Now if the Indian reality is so complex, how did you jump to the conclusion that it’s a question of governments losing elections rather than the opposition winning it? What makes you say the BJP choosing to focus on Sonia Gandhi’s foreign origin was a mistake? The complexity lies in the fact that there is no single explanation for the kind of results we have seen. What rationale can explain the incumbent government winning in Orissa but losing in Kerala? The TDP government in Andhra loses and the Congress wins but in neighbouring Karnataka it is the turn of the Congress regime to lose with the BJP emerging as the largest party, though short of a majority?
If it’s performance that made the difference, can you honestly say it is because the RJD government in Bihar was so ‘shining’ that the people decided to give the party a big lift? Yet your barbs are never aimed at the ruling party of a state described as dysfunctional by every analyst but at the NDA ("callous, corrupt, divisive government with a seemingly benign leader").
If NDA’s was a "divisive" government, would it have commited to finding a negotiated settlement to the Ayodhya dispute acceptable to all parties instead of imposing one on the parties concerned? Would it have gone out of its way to take the risk of conducting a free and fair election in Kashmir—something by definition 45 years of Congress rule could not do? Or initiated talks with the Naga rebels?
Your source in describing the NDA government as "corrupt" reeks of prejudice when in infrastructure projects worth thousands of crores that it launched no one has said the ruling party made any money (even the Satyendra Dubey incident is about corruption at the local level, in ‘benign’ Laloo-controlled Bihar). The rumpus raised by the Congress about the BALCO sale was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The party has sought to make much of the "Kargil defence deals" but even here it has failed to bring out any convincing evidence so far.
To come back to the foreign origin issue, it was not the BJP or NDA’s exclusive. Remember Sharad Pawar and P.A. Sangma had gone to the extent of splitting the Congress party on that one issue. Also, in 1999, the SP’s Mulayam Singh Yadav had refused to join an anti-BJP front on the very same issue—foreign origin of the Congress president.
So is it a mandate in favour of the Congress? If we take a close look at the results, the vote share of the Congress came down by 1.48 per cent (compared to the 1999 vote) and that of the BJP by 1.54 per cent.
The difference in seats is caused by the distortion in the system (first one past the post), accentuated by the alliances both Congress and the BJP formed. I am not claiming that it’s unique to this election. Similar distortions were there in the assembly elections also, but at that time it favoured the BJP. It would therefore be premature to conclude that the electorate has rejected the BJP or given the mandate to the Congress though we all have to accept the system as it is and bow before the verdict.
The impression Outlook gives that the reforms did not touch the core issues and voters is also debatable. You suggest that poverty has not been addressed by the reforms. Columbia professor Arvind Panagariya claims otherwise (Economic Times, May 18): "The biggest achievement of the reforms to date remains the unprecedented reduction in poverty...". Obviously, it wasn’t possible for the Vajpayee regime to completely eliminate poverty, accumulated over half a century of socialist regimes. Your claim that "the scenario of Congress forming the government with support from socialist parties and the Left augurs well for such issues" should be checked against what the Left and socialists have achieved where they have been in power. You also say that the manufacturing sector would now prosper as against the IT and bpo sectors. In West Bengal, where the Left has been in power for ages, what is the status of the manufacturing sector? As for the other socialists, the status of Bihar is well-known.
Now coming to all the praise you have been heaping on Sonia Gandhi, it’s enough to make even her feel embarrassed. The Congress had not even projected her as its prime ministerial candidate. Obviously, it was unsure of how the people would react to such a suggestion.
And then there was this grand drama being played out of Sonia accepting the "mandate", getting elected and even getting support letters from allies and then suddenly pleading that her "conscience" did not allow her to take over.
Was it more a case of self-doubt, sage advice from some acceptable quarters? Or is it some other game being played out? Perhaps it’s because even she doesn’t agree with Outlook that ‘India accepts Sonia’ and knows it’s not a vote endorsing her candidature for the office of prime minister. I hope Outlook won’t be kicking itself in the next few months lamenting for going all out with the accolades and not seeing through the game behind the so-called sacrifice.
(The writer, a Rajya Sabha MP and BJP think-tank convenor, can be contacted at bpunj@email.com)
