Gujarat and BJP: Why discontent did not spell defeat

At the time of writing, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) appears poised to end up with 15 seats fewer than in 2012. Yet, this does not translate, by any reckoning, into an anti-BJP mandate along the lines many had led us to expect. Those who had forecast a Congress victory powered by a groundswell of discontent have certainly been proved wrong.

We heard various reasons for the way the polls were supposedly shaping up against the BJP. The Gujarat model was biased in favour of industry, agrarian distress was pervasive and the BJP would get a taste of farmers’ wrath. The Gujarat model was not creating enough jobs. Hardik Patel, the Patidar leader, would take away a chunk of the community’s vote from the BJP. Violence inflicted on Scheduled Castes in the state had alienated this segment of the electorate. 

Demonetisation and the goods and services tax (GST) was bound to evoke a backlash from small businesses and traders, both long-time supporters of the BJP. The BJP’s message of vikas had become jaded. That is why Prime Minister Narendra Modi had resorted to diversions such as the meeting between his predecessor Manmohan Singh and a former Pakistan foreign minister at the residence of Mani Shankar Aiyar.   

Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay, Mr Modi’s biographer and commentator on Gujarat politics, spoke for many in his fraternity when he wrote, “The feel on the ground amplifies what has been sensed for several weeks — that this routine poll, considered a cakewalk a few months ago, has assumed extraordinary importance. ...People burdened with joblessness and agrarian crisis due to non-remunerative prices cross into semi-urban pockets and meet kinsmen with creases on faces similar to theirs, but pinning the blame on other issues: Demonetisation and GST roll-out. These two have become metaphors of stagnation. ….BJP has obviously stumbled by failing to sense straws in the wind since mid-2015.” (The Economic Times, November 27). 

Well, the outcome of the election shows that much of the above was armchair analysis or wishful thinking. True, the contest has been closer than on the last occasion. Nevertheless, the outcome is striking for four reasons. One, the BJP is poised for another term in office win after 22 years in power. Two, the BJP won despite having studiously refrained from promising farm loan waivers, unlike in the Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections; the Congress, in contrast, promised to waive farm loans and its president, Rahul Gandhi, lashed out at Mr Modi for the BJP’s stand on the issue. Three, the Congress did not profit much from vote-bank politics: It had promised Patidars quotas within the constitutionally permissible limit of 49 per cent whereas the BJP refused to be drawn into this game. Four, the BJP has been returned to power even though demonetisation and the GST have meant short-term pain for some of its core supporters. 

It’s worth pondering why the sources of discontent that the Congress focused on did not translate into a victory, whatever the increase in share of votes. Agrarian distress is a fact of life, not just in Gujarat, but in all of India. It is the result of the neglect of agriculture consequent to economic reforms initiated in 1991. It’s fair to say, however, that agriculture in Gujarat has done better than in most other parts of the country — in the first decade of this century, agriculture grew by an impressive 11 per cent. 

As for the disruptions caused by demonetisation and the GST, Mr Modi’s message that some sacrifice was required for the larger good has resonated with ordinary people in Gujarat as in states such as Uttar Pradesh. Businessmen in Gujarat seem to have taken these disruptions in their stride. For all the reports about the havoc visited on small businesses, bankers report very little stress on their micro- and small-enterprises book. It may well be that the firms that have been hit are not the ones to which banks are exposed. Still, it is a surprise that the formal or banked sector has not felt the knock-on effects of the reported turmoil in the informal sector. 

Mr Modi caused much outrage in the English media with his remarks about Dr Singh’s meeting with Pakistani officials and ex-officials. The outrage, it would appear, is not shared by voters in Gujarat. In politics, timing is everything. At the very least, Dr Singh’s meeting, which happened on the eve of elections in Gujarat, was poorly timed. Mr Modi’s calculated outburst on the subject may have been more astute than his detractors might think. 

During the campaign, Congress spokesmen asked why Mr Modi was not talking vikas in the Gujarat elections. The short answer, perhaps, is that it was not necessary for him to promise vikas since the electorate believed he had delivered substantially on it. The people of Gujarat have bijlee, sadak, pani. Industry has thrived. The average voter seems to have asked himself: Why take a governance risk with a party that had no local face to project and that promised a return to disruptive vote-bank politics?
 

The writer is a professor at IIM-Ahmedabad 

ttr@iima.ac.in