(Illustration: Saurabh Singh)
AS RESULTS OF the 2024 Lok Sabha elections became clear by around noon on June 4 with the Opposition I.N.D.I.A. bloc posting a better-than-expected showing, plans to approach the Election Commission (EC) demanding an examination of electronic voting machines (EVMs) in “close” contests and move the Supreme Court over alleged voter suppression were quietly shelved. Incredible as it may sound, no one is talking about returning to paper ballots or questioning the manipulation of EVMs despite such demands hogging headlines and the time of the Supreme Court for weeks on end. There is not a cheep about the timeliness or accuracy of voter turnout data. No doubt struck by the irony of the silence, Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Rajiv Kumar permitted himself a pat on the back, noting the results are a vindication of the Election Commission’s impartiality and its commitment that outcomes must reflect the will of the people.
There is a truism about the CEC’s remarks to The Indian Express where he also pointed to the diversity of the mandate in different states and emphasised that false narratives are an insult to the Indian voter. If the results had been more aligned with exit polls that predicted a big majority for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), every effort would have been made to undercut the validity of the mandate by alleging sinister conspiracies to subvert the “actual” poll outcome. Congress and other I.N.D.I.A. bloc leaders have repeatedly questioned the functioning of EVMs and raised doubts over the reliability of EC’s processes without explaining how such a plot which must necessarily involve hundreds of individuals across various states, including those where Opposition governments are in office, could possibly unfold. Though they are unlikely to do so, busybody civil society groups and political parties should acknowledge the EC has upheld its tradition of ensuring India’s elections are free and unblemished.
The CEC’s observation about the diversity of the mandate merits more attention. It is clear that the Opposition’s better-than-expected showing is as much a surprise to them as it was to those who conducted the exit polls. The preparations to protest the election results are clear indication that BJP’s opponents feared a presidential-style outcome as has been the case in 2014 and 2019. They did not quite anticipate that the Lok Sabha elections was going to devolve into a series of local or state polls. It is not that a “national” narrative is completely absent, as otherwise, BJP’s tally of 240 seats might have fallen further. The party’s success in urban constituencies and its ability to retain large parts of its social coalition ensured a minor dip in its vote share from 37.7 per cent in 2019 to 36.5 per cent even if the anticipated rise did not materialise. The Modi factor prevented a retreat from turning into a rout. But that said, efforts to force-fit an overarching narrative such as the results being a vote against “divisiveness” or “democratic backsliding” are not supported by any evidence.
The success of the Samajwadi Party (SP) and Congress in Uttar Pradesh shows that caste is back after two Lok Sabha and two Assembly elections where Modi’s Hindutva plus development model prevailed. The drift of a section of Bahujan Samaj Party voters towards SP-Congress was hard to detect. This along with a decreased turnout of BJP voters and the desertion of some of them for the I.N.D.I.A. camp delivered an optimal consolidation for the Opposition which already had the unstinted support of Muslims and Yadavs. Does the fall in the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) numbers from 64 to 33 mean a negation of the delivery of welfare schemes and improved law and order? It would be a folly to think so. More likely the SP’s candidate selection which counted on a shrewd ticket distribution among non-Yadav castes and the benefits of allying with Congress—which might have helped attract Dalit votes—did the trick for the I.N.D.I.A. bloc. Calling its victory of “secular forces” might be read as a weakening of Hindutva but more accurately, it is a re-emergence of Mandal politics.
If the results had been more aligned with exit polls that predicted a big majority for BJP, every effort would have been made to undercut the validity of the mandate by alleging sinister conspiracies to subvert the ‘actual’ poll outcome. Congress and other I.N.D.I.A. bloc leaders have
repeatedly questioned the functioning of EVMs and raised doubts about the reliability of EC’s processes without explaining how such a plot could possibly unfold
In Maharashtra, the messy ruling alliance and a sympathy factor for Uddhav Thackeray and Sharad Pawar after their parties split seems to be the main factor for BJP losing the pole position. In Haryana and east Rajasthan, the disgruntlement of Jat voters over their perception that BJP has given them the short shrift was evident as were a clutch of local issues. In Karnataka, BJP did more poorly than its own expectations due to a losing streak in the Hyderabad-Karnataka region while holding its ground elsewhere, and in fact adding the Bangalore Rural seat. In West Bengal, reports of organisational disunity are surfacing, but the real problem might be the lack of a stable vote bank and the fact that the Trinamool Congress chief solely focused on West Bengal unlike in 2019 when she allowed herself to be distracted by her ambition to forge a national front against BJP. In Bihar, though BJP slipped a bit, the alliance with Janata Dal (United) remains the dominant combination. BJP national numbers have elevated Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar’s clout but the unhappiness with JD(U) among voters is real. It is an irony that JD(U) candidates were helped by the Modi effect, as NDA voters prioritised a government at the Centre—just opposite to what happened in next-door Uttar Pradesh. The CPM which rules Kerala has hailed the Lok Sabha result but the bitter truth is that its stance on issues such as the war in Gaza and anti-Israel demonstrations failed to sway Muslim voters who saw Congress as the alternative to BJP.
Efforts to explain BJP’s sub-par performance as a vote against inflation or that Dalits and tribals have not backed the party suffer from similar limitations. States like Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Odisha with large Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe populations remain saffron. While there might be a reduction in the number of reserved seats BJP has won, this may be in keeping with the overall decline in its fortunes. Even in many of the urban constituencies which BJP has won, the margins have shrunk. If price rise or inequality were serious concerns, BJP ought not to have done well in cities where the effects of inflation are more keenly felt. It also does not explain why this should impact certain states and not others so much. Odisha is a state that exports a large number of migrants and has numerous OBC, Dalit, and Adivasi voters but overwhelmingly rejected Naveen Patnaik’s Biju Janata Dal (BJD). Odisha’s voters were impatient with the inadequacies of the BJD government and were strongly attracted to the Modi model and its promise of swift development.
The 62.4 crore voters who participated in the Lok Sabha elections are irrefutable evidence of the vibrancy of India’s political system and proof that democracy is not a Western preserve. It is a lesson not only foreign commentators but homegrown sceptics and professional dissenters need to learn.
More Columns
Art of Love Nandini Nair
Fruit of the Nation Madhavankutty Pillai
Ladakh: Magic Mountain Abhilasha Ojha