Bihar For BJP

The results of the Bihar Assembly elections were declared on November 10. It was the first full-fledged election in India during the coronavirus pandemic. But that did not deter people from casting their votes. More than 4 crore out of over 7 crore eligible voters stepped out to vote, said the Election Commission. According to the results, National Democratic Alliance (NDA), which comprises BJP, Janata Dal (United) (JDU) of Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, and a couple of small parties, retained Bihar by winning 125 seats in a tightly contested election. Challenging NDA was Grand Alliance, which comprised Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) of Tejashvi Yadav, Congress, and three communist parties. It got 110 seats in the 243-member legislative assembly. The half-way mark is 122.

Just a month before election, it was seen as a cakewalk for the NDA. However, RJD’s Tejashwi Yadav took things into his hands and dominated the election campaign. He set the agenda for the campaign and put the NDA on the defensive. But the NDA got the edge thanks to BJP’s election strategy, Prime Minister Modi’s popularity and communal rhetoric.

Despite the Grand Alliance falling behind the majority mark, RJD became the single largest party in the Assembly. It got 75 seats, while the BJP got 74. It is laudable also because the election was looking one sided for NDA till a month ago. Tejashwi Yadav was nowhere to be seen in the state. Not only his opponents, but his own party members and allies doubted his ability to lead the party and the alliance.

But once the campaign began, Mr. Tejaswi (31) pushed himself into it. He raised the issue of unemployment in the state from where people migrate on a large scale to other states for jobs. It was also significant on the backdrop of thousands of migrant workers facing hardships during the lockdown. Addressing 247 rallies across the state in about a month, he promised 10 lakh jobs if he came to power. The BJP first questioned where will so many jobs come from, and later itself promised 19 lakh jobs if it won.

In response to Tejashwi Yadav’s unemployment issue, the NDA centered its campaign around the fear of the so called Jungle raj during the rule of Tejashwi Yadav’s father Lalu Prasad Yadav between 1990 and 2005, and emotional and communal issues such as Article 370, Ram temple, CAA, Chhatpuja. Senior NDA leaders made personal attacks on Mr. Tejashwi and his family. For example, he was called “jungle raj ka yuvraj” (prince of jungle raj). But he did not respond to them in the similar language or tone and continued his campaign focused on unemployment. That paid off as the campaign did not get ugly and the Grand Alliance got just 12000 votes less than the NDA.

Despite all this, Bihar election 2020 is the story of BJP’s growth in the state. JD (U) which was till now the senior partner in the NDA, and used to win more seats than the BJP, remained far behind in this election with just 43 seats. Both the parties had contested equal number of seats. However, it seems the BJP is not attempting long jump of the kind it attempted in Maharashtra and fell down. In Bihar, it is taking one step at a time. That is why BJP leaders have reiterated that JD (U)’s Nitish Kumar will continue as Chief Minister.

Clearly, RJD and BJP are going to be the two dominant forces in Bihar. Though the communist parties performed well, even better than Congress, their influence is limited. The BJP has been using emotional issues and blatantly communal rhetoric to win elections. However, these strengths will eventually become its limitations, at least in the state elections. Bihar’s people will benefit if both the parties focus instead on issues that have an impact on people’s lives.

Disciplining Democracy

The idea of one nation, one election is back in public debate. The Prime Minister has been talking about it for a while now, but that would not go beyond a mention. This week however, things moved surprisingly fast. He chaired an all party meting on Wednesday to deliberate upon the idea. At the end of the meeting, it was decided that a committee will be formed to further examine it. Next day, president Ram Nath Kovind also expressed his support to the plan, saying that it would facilitate accelerated development.

Every year, on an average four to five states in India go to polls as and when their state assembly’s tenure ends. For instance, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, etc went to polls for their Vidhan Sabhas in November-December last year. Then we had Lok Sabha elections in April-May this year. Elections for Vidhan Sabha in Maharashtra and Haryana will be held in October this year, that of Delhi in February next year, Bihar in October next year, and so on. Because of this, the country constantly remains in election mode. One nation, one election means having elections for Lok Sabha and all the state Vidhan Sabhas simultaneously, so that there would be no major election in India for the next five years.

