Every election revolves around a theme. Political parties work their strategies in keeping with this central, overarching idea, trying to promote or discredit it. The party whose programme becomes the theme, seizes the initiative; the others can only react. There is no saying though how voters will react.
In 1971, Indira Gandhi came up with Garibi Hatao, a simple enough proposition that galvanised the voters who saw her Congress detractors, as fat cats supporting the rich. She won handsomely. In 1977, the newly formed Janata Party urged voters to teach a lesson to Indira Gandhi who had imposed the Emergency and they did. When she was assassinated, the sympathy vote went to her son. All these were examples of one party controlling the message to which the others had no answer. On the other hand, when the National Democratic Alliance tried to convince voters that India was “shining” and smugly sat back to reap the fruits, the voters gave a stunning riposte; India was not only not glittering, but they were immensely dissatisfied with the state of affairs. It sent the BJP out of power for 10 years.
This time round, the Bharatiya Janata Party chose to focus on the United Progressive Alliance’s abject failures on the economic front. The scams, inflation, the slowdown in growth, the lack of clear cut land policies that were holding up investment — all of these pointed to not just lackluster governance, but a lack of ideas. Economic drift therefore became the main theme to attack the United Progressive Alliance. The BJP then offered the alternative — Narendra Modi, who had shown dynamic results in his home state of Gujarat, was the man to lead the country. He would set right the malaise and put India on a rapid growth path. “Development” became the key word of his message and it was a hit, especially in urban India. A vast new constituency, unhappy with the state of affairs, was ready to overlook
Mr Modi’s other failures and the stain of 2002. They bought the Gujarat model story and they bought the idea that he was a decisive, tough leader who would cut through the swathe of sluggish bureaucratic decision making and get things done. There would be no wastage of precious funds over social welfare schemes under him. He would create conditions that would benefit all, the industrialists, the professional, the poor, whether they be Hindu or Muslim. The Messiah was coming and he had all the answers. That was to be the theme of this elections.
But how quickly things change. The word “development” has not been used in campaign speeches for some time now. The Gujarat model figures nowhere in discussions. The UPA’s economic mismanagement barely comes up in debates.
Instead, the BJP has switched gears and put all its energies in talking about emotive issues such as caste and religion. Party leaders such as Amit Shah and Giriraj Singh and other members of the broader Sangh parivar like Swami Ramdev and Praveen Togadia have gone full throttle in making hateful remarks about dalits and Muslims. On his part Mr Modi, the man who coined the phrase hum paanch hamare pachchees attacked Muslims in West Bengal and stood in Faizabad with a huge portrait of Lord Ram behind him. There is no mistaking the messaging here.
There are two ways of interpreting this dramatic change — either the BJP figured out that the development story was not really getting much traction, especially since there was enough evidence that not all the claims Mr Modi was making about Gujarat were true.
Arvind Kejriwal, by openly talking about crony capitalism and the freebies given by the Modi government to big industrialists showed that the development story was actually one-sided.
Besides, other states had done much better than Gujarat and had not tom-tommed their achievements. That put paid to Mr Modi’s claim that only he could set the national economy on the appropriate growth path.
But consider the other explanation — that the BJP fell back on polarisation as a vote-getting strategy because it is what they know best. In crucial states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, where the Muslim vote counts for a lot and caste configurations are critical, there is no point talking about how prosperous Gujarat has become when you have to face Mayawati, Lalu Prasad Yadav or Mulayam Singh Yadav. Mr Modi fully played up his OBC status even if there is some confusion about it.
Politically, this may seem like a sound strategy, but it sends out a clear signal that whenever it is under pressure, the BJP reverts to its tried and tested formula of religion-based communal politics.
This election therefore is not just about development or getting the economy back on track. It is also about Hindutva. The BJP’s worldview includes not just boosting investment but also throwing out Bangladeshi Muslims and welcoming Hindus into the country.
It is about warning those who are against Mr Modi that they will be sent off to Pakistan. It is about honouring those who took part in the Muzaffarpur riots. But corporate types sitting in the boardrooms tend to ignore these elements. They see only the possibility of more investment opportunities, more flexible labour laws, easier ways to acquire farmers’ land. If some social upheaval has to happen on the way to greater profits, so be it.
Embodying all these hopes and aspirations is Mr Modi. He is all things to all people. There was a glimmer of hope after Atal Behari Vajpayee’s six-year tenure that the BJP had shed its past and was now moving towards becoming a party committed to governance.
Indeed, chief ministers like Shivraj Chouhan and Raman Singh were held up as examples of a new breed of BJP men who were more focused on governance than divisive issues.
For a short while even Mr Modi fell into that category. But now that mask has fallen off and Mr Modi is the man leading the BJP back to the future.
