This round of 107 seats covers many of the communally sensitive places in the country. Ahmedabad and Godhra in Gujarat, Dhar and Ujjain in Madhya Pradesh, Barabanki in Uttar Pradesh, Bhagalpur and Purnia in Bihar and Hubli and Dakshina Kannada in Karnataka. The BJP performed much better here than in the rest of the country: it secured nearly 30 per cent of the vote and won 41 of the seats last time. This is not merely because this phase includes the BJP stronghold of Gujarat. It is also because the BJP did better in these areas of Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and West Bengal.
The constituencies in this phase do not have more Muslims than the national average. Except for the pocket in north-east Bihar and its adjoining area in Bengal, there are not many Muslim-dominated constituencies in this phase. The two parts of West Bengal that go to polls in this first round in the State are Dalit and adivasi-dominated. North Bengal has one of the highest concentrations of Dalits in the country and the State’s western region bordering Jharkhand and Orissa has a sizeable adivasi population.
Dalit votes There are more Dalits who will vote in this phase in Uttar Pradesh than in any other phase. A substantial Dalit and adivasi population also goes to the polls today in Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat. What links the population profile to communal sensitivity is the fact that this phase is disproportionately urban.
It is a mistake to assume that the BJP’s dominance in this area is solely due to communal polarisation. Take Gujarat, for example. All the 26 seats in the State go to polls. The BJP has dominated Gujarat over the last two decades, never having lost an election since 1991. The closest it came to losing was in the Lok Sabha election of 2004, when the difference between it and the Congress was a mere two percentage points of the popular vote; the Congress managed to wrest 12 seats in that election. But the BJP followed this up with its famous victory in the 2007 Assembly election.
In command If this election is translated into Lok Sabha seats, it would mean that the BJP would get 17 against the Congress’ nine. The BJP would expect therefore to improve on its performance in 2004. Though Mr. Advani is contesting from the State, the party command is firmly with Chief Minister Narendra Modi, whose nominees include 19 new faces. This has led to serious dissension, especially among BJP workers loyal to Keshubhai Patel. But as he did during the Assembly election in 2007, Mr. Modi is capable of dealing with such revolts.
His success in Gujarat is not merely a result of communal venom. This has been combined with a good developmental record and an appeal to Gujarati self-respect. If this package has worked in Gujarat, some of the blame must be accorded to the Congress. It has failed to come up with an effective political and ideological counter. In fact, the latest Supreme Court order on the SIT investigation on Modi had Congressmen — rather than BJP leaders – worried. They feared he may take electoral advantage from the order.
In Madhya Pradesh too, the BJP would expect to get the lion’s share of the 16 seats that go to the polls in the Chambal, Malwa and Nimar regions. In 2004 it won 13 of them. In the 2008 Assembly election, the BJP led in nine parliamentary seats and the Congress in six. But the latter seems to lack the organisational capacity to take advantage of this opportunity.
If the BJP does well here, it will be interpreted as a confirmation of the probation of the newly elected State government and its Chief Minister; also, an indictment of the Congress party. Communal polarisation is not a part of the BJP’s strategy here.
The same cannot be said about coastal Karnataka, where affiliates of the Sangh Parivar have carefully orchestrated a hate campaign for well over a decade. This can affect the electoral outcome in two or three of the 11 seats that go to polls in Coastal, Central and South Karnataka. The BJP had won all but two of these seats last time. It may not be easy to repeat that performance.
Even if it repeats its performance in the Assembly election last year, it will win only six seats. The party needs the extra bounce that it seems to have managed in every Lok Sabha election in Karnataka over the last two decades. Here again, the Congress is a divided house, battling more with itself than with the BJP. Only a tacit understanding with the JD(S) might help the Congress pick some seats.
Sensitive spots Some of the communally sensitive spots such as Bhagalpur, Lucknow and Kanpur go to polls in U.P. and Bihar but the election does not revolve around religious identity. Communal polarisation has a role to play in the Muslim-dominated Purnia district in Bihar. That is why the BJP did well here in 2004 despite a UPA wave. This time, Nitish Kumar is a serious contender for the Pasmanda (backward) Muslim vote and has firmly checked the BJP’s urge to polarise the vote.
The Rashtriya Janata Dal-LJP alliance has been on the backfoot in the first two phases and would like to stage a recovery. But the presence of the Congress is making it difficult for them. In Uttar Pradesh, this phase belongs to the Bahujan Samaj Party, which won six of the 15 seats last time and led in 10 parliamentary seats in the 2007 Assembly election. Political reports routinely underestimate the strength of the BSP. Even so, it seems to have been unable to repeat its 2007 performance in the first two phases. This s a crucial recovery phase for the party. Even diehard BJP supporters will concede, notwithstanding the Varun Gandhi episode, that Hindutva is not an issue in this election in U.P.
Case apart The contest in West Bengal is a case apart and has little to do with communal mobilisation. The CPI(M)’s transition from a radical party of the rural poor and industrial workers to a left-of-the-centre party with cross-sectional appeal has reached a critical point. The much talked about gains of the New Left among the urban middle classes and the rural rich are set to be matched, or even surpassed, by losses among the rural and the urban poor. Events such as Nandigram and Singur have had a bigger impact than the Left leadership may have anticipated. In this context, the once-failed alliance between the TMC and the Congress acquires a special significance. Clearly, this is the toughest electoral challenge that the Left has faced after coming to power in 1977.
This phase involves constituencies where the Congress is strongest and the TMC weakest. In North Bengal, the question of regional autonomy for the Nepali- speaking Darjeeling area and for the much bigger Kamtapuri-speaking Uttarbango has acquired salience. So far the Congress-TMC alliance appears to be working better than it did in 2001, largely because the workers at the ground level have forced the leaders into an anti-Left front unity. This might mean a significant shrinkage in the BJP vote. Yet, no one can take lightly the might of the CPI(M) organisation and its election machine, especially in the South-Western region which has a significant adivasi population. The battle for West Bengal promises to be one of the keenest in this election.
The first two phases of polling have seen a decent turnout. Andhra Pradesh and Orissa voted heavily, thanks to the simultaneous elections to the State Assembly. Sikkim is the only State in this round to hold Assembly elections as well. The ruling Sikkim Democratic Front appears to be comfortably placed against a weak and divided Opposition. Except West Bengal, these are not traditional high turnout States. As the summer heat intensifies, there is a serious possibility of a fairly low turnout in this phase.
Home turf On balance, the BJP is not placed badly on its home turf. While it may not have a major setback, its challenge is to post major gains in this round, which is required if it is to match or overtake the Congress in the race to be the single largest party. Its success is not always a result of divisive and communal politics. If the BJP has succeeded in expanding beyond a narrow sectarian base, it is by becoming a more normal party of development and governance. This is precisely what happens to ‘extreme’ parties when they enter democratic competition. This welcome thought needs to be tempered by another not-so-welcome question: while Indian politics has no doubt transformed the BJP, has the BJP also shifted the terms of debate? Has it, quietly but firmly, reshaped our idea of India?
[Yogendra Yadav is a Senior Fellow at the CSDS, Delhi and the Editor of Samayik Varta. Contact: yogendra.election @gmail.com]
