An absolutely objective political analysis of politics is impossible. The analyst himself gets in the way. This writer included
The current by- polls too have drawn the ‘perennially embarrassed Hindu’ and the ‘permanently outraged secularist’ into beating themselves about ‘Hindutva’ or gloating ‘I told you so’ respectively
However politics works quite differently. It must be stated that the circumstances under which political events unravelled up until the 2014 General election are not replicated currently and therefore the context is important
A few pointers:
Narendra Modi’s election was not about a Hindu transformation into ‘Hindutva’. It was about a consolidation of caste vote to defeat the congress and its allies. People were bored of the UPA and did not see their larger interests being helped by the Congress old guard, the dynasty, Rahul, Akhilesh and Stalin.This general election was not about Hindutva
Hindu political groupings are ‘caste’ based for all practical political purposes and not religious. The so called Hindu consolidation was temporary.
However to assume that this phenomenon has ended forever and people have given a ‘resounding slap’ to such instincts is misguided. The Ram Mandir movement saw a similar consolidation(That was Hindutva) and the same may happen again for a different set of reasons. It would be wise to grow up and keep drinking coffee.
I argue that this by-election would have not have been won by the BJP anyway.
People who voted Narendra Modi for P.M are not all Hindu zealot-nationalists with a trishul just as people who vote congress are not all atheists or venal and corrupt brokers with black money stashed away. It would be silly to make such assumptions even as both descriptions may be true in some cases
The word secular, divisive and polarization have quite another meaning in India as compared to the rest of the world as these are BJP specific epithets which have little connection with what the oxford English dictionary intends for its readers.
I am ignoring secularism as enough has been said over it but politics by its very nature is divisive and it polarizes people in elections. Worldwide
Nobody checks all the boxes while voting. They choose one over the other. Politics is meant to divide people over their choices.
There are several impulses on which people vote. In general people make ‘sense’ out of the total inputs made available to them over a period of time against a backdrop of their existing prejudice or inclinations.
If Assembly elections were to be held in Delhi, the INC may not have much of a chance. But in Municipal elections several of their councilors will win. Why? Because locally people will vote basis established networks, which down the line promise regularizing or ignoring illegal construction, encroachment on public property, special benefits for different religious places and other ‘personal contact’ issues. Quicker access to licensing and other civic services, contracts and influence pedaling will come into play. Local Civil construction and development will play a role. The ‘rural’ voter in Delhi has a large say where ‘Lal dora’ considerations have their own dynamics. Many Posh residential complexes abut urban villages. So does the poorvanchal factor, the auto driver and the slum dweller. Alcohol plays a role too.
Corruption etc will no longer be that important and that’ wave’ for Delhi is over. This will, however, not mean that people are going to give a ‘resounding slap’ to Kejriwal’s Political ideas. It does not work like that.
Opposition gloating does not end every phenomenon
In Bihar the ‘sagacious voter’ has voted for a Lalu and Nitish combine simply to protect himself from being punished for voting the BJP and to avail local administrative benefits. To read that he has become more ‘demanding’, ‘less divisive’ and ‘impatient’ for change would be naïve. Somebody impatient for change does not bring back Lalu.
A seasoned political party like the congress does not hesitate in resurrecting ‘Nehru’ as an icon, to lure ‘impatient’ voters? Never underrate the congress. They have been there, done that. Things do not change much in reality and they know it. People are not impatient for change. People want more under the same circumstances.
73 out of 80 seats were won by the BJP in national elections in U.P. To extrapolate this victory into predicting assembly or municipal election results would be hasty and simplistic. This is why public posturing apart no hard core politician really believes it. The defeat of the BJP in U.P has nothing to do with the population suddenly becoming ‘secular’ as some motivated analysts are gloating. It has possibly to do with the fact that Yogi Adityanath was never much of any significance outside his constituency. He never really mattered and it was the media that made him heard in the Metros but that’s about it. The local voter does not mess with the Samajwadi Party especially if the BSP and Mayawati are not in an aggressive mood to provide protection. The voter knows that the Central govt cannot do magic in 100 days. Nobody can.
In Gujarat the chances for Congress could possibly see an increase in the future as ‘Gujarati Asmita’ will not be seen as exclusively coterminous with Narendra Modi who will be seen as more of “ Bhartiya Asmita”. His foreign policy initiatives point in that direction. He will steer clear of the secular-communal debate.
What makes us ‘city slickers’ discuss politics in the big city is not what makes the belly of the city & the country’s heartland tick!
A large number of analysts carry ‘civil society ‘instincts through which they judge elections but on the ground politics is almost always about self interest. Voter included.