An election opens up: Kejriwal's bail and other straws in the wind

The India VIX (volatility index) has jumped nearly 80% from a low in April. Volatility in the markets may also be indicating an uncertainty about election outcomes

Will Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's walk out of Tihar Central Jail prove to be as historic as Babu Jagjivan Ram and H N Bahuguna's walk away from Indira Gandhi’s Congress after she lifted the Emergency and announced elections? That day, February 3, 1977, a strong signal went out that Indira Gandhi could be defeated.

The interim bail granted to Kejriwal indicates that the Modi regime does not control all institutional outcomes. The two-judge bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta – has shown that the judiciary can act independently. In upholding civil liberties in the face of a seemingly capricious executive, the legacy of Justice Sanjiv Khanna’s uncle will be recalled.

Justice H R Khanna was the sole dissenting voice in the ADM Jabalpur vs Shiv Kant Shukla habeas corpus case, holding that fundamental rights were inalienable and could not be suspended through an executive decree declaring a national emergency. Of his other brother judges, Justice A N Ray was already the Chief Justice of India (CJI), while others came to occupy that position – Justice M H Beg (15th CJI), Justice Y V Chandrachud (16th CJI), Justice P N Bhagwati (17th CJI). When Indira Gandhi became prime minister again nine months later, she made sure that Justice H R Khanna was superseded by M H Beg and never became the CJI.

The BJP knows Kejriwal’s release may profoundly impact the electorate. That is perhaps why its leader, Vinay Sahasrabuddhe, has questioned the verdict, claiming that the judges had “made themselves a part of the campaign”.

The slogan for Kejriwal’s roadshow in the national capital on Saturday was “Tiger is back”. A doughty street fighter, his campaigning will have an impact far beyond Delhi, where his Aam Adami Party (AAP) is contesting four seats out of seven in a seat-sharing arrangement with the Congress. From Delhi his campaign is expected to move to Punjab and Haryana. However, he is also expected to campaign nationally – particularly in Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal.

The turning of a hitherto predictable election is also signalled by other straws in the wind.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi seems to be uncharacteristically struggling for a narrative that will click nationally. The attempt to whip up Hindu-Muslim polarisation may only ginger up the BJP’s existing support base, but it does not seem to have found favour with the floating voter.

Curiously, right in the middle of the election campaign, the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council released a report claiming that between 1950 and 2015, the population of Hindus in India has shrunk by about 8 per cent while the Muslim population has gone up by 43 per cent.

The media has played up these numbers. However, the analysis of the same data by Business Standard shows that India has added around five Hindus for every Muslim since 1950, and the fastest-growing minority population during the chosen period was actually that of Buddhists – growing by 1600 per cent.

Although the Economic Advisory Council report sanctimoniously cites the figures as proof of a “conducive environment to foster diversity” in India, its timing will only bolster the prime minister’s communal rhetoric. Recall his recent references to Muslims as people who “bear four-four children”.

However, the Opposition, having learnt from its past mistakes, has refused to bite. They have stuck to their agenda about record youth unemployment, the farmers’ crisis, the need to continue job reservations for the weak, and protecting the Constitution.

An indicator that the BJP campaign may be in meltdown was the prime minister’s seething remarks against “Ambani and Adani”, industrialists presumed to be close to him. The two business houses are popularly believed to be the greatest beneficiaries of the alleged crony capitalism fostered by the Modi government. However, the prime minister suggested that they were funding the Congress campaign with black money.

On May 6, the Enforcement Directorate recovered Rs 35 crore cash in the mineral-rich state of Jharkhand and claimed it was linked to a Congress minister in the state. Was it a mere coincidence that two days later on May 8, Prime Minister seemingly flew off the handle accusing “Ambani and Adani” of supplying the Congress with “tempo-loads of black money”?

Prime Minister Modi’s peevishness at the Congress generating poll funding despite the Income Tax Department virtually emptying its bank accounts is understandable. But lashing out in public at his “industrialist friends” and asking the Congress to “explain” its links with them is something a seasoned politician would never do.

People are bound to ask if he was so certain of his accusations, then why had he not acted against Ambani and Adani for dealing in black money in his ten years as prime minister? As prime minister for another 20 days, he can still do so as Rahul Gandhi exhorted him to.

If, however, Prime Minister Modi’s allegations were correct, then it is a clear signal that the corporates are no longer as confident of a resounding Modi victory and have decided to spread their risks.

Volatility in the markets may also indicate uncertainty about election outcomes. The Sensex peaked at 75K on April 30 but plunged more than 1000 points a day after the third phase of polling, when nearly 280 parliamentary seats had been polled, to stabilise at nearly 3000 points below, almost at the same level at which it stood before polling. The India VIX (volatility index) also climbed for 11 consecutive sessions until last Thursday, jumping nearly 80 per cent from a low in April.

Another straw in the wind is the so-called “Godi media (lapdog media)”, noticeably changing its election coverage. It is said that a leading Hindi news channel has directed its editors not to relay the direct telecast of public rallies of the ruling party, and another has instructed its correspondents to ensure that their reportage does not favour any political party.