Imagining India

When the results were out, there were many people around the country who heaved a sigh of relief.

A few months before the elections, when I asked people I knew who was likely to win - the people I questioned included elected officials, writers, NGO workers, political scientists - a good majority of them were pessimistic about seeing a strong government in power, and especially a Congress or BJP-led one. ‘Our days are numbered’, is how one Congress worker put it. A large number of people suggested (and this was a popular expectation in our media) that caste-based and regional parties would have a bigger clout post-election. ‘The next government will be a hodge-podge, and they’ll move quite sharply to the left,’ one senior policy planner guessed.

The Congress’ win is forcing a re-evaluation. Were the compelling factors for the victory the Employment Guarantee Program, concern about defense, a desire for a more empowered government, or dynastic appeal? People seemed to have voted for stable, equitable development. Its been pointed out that the Congress and its allies did well in places where the NREG Program and the rural electrification scheme were implemented effectively. The win/loss pattern across states is also telling: the UPA did badly in states where the opposition governments have been effective in bringing about development and growth - this included Bihar, Chhattisgarh and Gujarat.

Does this mean that the hand-wringing over voters’ preferences for caste and regional alliances was misplaced? I think so.  The rise of markets means that there is much more at stake for voters today - good governance and better access to the economy can bring about substantial improvements in jobs, income, and education for children. This wasn’t the case pre-1980, when opportunities were much fewer.  Voters are therefore far more demanding of their leaders, and and a failure in governance makes them far less sympathetic to the fact that a certain party is supposed to represent their religion, or caste.

So what will the government do with its expanded mandate? Will we get to see a smart mix of reforms and welfare policy? Will the government finally, attempt to tackle our broken subsidy systems and education reform? The next few years are going to be very interesting.

The Third Front certainly can’t complain about a lack of press. The other parties have commented on it - there’s Sonia Gandhi poking fun, Sheila Dikshit calling it non-serious. And yet some editorials have acknowledged that it poses some threat to the chances of the BJP and the Congress.

I’m not going to take guesses on how many seats such a third option would end up with, IF it becomes a reality. Making political predictions is a dangerous game in India, one likely to end with egg on the face (I remember all too well how most of the media predicted victory for the NDA in 2004).

But its disappointing that this so-called new alternative is not really one. Its filled with old faces, consisting of various existing regional political parties and breakaway allies of the UPA.  And can we depend on the old guard - in the Congress, BJP, the TF - for better policy? We are running out of time. Too many reforms are pending, and too many issues of inequality, education, and access are losing ground.

Photo credit: Balaji Shankar

Universal appeal is a tricky thing. India’s central governments, up until the late 1970s, had one thing they shared (besides of course, the fact that they were all Congress Party governments): they viewed themselves as a father and mother figure rolled into one, the mai-baap, and also as an authority that didn’t discriminate or favour any one group of citizens over another. 

Since the 1980s, as regional parties have gained power, governments have become far more focused on their particular ethnic identities and groups, and this has sometimes come with open hostility to groups that they don’t represent. So we saw Mayawati in UP call the Brahmin and Bania castes ‘chor’ in her early campaigns, and the Shiv Sena in Maharashtra throw vitriol at non-Marathi residents in the state. And let’s not forget Gujarat’s Chief Minister Narendra Modi - the BJP since the NDA government has been a much more moderate religious force compared to its past, but its most promising young leader is by no means a uniter. (Here is an excellent piece on Modi in the Atlantic Monthly). 

These leaders arouse high emotion, both among their followers and their dissenters. They do not feel accessible outside the caste/religious groups they represent. I find their lack of broader appeal worrying. Political leaders with limited reach, and those who inspire fear in some citizens and passion in others cannot effectively lead a country as diverse as India.

And while we have so far managed reasonably well with coalition governments that cobble together a variety of religious and regional views, the Prime Ministers that headed them were always determinedly moderate figures.  If this changes in the coming years, it will mean an unfortunate turn in our politics.