The supporters of simultaneous elections argue that in the current system, elections put too much pressure on the economy. Simultaneous elections will save a lot of money. Further, elections have become very ugly these days. Corruption is rampant during the time. Deliberate attempts are made by political parties to create conflicts between communities. It disrupts harmony in the society. Also, Election Commission [EC] enforces Model Code of Conduct [MCC] before elections in the region where they are scheduled. In that period, the government cannot undertake any development work. Lastly, the current system of holding elections puts pressure on security forces and election machinery. Large number of security personnel are deployed in election bound region. The government officials, teachers are also put on election duty. Consequently, they are not able to focus on their respective work.

To address these issues, came the idea of simultaneous elections. But it raises another set of questions which are perhaps more serous. Prime Minister and his Council of Ministers are responsible to parliament. Parliament means we the people. Since all of us cannot go and work there, we elect our representatives who work on behalf of us. These are Members of Parliament [MPs]. Prime Minister and his Ministers can stay in office as long as majority of MPs have confidence in them. They have to resign if majority of MPs at any time during the five year term express lack of confidence in them, and we may go to mid-term elections. Similarly, Chief Minister is responsible to Vidhan Sabha at the state level. This ensures that no government works in authoritative manner. They know that five year term is not guaranteed, and certain actions can land them in trouble. The idea of simultaneous elections goes against this very principle of parliamentary democracy. If implemented, this will ensure guaranteed five year term to the government. They can do anything they want. Nobody can remove them before the completion of five years because we don’t want election. The problems don’t end there.

Suppose in 2024, we hold simultaneous elections. After one year, state government of Maharashtra collapses because of Vidhan Sabha’s expression of lack of confidence in it. Who will govern Maharashtra for the next four years? President’s rule? Under normal circumstances, administering a state through President’s rule and not through popularly elected government not only subverts democracy, but denies the right to the people of that state to decide for themselves. That is not all.

State elections are fought on state specific issues. For instance, the issue of farmer suicides in Maharashtra, water scarcity in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, sugarcane farmers not getting their dues in Uttar Pradesh, and so on. Northeastern states have their own issues. The respective state governments have to tell the people what they have done about these issues during elections. National issues will overshadow these issues and the state governments will go unquestioned if we synchronize elections.

Lastly, no doubt most of the regional political parties are family enterprises, but they have made Indian politics more inclusive. Synchronization of elections will further marginalize them, and national parties will dominate at national and state level.

The concerns raised by the supporters of simultaneous elections can be addressed in the current system. We often complain that we spend too much on defence. We could have spent some of it on education and healthcare. But we can’t help because of a hostile neighbour. Similarly, we are a democratic country. Election is an IMPORTANT aspect of democracy. Even if it is costly, we have to conduct it. There is no option. As far as corruption is concerned, election commission does seize lot of cash during elections, but is it seriously checking whether a candidate has spent more than the limit imposed by it? Why doesn’t it disqualify candidates who do not follow its expenditure limit? Why doesn’t EC make it mandatory for all political parties to disclose the amount of donations they got, and the names of donors? Why political parties are not under RTI? Why doesn’t EC punish the politicians found campaigning on communal lines? We can have a system where a candidate will be declared winner only if he/she gets 50% or more of the total votes cast in his/her constituency. In such a system, a candidate will not limit himself/herself to one or two communities and will approach all sections of the society. This way, we can get rid of communal tensions during elections.

The state leaders of national political parties will take care of election campaign of their state elections. National leaders can continue policy making and other development work. What is the need to get disproportionately involved in a state election which is fought on state specific issues? Scope of MCC can be discussed and changes can be made, if necessary, to ensure that it doesn’t obstruct development work. In case of a state election, MCC only comes in force where the election is scheduled, and not in the entire country. Can all this happen without changing current system of holding elections?

We can think of giving EC its own staff. Or EC can appoint common people as poling agents with little training. As far as security forces are concerned, they work to ensure internal and external security of the nation. Holding regular, free and fair elections is important for India’s internal security. Democracy is the common thread which has kept India together. Otherwise why would such a diverse population remain under one central rule for over 70 years?

