If Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi’s 115-seat win in the Assembly elections suggest a victory for the politics of development, the Congress win over the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in Himachal Pradesh was based on anti-incumbency and slippages in delivery.
“Narendra Modi won because of sushasan (good governance). And, we lost Himachal Pradesh because of lack of delivery of services and a governance deficit,” said a BJP leader.
In Gujarat, the “third front” failed. However, in Himachal, party rebel Maheshwar Singh was significantly dent BJP. The Keshubhai Patel-led Gujarat Parivartan Party (GPP) was not able to cut ice with people. Nor did the Patel factor raised by GPP get a response from the people, who came out in historic numbers to vote during the two-phase elections. GPP could only win two seats.
But in Himachal, sabotage hurt the party badly. Not only did the party give Kangra leader Shanta Kumar’s men tickets in defiance of Chief Minister P K Dhumal’s directives but Dhumal created problems for himself by taking decisions that created dissidence.(Click here for PDF)
In Gujarat, the caste factor seemed to have worked against the BJP only in the Saurashtra region. It did not work in the more urban centres, where Modi’s development-oriented election propaganda found many takers. Experts said tribals in south and north Gujarat voted for the BJP because of the infrastructure facilities developed in their regions over the past decade.
The lack of leadership and co-ordination in the opposition Congress and absence of election issues gave Modi an additional advantage. The negative propaganda by the Congress and its top leaders, where they criticised development in the state, especially for the poor, backfired.
In Himachal, BJP ran its campaign on economic issues such as the price rise (blaming the Congress-run Centre). What actually worked was the Congress development plank. The promise of foreign direct investment in retailing being extended to Himachal Pradesh, made by Union Commerce Minister Anand Sharma, also swayed some feelings in a state which is one of India’s biggest producer of fresh fruit and vegetables. Currently, Himachal does not qualify to get FDI in retail because none of its cities are big enough to meet the new law’s requirement. Sharma had, however, promised he would find a way around this clause.
In Gujarat, the debate was on a different plane. Political analyst Ghanshyam Shah said BJP’s victory in the polls meant Modi’s notion of development had worked well. “Modi’s charm and development politics has paid off, which has resulted in him getting votes from the middle class,” said Shah, former professor with Jawaharlal Nehru University.
On what went wrong with the Congress, he opined, “The Congress had no alternative for the development theory of Modi. Nor did they have any strategy to prove Modi’s credentials wrong.”
Another analyst and political observer, Ashok Shrimali, said the Congress’ lack of leadership was a major factor behind their defeat. “They were not able to judge the undercurrent.”
According to Sebastian Morris, professor at the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, “The middle class in Gujarat always wanted somebody to be in charge and they have continued to make sure it stays that way. What might have also worked in favour of the ruling party is that it made some interesting promises in the manifesto, such as houses, a major need, girl child education and public health. However, these promises are equally challenging and we will have to see how each of them are fulfilled.”
He added: “The question was not whether the BJP would win but the difference by which it would. However, there are two types of changes seen during this elections. First, there seems to be a positive change in favour of Congress, leading to a marginal increase in the number of seats. Second, both Congress and BJP seem to have increased their percentage of votes, which shows an increase in strategic voting in Gujarat, keeping national issues in mind.”
Y K Alagh, former member of the Planning Commission, said: “As we were moving into the last phase, the ruling party highlighted a number of issues which was not done in the beginning, like the nutrition commission for women, infrastructure for smaller towns, educational infrastructure, and medical facilities, among others. What it goes on to show is that the election debate brought out the real issues this time. For instance, Gujarat’s industry doesn’t need much state support but it is the tribals and smaller towns who need it. The ruling party responded to these by agreeing to the debate,” the former union minister said. On caste politics, Alagh said, “This may not have worked because this is a diverse state. Hence, the acceptance by major political parties of the diversity of Gujarat has worked in their favour, especially the ruling party.”
