No. It is in conformity with the arrival of ‘new' politics
Shashi Bhushan Singh
As the dust of Bihar assembly election has settled down,
it is right time to analyse not what was different about Bihar election, but if
there is some continuity in the Indian electoral behaviour. My assessment is
that though every election has its own specificity, there is also some
commonality. What is the trend in Indian politics today?
For me the
2015 Bihar Assembly election result is in sync with the ‘new politics’ the
nation is experiencing from the past few years. The main feature of this politics
is that except for few castes and communities (mostly dominant) whose caste men
or the political party they traditionally support, have chance to win elections;
majorities of the castes and communities have started perceiving different
levels of elections differently. Means, earlier people voted for the same
political party at two different levels of elections (assembly and Lok Sabha),
but now they take the voting decision keeping in mind, who can be the best bet
at a particular level. The party and personality play important role in
selection and rejection of parties, if not candidates.
During the
run up of 2014 Lok Sabha election, when the BJP was claiming to win majority of
seats in Bihar and UP (two states where it was politically very weak); people were
cynical about its claim. However, the BJP sensed that people have started
looking Lok Sabha election differently from state assembly elections, and accordingly
devised its electoral strategy. To large extent the credit for this detachment
of national political mood from regional one goes to Mr. Modi, whose appeal to
build a new India found many takers across castes and regions. However, after
2014 Lok Sabha election, the BJP forgot this detachment principle, that even though
it has got massive mandate at the national level, people might vote for
different political parties during forthcoming assembly elections. This
misconception developed since the BJP, even after breaking away from its long-
time political allies, won Maharashtra, Haryana and Jharkhand state assembly
elections. But the fact remains that the BJP won these assembly elections, only
because the political rivals were highly ‘discredited’. To think that it was
Modi ‘magic’ that brought victory for the BJP in these states (at the most one
can say that the presence of Modi was necessary, but not sufficient condition) was
negation of a principle (detachment), which the BJP had rightly sensed during
2014 Lok Sabha election, worked accordingly and reaped rich dividends.
Thus earlier
in Delhi and now during Bihar Assembly election, BJP did not change its
strategy and relied heavily on Modi ‘magic’. In a highly diverse and plural
society, like India, Modi’s aim of bring uniformity by invoking the slogan,
‘same party (at the state and centre) better rule’ did not find many takers. He
forgot his own slogan about his idea of Delhi Sultanate, when the UPA was
attacking him, and after becoming the Prime Minister disbanded the Planning
Commission, which, he alleged, acted on ‘one size fit all’ plan. Modi himself
used the term Gujrat ashmita to debunk Congress high command culture. To
think that a particular socio-cultural trait of Indians that has helped him
politically, but would not help others was political blunder. Indians aspire
for diversity as well as good governance and found Kejriwal and Nitish better
bet to govern the states.
As far as
Bihar is concerned, people in general were happy with Nitish administration.
They wanted Nitish, but were wary of his association with Lalu Yadav. The major
issue in election was not the track record of Nitish, but the place of Lalu in
the new scheme of thing. The NDA was telling the people that Nitish would not
be able to control Lalu, leading to arrival of what the NDA called the ‘jungle
raj’. On the other hand Nitish was trying to convince people that his
association with Lalu would not have any impact on administration. Finally
Nitish was able to convince the electorate about his side of story. People
preferred to vote for a person who was already tested, against some unknown
face of the NDA. Finally Nitish won.
Thus Bihar
election result is not exceptional and should be seen as the continuation of a
process, whereas state assembly and Lok sabha elections are now detached, not
only in timing but also in orientation. The clean sweep by the BJP in 2014 Lok
Sabha election, and within eighteen months, the overwhelming victory of AAP in
Delhi and RJD-JD (U) in Bihar, that were routed in 2014 Lok Sabha election, is
pointer of this detachment. The outcome of forthcoming state elections would
also be decided by the same principle. BJP has paid the price by forgetting
this principle. The Congress and other parties (including Kejriwal and Nitish)
would also suffer heavily, if they think that Delhi or Bihar assembly election
result has anything to do with Modi’s popularity at the national level, or
assembly election results are in any manner referendum on the working of the
central government.
Context will change but this principle (detachment) will
remain relevant for some time.
(The writer teaches sociology at the Delhi School of
Economics, University of Delhi)
No comments:
Post a Comment