Thank God the seemingly endless general election, India’s 16th, is over. Perfervid discussions and disputations on the numerous exit polls have taken over. Conspicuously all these give the Narendra Modi-led Bharatiya Janata Party, together with its existing allies in the National Democratic Alliance, sufficient majority for the “Modi sarkar” to take over.
However, this cannot be accepted as gospel truth because the margin of error in previous exit polls has varied from 10 to 30 per cent. In any case, it is futile, if also foolish, to speculate on the basis of statistics that will be confirmed or confuted within 48 hours.
My objective for the present therefore is to point to some of the notable features of the long-drawn-out and regrettably the foulest election campaign and allied events that have dangerously polarised India.
Let me begin with the solitary pleasant and encouraging event: the record voting, exceeding that in 1984 in the emotional atmosphere following Indira Gandhi’s assassination, that gave her son and successor, Rajiv Gandhi, a staggering mandate.
This time around precisely two-thirds of the registered voters did queue up in bristling heat to exercise their franchise. More remarkably, voting was very high even in the “Red Corridor”, menaced by the Maoists who had called for a boycott of the election.
The sad part of the story, however, is that immediately after the polling the Maoists launched several lethal attacks, with the security forces as their main target.
In his book An Undocumented Wonder, former Chief Election Commissioner S.Y. Quraishi recorded that the “quaint expression” booth capturing is no longer heard. Sadly, it was being shouted out this time, especially in Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh.
Evidently, the style of booth capturing has changed. In Uttar Pradesh the widespread charge is that those on election duty “non-violently captured the booth, under the influence of the party in power in the state, in order to rig the poll”.
As for West Bengal, where there was violence, including the use of the bullet instead of the ballot, a non-partisan friend commented that the long-established pattern of no-holds-barred fight between the Communist Party of India (Marxist) that ruled the state for 30 years and the party of the present chief minister, Mamata Banerjee, has been repeated.
“The difference is that the roles have been reversed,” he added. Marxist leaders are crying hoarse that they repeatedly asked the Election Commission to act but to no avail. Unfortunately, the commissioned deployed a mere 500 companies of paramilitary forces in only 17 constituencies despite West Bengal’s notoriety for volatility and violence.
Rather unusually the EC has also drawn a lot more criticism. For instance, the BJP has accused it of denying Mr Modi, a candidate from Varanasi, permission to hold a rally at a particular spot in the holly city while permitting the Congress, the Aam Aadmi Party and the Samajwadi Party that rules the state to do so.
The EC’s somewhat belated response was to appoint a special observer for Varanasi and enhance the security arrangements there. The saffron party also alleged that the EC was very indulgent to Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi. What worsened the situation was that one of the two Election Commissioners, H.S. Brahma, publicly criticised the CEC V.S. Sampath.
This said, one must hasten to add that the EC, deservedly one of the most admired institutions, has also seen through such a mammoth and difficult task as holding the world’s largest election in a land bedevilled with diversities, complexities and a shocking lack of responsibility in the entire political class. Those manning the EC in future should learn some lessons from the 2014 polls.
The right time to discuss the plight of the Congress Party will be after all the results have been officially declared and one knows whether or not the Congress’ defeat is really as massive as the exit polls indicate. But three points need to be made on the basis of what has happened so far.
First, the Congress leadership obviously failed to perceive both the extent and intensity of sentiment against it and a rather visible “Modi wave”, especially among the youth who want better jobs and better life, not just the right to food. Second, no Congress leader ever tried to meet the concern of the masses rampant corruption and rising inflation. Confining its electioneering to “secularism versus communalism” was of no help. Third, it had become clear early enough that Mr Gandhi’s performance left much to be desired.
That should explain the Congress high command’s rather late decision to call on his sister, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, to help her brother. This she duly did but the result was that limelight shifted from him to her. No wonder than many within the Congress Party started demanding that Ms Vadra be given a bigger role in the elections and the party. But this was firmly discouraged by the top leadership. Can it have some effect in the long run?
For his part, Mr Modi must know that quite a few sidelined senior leaders in his own party were at one time siding with the Congress’ objective of having “anyone but Modi” as Prime Minister. If exit polls prove to be right and he does become Prime Minister for the next 60 months, he too would face huge difficulties.
In the first place, for every appointment he makes in his government, there would be considerable disappointment in his party. Knowing what he did to such colleagues in Gujarat, it can be safely assumed that he would be able to deal with the dissidents in his party in Delhi also adequately. Second, it would be hard to deliver quickly on the very high hopes and expectations he has aroused among those who have enthusiastically voted for him. This could have a backlash.
