Eight states comprising almost one-third of India went to the polls during the past six months. Elections to the Karnatka, Andhra, Goa and Sikkim assemblies had been held in November-December while the polling to the Maharashtra, Gujarat, Orissa and Manipur assemblies was completed last week. The Bihar Assembly is likely to be elected later this month. One important feature of the election results has been the debacle of the ruling Congress (I) party. So far, the Congress (I) has lost big, important states-Andhra, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Gujarat. The party has the consolation of winning a majority in small-sized Orissa state. Both in Goa and Manipur, the Congress (I) could not get a majority of seats but was able to cobble up governments on the strength of horse-trading.

Political observers in India have interpreted the results in different ways. Some think the voters have rejected the Congress(I)’s policy of economic liberalization. Others believe that the loss of Congress(I) power in most states is due to the poor public image of prime minister Rao. Still others are of the view that the Indian voter is essentially anti-establishment and turns against every ruling party after sometime. It is worth noting that regional parties like the Janata Dal and the Telgu Desam emerged as alternatives to Congress (I) in Karnatka and Andhra Pradesh while the BJP-Shiv Sena combination was victorious in Maharashtra and Gujarat. In Orissa, the Congress (I) replaced the Biju-Patnaik-led Janata Dal. However, the Congress (I) was all but routed in Manipur but was able to arrange a majority and form a government there. The BJP could win in Maharashtra and Gurjarat with the help of Shiv Sena which does not claim to be a national organization. It is based on Maratha identity and is anti-south. So the BJP could not claim the results in the two states to be the vindication of its policies. It will be more appropriate to say that the BJP is a regional party for Maharashtra and Gurjarat in the same way as CPM is for West Bengal. Even the Congress(I) has been reduced to a regional force for Orissa.

The results as such have vindicated the WSN thesis that India is not a nation-state but is a combination of several nation states. That is why no single party there could be called a national party. There is preponderance of local, regional parties. Another significant feature of the election results is the total alienation of Muslims and other minorities from both Congress (I) and the BJP – Shiv Sena alliance. The minorities caused numerous Independents’ victory. The Muslims have once again taught Congress(I) a lesson for its role in the destruction of Babri masjid and in crushing their protest in December 1992.

There appears to be substantial truth in the statement that the Indian people are basically anti-establishment. They dethrone every ruling party after sometime. It tends to show that the present Indian state is repressive. That does not mean that Brahmans are anti-establishment. It is basically the minorities, Dalits and backward communities who are anti-establishment. The spokesmen of the Indian state tried to confuse Muslims on the eve of elections that, that lawless law, TADA, would be repealed. But the Indian law minister Bharoway declared a day after the poll that TADA would not be repealed. That clearly shows the character of the Indian state.

A few observers believe that the Indian voter had rejected the economic liberalization introduced by the Rao government. The statement is based on a wrong premise. It is assumed that the Rao policies are liberal. The Tribune has rightly noted that doing away with certain cumbersome procedures could not be called economic reforms. A government wedded to fascist laws like TADA could not by definition be liberal. Yet whatever little reforms have been introduced may be in danger of being scrapped as a result of Congress (1) defeat in Maharashtra and Gurjarat where maximum money has been pumped in after the so-called reforms were introduced.

The results herald the onset of political insatiability at India’s center. The prospect may frighten away some foreign capital. No substantial additional investments are likely unless the situation promises hope. There may be stepped up factionalism in the Congress (I). In any case, the Indian voter is in search of change from the oppressive present to a more congenial future. –

A  future free from corruption, maladministration and oppression.

 

Article extracted from this publication >> March 17, 1995