, it is strong regional leaders — not necessarily the national leadership — which delivered. This is also a reason why the party did not do well in Maharashtra, where the Congress does not have a strong pan-state leader who could become a credible challenger. Indeed, Maharashtra shows the resilience of another such leader, Sharad Pawar of the Nationalist Congress Party. He, too, has a strong local base (Marathas), adequate resources and capital, and displayed a willingness to fight till the finish despite suffering desertions. It is time for the Opposition to go back to the drawing board and emulate this model, for it appears to be the only way to challenge the BJP in the absence of any national level leader who can take on Modi.
3. THE REVENGE OF THE LOCAL
The BJP tried hard to make this election substantially about national issues. It spoke of Modi’s leadership, of the decision to nullify Article 370, of his global diplomacy, and of the Centre’s legislative agenda. The Opposition tried to make it local, about local candidates in constituencies, about the concerns in each constituency, about the abilities of the state government, and the contradictions on the ground.
It would be a fallacy to say the national does not matter at all, for a large segment of BJP’s vote, and its emergence as the single largest party in both states, came from these issues. But it would now be equally wrong to say that the local does not matter. Indeed, in some ways, the elections mark the revenge of the local. In travels across constituencies in Haryana and Maharashtra, it was clear that even the supporters of the BJP during the Lok Sabha elections began to get ambivalent if there was a strong local opposition candidate in the fray. Conversations about local economic concerns — the dip in sales of a shop in a village hamlet, the inability of small auto drivers to pay back loans, the low wages at which a young man had to work in companies — had begun to pick pace. Modi was good, many said, but added they did vote for him where he was needed. It was not clear if these concerns would translate into voting behaviour. But results indicate that they have, at least to some extent. The national has its space, but so does the local.
In this, there are lessons for all sides. The BJP has the national narrative, but falters locally. The Opposition often has the local narrative, but falters nationally.
4. IDENTITY POLITICS IS ALIVE, BUT FLUID
After every election, especially ones where BJP scores big wins, many conclude that it is the end of “identity politics”, particularly its caste variant. They are wrong.
This election has shown, yet again, the salience of caste politics. In Haryana, there was a clear divide between Jats and non-Jats. Jats, many of whom even voted for Modi in the national elections, felt excluded from the power structure. The BJP had indeed fought elections last time around consolidating the resentment of the non-Jat communities. This time, the party tried to make inroads into the community. But it did not succeed. Jats went largely with Congress, and to a lesser extent, with Dushyant Chautala. The Congress was clever in also awarding tickets to non-Jat candidates, banking on the fact that it would win Jats in any case but be able to make inroads into the BJP’s base. The strategy seems to have paid off. In Maharashtra, too, while BJP appears to have got more Maratha support than the past, the NCP’s performance indicates the community has stayed with the party — alienated from the BJP’s efforts to downsize its share in the power structure.
Identity politics is alive. But identity politics is also fluid. Social contradictions in the polity have to be tapped and mobilised. And that is what Congress and JJP in Haryana and NCP in Maharashtra did, in much the same manner as the BJP has done in the past.
The election results show once again that politics is a nonlinear process; final sharp conclusions cannot be drawn based on a victory, as big as it may be, in a polity as large and complex as India. All sides have much to learn. Indian democracy is alive and well. Vox populi, vox dei.