All that said, things tend to be somewhat chaotic in democracy. We cannot try to fix them beyond a limit. Doing so amounts to disciplining democracy. The idea of simultaneous elections is aimed at that.

After The Landslide

It was clear since before election and during electioneering that, Narendra Modi will become Prime Minister for the second time. Because the opposition neither had any leader, nor any idea which could mobilize the voters. Congress’ minimum income guarantee scheme did have the potential, but it came too late, and the Congress was only on social media and not on the ground. Given this, I was hoping that National Democratic Alliance [NDA] will form the government with BJP emerging as a single largest party, but not crossing the 272 mark. I was hoping that the 2014 performance of the BJP [282 seats] was all time best performance and it can’t go higher than that. But Thursday’s result stunned all of us. The BJP on its own got a whopping 303 seats and the Congress came a distant second with 52 seats.

How is it that despite agrarian distress, economic slowdown, joblessness, poor implementation of GST, and demonetization BJP got 21 seats more than 2014? How is it that there was not even slightest anti incumbency? The answer is in just two words: Narendra Modi. Not only during election, but in the past 5 years India’s public debate revolved excessively around him. Narendra Modi was everywhere. He was in his campaign, he was in opposition’s campaign, he was on television screens, on mobile screens, in he newspapers, in people’s living rooms, in people’s minds! It includes both, his supporters and his critics. Just like his supporters gave him credit for anything and everything, his opponents criticized him for anything and everything. When his critics pointed finger at him for each and every problem, ignoring the bigger picture and sometimes even getting personal, people started sympathizing with him. It did not go down well with an average Indian voter that everybody is criticizing one person day in and day out, a person who “has come from humble background”, who works for “17-18 hours a day” for the country, who “has sacrificed his life for the country”. He also very cleverly played victim card, telling people that everybody is after him because they can’t see that a “tea vendor” has become prime minister. In all this, issues disappeared and everything was all about Narendra Modi. Of course, credit must be given to the media and his PR team.

When any leader emerges, he carries with him certain ideas. They may belong to him, or to the organisation which backs him. They may be the ideas of development, ideas about how we imagine ourselves as a community or a country, ideas about worldview. These ideas continue to exist even after the leader is gone. It is these ideas that shape our future course and not the leader who popularized these ideas. If we look at the history of modern India, we can see that different leaders had carried different sets of ideas which brought us where we are today. The ideas which emerged during our freedom movement continued to guide us after independence as well. While the leaders who had carried the idea are not with us. Modi also carries certain ideas. They are not entirely his but are of the organisation which backs him. He has risen to top powered by that organisation. Through Modi, the organisation is popularizing its ideas.

Now that the election is over and Narendra Modi is here to stay at least for the next five years, we must ask ourselves a question. Why do we support/oppose Narendra Modi so much? Is it just because he is Narendra Modi? Or is it because we agree/disagree with the ideas which he carries? If the first is our answer, then we need to rethink. India is a huge country. One person cannot run it alone. He needs a party or an organisation, which does not support him for free. Mahatma Gandhi could become a national figure partly because of a huge Congress organisation. Ignoring this and blindly supporting/opposing one person amounts to a great disservice not only to the country but to democracy as well. If the second is our answer, then we need to do a course correction. First, let’s talk about the supporters. Narendra Modi is not going to stay here for centuries. But the ideas can. Instead of highly banking on him, we should propagate the ideas and convince people to embrace them as these are the best for our country. For critics, instead of criticizing Modi every now and then, we should criticize the ideas. We should tell the people how dangerous these ideas are, and give an alternative set of ideas which people should embrace for the betterment of our country and humanity. It is only if we walk on one path, will we be able to reach our destination and not by changing paths again and again.

Well, we have time to answer the question and change our future course of action accordingly. For now, let’s congratulate Mr. Modi and BJP for a landslide victory, and hope that the next government will work for a prosperous, progressive and inclusive India. Let’s also hope that the government will work towards removing as much artificial hurdles from the way of individuals as it can, so that every individual gets an opportunity to do what he/she loves to do.