EDIT: SAFFRON SURGE
But the rural-urban divide calls for a thoughtful response
The Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP’s) victories in the Assembly elections in Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh may have been expected, but nonetheless have implications for the future course of Indian politics and policy. While in Himachal Pradesh, the margin of victory was quite comfortable, in Gujarat, which was more keenly followed because of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s close association with the state, it was closer than perhaps what the BJP would have liked. But the BJP can take heart from the facts that it fought the five-term anti-incumbency successfully; its vote share actually went up, albeit marginally, from the 2012 Assembly elections; and the party put up a muchimproved performance in the 40 reserved constituencies in the state. Also, in north Gujarat, where the Congress was expected to do well because of the Patidar agitation, the BJP’s remarkable performance came as a surprise. Overall, Monday’s verdict is a verdict, yet again, for Mr Modi. His vigorous campaigns across the state and the outcome reflect the faith Gujarat’s electorate has in the man they consider their own. The outcome has also shown how indispensable he is to the BJP’s fortunes.
But the pattern of seats won and lost, even compared to the 2012 elections, is instructive. The big narrative is that the Congress has put up a stiff fight in rural and semi-rural Gujarat while being wiped out in urban parts of the state. While every Assembly election is different, and the implications from any one state results for voting in other states are not always clear, this rural-urban dynamic may well be one that plays out in future state elections. This divide between urban and rural voting may have important consequences. For one, the BJP’s continuing strength in the urban areas of Gujarat, including Surat, a hotbed of protests against the goods and services tax or GST, makes it clear that the implementation of the GST has not worked to hamper the ruling party politically.
What may have done so, however, is rural distress. This is distress broadly shared and of several kinds. Young people from rural agrarian castes are angered by the shortage of employment opportunities and marginal farmers are upset by the fact that agriculture has become ever more unremunerative. The BJP’s approach to minimum support prices, which it has only increased in small doses in order to prevent food inflation in urban areas, may be working against them. Regions such as Saurashtra, from which the BJP could once have hoped for easy victories, have instead allowed the Congress to post a respectable tally in this election.
The government will have to take note of this continuing rural distress. It is important that its reaction to this clear political signal be measured and impactful, rather than knee-jerk. In order to alleviate the worst symptoms of rural distress nationwide, a relook at the starving of funds to the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme or MGNREGS might be in order. Meanwhile, better links to the market must be prioritised. Export bans must not be arbitrary so that farmers are given an opportunity to tap world markets when global prices are high. As things stand, farmers hurt when prices are low but are given no opportunity to profit when prices are high, turning agriculture into a game that is biased against the grower. Populist measures such as loan waivers will not benefit farmers as much as sustained efforts to introduce greater market-supporting reforms to agriculture.