Lessons from the Indian election

I am opposed to religious fanaticism, be it Islamic, Christian or Hindu. The state has no religion; people living in it may have their own religions. Ipso facto, and on that score alone, I shouldn't have any sympathy for a political party like the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) or its leader Mr. Narendra Modi. The 2002 riot in Gujarat that left more than 1000 killed, most of them Muslims, which was alleged to have been fanned by Modi as Chief Minister, and BJP's vow to build Ram Mandir at the site of the demolished Babri Mosque cannot be acceptable to civil and progressive sections. It is thus no wonder that from Nobel laureate Amartya Sen to eminent columnist Kuldip Nayer, all prayed to see BJP out of the citadel of power in Delhi.
Poll forecasts have miserably failed. Pre- and exit-poll surveys hinted at BJP's win with its coalition; President Pranab Mukherjee was consulting constitutional experts to solve the problem of a majority government in case parliament was hung. But throwing dust in the eyes of secular forces, the vendor-turned-admired-politician Narendra Modi led his party to win the Lok Shaba election by a thumping majority. BJP alone has won 282 seats - 10 seats more than is required for forming a government. In last 30 years, it is for the first time that a single party has won so many seats. The so-called secular forces saw their sunset in a knee-deep frustration. The Congress that ruled India for most of the period after independence had to concede a humiliating defeat by bagging only 44 seats - the lowest ever by the party. The result is so pathetic that even Mamata Benarjee's Trinamool Congress (Paschimbanga-based party) almost caught up with Congress by bagging 34 seats. The worst performers are the Left who won only 13 seats all over India.
This is called the pulse of the people, and the beauty of democracy. A party that fails to read people's pulse is doomed to be vanquished by the electoral process. The reality is that Indian voters witnessed almost an absence of governance in their country for the last few years. Rampant corruption among the ruling class without any respect to the rule of law, news of raping women in running buses, weak organisational activities etc. have led people to choose a new leader for their country. Indian economy has been reeling for the last few years with economic growth sliding, poverty rate up, and major socio-political problems remaining unresolved. An honest, highly educated and internationally famous person as Prime Minister was alone not sufficient to save the rocking boat of the Congress.
Narendra Modi and his party BJP should duly be credited on two grounds if not more. First, Modi's ascendance from a vendor - selling tea with his father at local railway station - to an admired leader of India is itself exemplary. Modi completed graduation from universities even living in poverty and being involved in politics full-time. Further, getting elected as Chief Minister four times in a row in a State like Gujarat is no mean achievement in a country like India. Secondly, BJP is not a family-based party as Congress is known to be. From Atal Bihari Bajpayee to Narendra Modi, all have developed as politicians from the grassroots and not from a dynastic den. Dynastic politics have withered in many countries, including Sri Lanka, but in India (so in Bangladesh) one could hardly expect that anybody outside Nehru family could lead Congress. When a particular political party upholds a dynastic political structure, it sees no competition among the leaders, and as monopoly in economics, results in less and inefficient output. Second, dynastic politics always keep supporters as constant as in our country - no matter how the party performs, the supporters are assumed to support everything coming along the way.
The most important question is whether a change in power in Delhi would affect the diplomatic calculus prevailing between two neighbours, Bangladesh and India. One should be cautious in making a grandiose generalisation as that could be counterproductive. The way this time BJP has dented into the den of Congress and allies in places like Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh and other secular regions, Indian domestic policies are likely to witness a big jolt and foreign policy might be affected as per the requirement of domestic interests. Bangladesh would have to wait until that to happen.
Nevertheless, a priori reasoning would suggest that the water and the land boundary issues are going to be shelved for some more time. The bilateral trade imbalance that has shown a sign of improvement marginally over the last few years could see deterioration with the Indian business community pressing for more protection from Bangladeshi products.
We may draw some lessons from the Indian election. First, bad governance is baneful in a regime of transparent electoral process. People feel the pinch of bad governance even living in their own surroundings. You cannot expect votes from an area on the plea that you have constructed a good road or developed irrigation facilities unless you can control extortions, rape and murders that your partymen are engaged in. People might appreciate that secularism or nationalism is enshrined in your party manifesto but the rate of unemployment, economic growth, income inequality, prices of essentials, degree of corruption etc, are the main ingredients to mould voters' perception about the performance of a political party.
May be BJP could seize upon the prevailing sentiments of the Indian people. But the future of those sitting in power would depend very much on the delivery of goods and services and not on the rhetoric used during the election. Till that to happen, congratulations to the vendor-turned-admired-leader of India.
Abdul Bayes is a Professor
of Economics at
Jahangirnagar University.
[email protected]