44-day polls: 10 hot takes

2024 was a one-candidate election. Narendra Modi was the only candidate for whom the BJP sought votes, and he was the only opponent most of its rivals wanted defeated

Our longest general election campaign, except for 1951-52, has just ended as temperatures teased the 50-degree mark. It’s time to list our 10 takeaways.
 

* The first is the number of media interviews the Prime Minister (PM) gave across publications. Some followers claim it to be in the three figures. For an establishment so wary — even contemptuous — of the media, it’s a lot. Important takeaway: No headlines emerged out of these. A possible exception is the interview with Rubika Liyaquat of News18, in which he said that if he indulged in “Hindu-Muslim” rhetoric, he’d be unworthy of public life.
 

* If the first highlight is how much Mr Modi spoke to the media, the second is how little Rahul Gandhi did. He did not give any interviews. He spoke at short press conferences, but left direct communication with the media to sister Priyanka. 

The important political highlight, partly owed to this, is that it’s the first campaign where Rahul wasn’t seen to have made a gaffe.
 

* The headlines in his election campaign emerged almost entirely from the PM’s speeches. The first thing this tells us is that it was a one-candidate election. It follows that anything he said became news. It could be Katchatheevu, mangalsutra, ghuspethiye, Kartpur Sahib and Indira Gandhi with the 1971 POWs, or workers from the Hindi heartland, Sanatana Dharma facing insults in southern states. If you researched the headlines that set the agenda in this election, phase by phase, 18 out of 20 came from the PM’s speeches. None from his interviews. With him, everything as we know is a set-piece. So don’t over-interpret this.
 

* Following from this third point is the absence of an overarching Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) pitch. In 2014, it was the UPA-2 “scams” and the promise of achche din (better times). There was also an assertion of muscularity in foreign policy, especially towards the Chinese. The three-point proposition, therefore, was massive economic reform, ending corruption, and a “56-inch chest” approach to national security. In 2019, national security defined the campaign. This time, there was no one theme. On the economy, growth, or jobs, all smart politicians know it’s perilous to seek votes on past performance, as Vajpayee learnt 

in 2004.
 

If 2014 and 2019 were respectively achche din and national security elections, how should we remember 2024? It was a Modi election. A Modi TINA (there’s no alternative) election. In the process, the party manifesto was forgotten, subsumed by “Modi ki Guarantee”. Even when Modi/BJP spoke of a manifesto, it was mostly about the Congress party’s.
 

* Changed geopolitics hung heavy on this campaign for the BJP. It moderated the discourse on national security. It was brought in here and there, such as when the PM compared predecessors’ dossiers (on terrorists) to Pakistan with his “ghus ke maarenge” (killing terrorists in enemy territory) approach. This rocket did not have the fuel to last even into its second stage in 2024. 
 

There are two reasons for this. One, that no such notable action had been carried out, or necessitated, in the past five years. And two, the international mess over the Nijjar-Pannun affair made it that much tougher to claim any of that as an achievement. If anything, it dimmed the afterglow of the G20, particularly with US President Joe Biden not coming for Republic Day, and the plan of an impromptu Quad summit around that time not working out. 
 

Changed geopolitics also brought in new limitations. Remember, the four-year Chinese “dharna” in eastern Ladakh, with increased activity across the entire Line of Actual Control, muscular foreign policy responses weren’t available in this campaign.
 

* If the BJP failed to find a theme except if-not-Modi-then-who, the Opposition also struggled for cohesion. It was wary of fighting a Modi-versus-who fight. Since Mr Modi was the target and there was so much by way of his speeches and interviews to mine, the Opposition conjured up hundreds of memes and short clips that spread fast. If social media virality counted in an “election”, the Opposition won it this time! Beyond this, the parties, especially those in the INDIA bloc, tried breaking this into many local/regional elections. It was easier for the regional parties, but had its limitations in the big, seat-rich states.
 

* On one issue, the Opposition was quick to its feet and landed an early punch. The initial BJP slogan of “400 paar” was immediately read as a threat to alter the Constitution and take away what’s non-negotiable for many sections of voters, especially, for a large demographic, the fear of losing reservations. This threw the BJP back and it stopped repeating that boast. Collaterally, for the first time since 1977, it turned the sanctity of the Constitution into an issue.
 

* Yet the Opposition couldn’t make institutional capture and individual liberties into an abiding theme. Invoking the Emergency ran into three challenges. One, it was promulgated by the Congress. Two, a majority of voters today were born after 1977 and have no memory of the Emergency. And three, the Emergency was a mass atrocity that crores suffered. Today, the denial of freedoms, the use of the agencies, is limited to some select elites, from Opposition leaders to civil society and the media. It didn’t turn into mass anger.
 

* While the campaign was almost entirely about Mr Modi, the BJP saw the rise of another key campaigner in Amit Shah. He addressed 188 rallies across the country, was a good magnet for the faithful and prolifically made headlines. We had noted his rise as a dominant BJP figure in a 2017 article titled “Rise of the party commissar”. While that remains, this election marked his stepping beyond that backroom. The use of the expression “stepping beyond” rather than “stepping out” is deliberate. It signifies that he hasn’t left the backroom, where he is such an important and powerful figure for the BJP. He’s been the second most powerful figure in the BJP since 2013. Now, he’s also the second most visible.
 

* And finally, a rant. Did this election really have to go on for 44 days? The 1996 election lasted all of 11 days. The next, 1998, took 20, and 1999 stretched over 28 days. It moderated a bit to 21 in 2004 but has been rising since then, going up to 28 again in 2009, 36 in 2014, 39 in 2019, and now 44 days. 
 

It’s a painful paradox. On the one hand, connectivity and communication have improved dramatically, and we rightly boast to the world about our super-efficient EVM system, the end of booth-capturing. Yet our campaign season is getting longer. 
 

I know it will be said that the Election Commission did this to enable Mr Modi to reach more parts of the country as his party’s sole messenger. As our numbers show, however, the campaign season has been lengthening since 1996. It beats me why the EC should continue doing this— unless it wants to catch up with a full IPL season, 61 days. We’ll have to wait until 2029.

By special arrangement with ThePrint