iSarathi is pleased to publish its first guest article. Uday Turaga is an avid observer of politics in India and lives in Houston, Texas. In this article, he summarizes the key issues behind the electoral verdict in India.
India Casts a Positive Vote
By Uday Turaga
On May 16, India’s Super Saturday, it took barely three hours for the broad outlines of a verdict to emerge on who would govern the country for the next five years. In contrast, it took five phases of voting over a month for more than half of India’s 714 million-strong electorate to cast their votes for 543 members of Indian parliament.
The world’s largest democracy may have a style all its own but was unequivocal in returning the United Progressive Alliance (UPA)—led by the country’s oldest political party, the Indian National Congress—to power for a second consecutive term. Manmohan Singh, architect of India’s economic reforms, is set to continue as Prime Minister for another five years.
Unlike in the past, there was no single national issue that defined this election. In 1999, the country was at war with Pakistan along its northern border in Kashmir. The Kargil war united the country in its support of the then incumbent National Democratic Alliance (NDA) led by the right-wing, Hindu group, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
In 2004, the NDA defined the election as a referendum on its role in creating the country’s economic prosperity dubbed “India Shining”. The electorate, however, rejected “India Shining” and instead voted for “inclusive growth” promised by the UPA, which formed a coalition government comprising India’s communist parties along with the Congress.
Five years on, India was recovering from the Mumbai terrorist attacks of November 26, 2008 and struggling amidst a global economic downturn. The UPA was expected to do well but not well enough to having a simple majority in parliament. Noted historian Ramachandra Guha reflected this when he wrote for the BBC, “What we do know in advance is that the government that comes to power in the summer of 2009 will be a coalition, a weak coalition.”
Given this assessment, the verdict was stunning. The UPA won 262 seats, only a handful short of the 272 required for a simple majority. It gained over its previous election’s tally at the expense of the communist parties, regional political parties aligned along caste or language, and the NDA.
This verdict reflects four major themes. First, a growing national desire for political stability not articulated with such clarity since 20 years. Second is the continued emphasis on rewarding performance and governance. Third, politics based on extremities were roundly rejected. Finally, the emergence of India’s youth as an engaged electoral segment.
Political stability
In the past two decades, effective governance has become increasingly contentious due to the rise of powerful regional political groups organized along caste (in the north), class (in the west), or linguistic (in the south) lines. These regional parties were anticipated to be important following this election too. However, the accompanying governance challenges have, apparently, not gone unnoticed with the electorate, which has voted in this election to strengthen the larger parties and thereby minimize the bargaining power of the regional groupings.
Performance and governance
Indian voters have consistently rewarded governance but are providing distinct recognition to governments that are truly differentiating themselves on development. Congress’ principled support for development was evident last year when it signed the cooperative agreement on nuclear power with the U.S. despite opposition from its coalition partners. The coalition partners – India’s communist parties – who withdrew support from the UPA government registered their heaviest losses in 30 years. In the states, political parties whose governments provided effective governance were rewarded in all regions including Andhra Pradesh in the south, Orissa in the east, and Delhi and Bihar in the north.
Rejection of extremities
The primary challenger in this election was the right-wing, Hindu party, BJP, but its Prime Ministerial candidate, L.K. Advani, tried to be the voice of moderation. However, he acquiesced to the party’s strident elements, who hijacked the election campaign midway. First, the party refused to drop debutant candidate, Varun Gandhi, even after he was caught on tape making a hateful speech against Muslims. Second, Narendra Modi, who allegedly presided over the riots that killed 1,200 Muslims in the western state of Gujarat, was drafted as a key campaigner. Although Gandhi was elected, Modi’s effect was limited to his state of Gujarat and hardly had any impact in the battleground state of Uttar Pradesh where he was roped in as a star campaigner.
Emerging youth vote
Approximately 40 percent of India’s electorate is less than 25 years old. Led by the 38-year-old Rahul Gandhi, scion of the Nehru-Gandhi family and the party’s heir-apparent, the Congress assiduously wooed this segment recognizing its aspirations to influence their collective future by actively engaging with the political process. The youth vote enabled the Congress party’s resurgence in the Hindi-speaking states of northern India, which contribute almost half of the country’s parliamentary seats. In recent decades, the Congress has been a dismal fourth or fifth in these states, where caste-based regional outfits have dominated elections. However, Gandhi’s efforts paid off in Uttar Pradesh where the party moved up to second place this year upsetting the aspirations of its caste-based competitors.
As democracies across Asia struggle, India is a beacon of hope for this political freedom as it concludes its 15th general election since independence in 1947. For another five years, India will enjoy political stability and consistent economic, social, and security policies all of which will serve well our increasingly globalized world.
‘Reading too much by the book’ limits this article’s nearness to the ground reality of ‘Indian Polity’.
1.’Largest’ need not be be a ‘virtue’ in any ‘cracy’ unless it delivers – Indian polity’s miserable failure on many a front like poverty,productivity,quality & quantum of population & progress – much to the chagrin of the ‘tax-payer’s money’, specially vis-a-vis the co-born like China, largely rests with the ‘Congress’ that ruled for the longest.
2.Lack of convincing alternative & playing to the galleries is Congress’s ‘fortune’ rather than ‘strength’.'Stability’-which even the Colonial British ensured -without ‘sustainable progress’ contributes to a ‘political cesspool’.
3.Propriety demands branding congress too suitably, if one chooses terming BJP as ‘Hindu’.If it were correct, the Indian majority -the Hindus- would have voted BJP to power absolutely.Nowhere else in the World ‘Minority’ rules the ‘Majority’-be it persons or parties- as in India.
4.Political philosophy differentiates political systems by their deliverable rather than ‘parties’ that proliferate & perpetuate misery.
[...] revisit the 2009 general election, this blog believes that it was different as described in our guest column published an year ago. A somewhat similar perspective was presented recently here. Highlights: [...]