NEW DELHI, 10 August 2003 — The most iconoclastic approach to elections I have ever heard was from an old woman with laughing eyes who had been elected four times from Bihar to the Lok Sabha. She never aspired to be a minister; she was happy in Parliament, she never understood what the fuss was about. Those were the days when an election campaign stretched to 40 back-breaking days. This charming lady never risked her back. For 36 days, she said, she locked her room from inside and instructed her staff to lie generously to any voter or campaign aide who wanted to know where she was. Then, four days before polling she handed out funds from her election budget to everyone in queue.
The logic was simple. First, this saved her totally unnecessary physical work. Second, the sight of money at the last minute calmed all the anger of denial during the previous 36 days. Third, spending for four days was far more sensible than spending for 36 or even 10. Finally, elections were won by waves, so why exert oneself. If the wave was in your direction it would carry you to glory. If not, it would leave you among the great unwashed. So why worry?
The attitude was truly iconoclastic, because it smashed every holy image of democracy. But who has the courage to say she was wrong? If it is all a matter of fate, why interfere? Leave the management of waves and tides to the leaders, and be happy. Don’t argue with fate.
But of course every election is an argument with fate. That is what gives it dynamism. Elections are civilized battles for power, and they are crafted as meticulously, war-gamed as rigorously as any campaign planned by military generals. The mathematics of weakness is a science of its own, and every general takes as much care as he can to ensure that every breach in the demographic fort is mended before start of actual hostilities.
Certain positions are axiomatic. No election is a repetition of the last one. Victory, as usual, is far less instructive than defeat, which is why incumbents are far more vulnerable than the hungry. The hungry have nothing to lose but their dreams; the incumbents have five years of comfort, cash and power to protect; they have accountability at stake. The edge is raw on both sides, but hunger for power is always a more decisive motivation. Those who ride in on a wave must understand that a second wave will rise for reasons different from the previous one; the crest will look similar but will be patterned differently. Hence, the foam of oratory must travel in a new language. The language of the past will deflate any wave before it has taken you to your destination.
It is equally obvious that no general believes he is heading for defeat. Ground realities are not the issue. In politics reality must be transformed into fact, and that can only happen when the ballot is beyond reach in the ballot box. A general cannot be defeatist before the day of battle, otherwise there will be no battle. Opinion polls may stare an incumbent in the face and wallop him across the brain, but a hundred loopholes will be used to puncture the opinion poll. There is even some merit in such self-confidence. For starters, opinion polls are not sacrosanct. And an opinion is precisely what it says it is, an opinion. In other words, if it is an opinion then it is open to change. A campaign is all about either changing or consolidating an opinion. The danger lies in a closed mind or shut eyes. The worst defeat that the Congress suffered was in the general elections of 1977, but not a single Congressman saw it coming. He could not. The party in 1977 was too full of itself to see beyond itself.
Battle lines are being drawn again, bringing such thoughts back into circulation. The Congress can no longer be accused of being blind to its overall situation or it has sensibly lowered its expectations from 300 seats in the next Lok Sabha elections to 200. The latter figure may be optimistic but, unlike 300, it is not stupid. The Congress accepts privately, although it cannot admit publicly, that it has mortgaged itself in a key state like Bihar to the irascible coattails of a Laloo Yadav, and can do nothing about it now.
And yet, if someone in the Congress had the sense to ponder, he would look at the state of the party in Jharkhand (till the last polls a part of Bihar) and wonder why the Congress was, comparatively, healthy in Jharkhand and non-existent in Bihar. The answer is obvious. In Jharkhand the Congress retains its identity and awaits its opportunity. But for such thoughts to surface we will have to await the Simla conclave of 2005.
With the Congress virtually non-existent in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Bengal, Tamil Nadu, and heading toward defeat in a clutch of states where it is in power (including Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and the Northeast), the 200-mark may be beyond its reach. What it can try to do is hope to emerge as the largest single party in the next Lok Sabha and then appeal for a coalition that finesses the BJP.
But here lies the rub. The Congress has been candid about its fortunes but not candid enough. It has not recognized that Sonia Gandhi is unacceptable as leader of any coalition. Congressmen dismiss this point as personalized and accusatory. But as Sharad Pawar says, it is pointless basing political judgment on a personal whim. The people of India are not ready to accept a lady of foreign origin who is unable to communicate with the Indian voter as their prime minister. Between Atal Behari Vajpayee and Sonia Gandhi it is a no-contest. You have to be particularly dull not to recognize that.
Arguably, without Vajpayee the BJP would not have been able to retain its position as the largest single party. When the option becomes for prime minister, Vajpayee increases his coalition’s vote by a distance. It is not Sharad Pawar alone who accepts this.
Mulayam Singh Yadav, who is fighting a bitter battle with the BJP and Bahujan Samaj Party in Uttar Pradesh, agrees. Mulayam Singh Yadav should know. He fights his battles on the field, not from air-conditioned rooms. In Karnataka, Deve Gowda says the same thing. And there cannot be a non-BJP alliance without Sharad Pawar, Mulayam Singh Yadav and Deve Gowda. The Congress can contest the next Lok Sabha elections with Sonia Gandhi as its leader, but it cannot offer a coalition with Sonia Gandhi as the coalition leader.
All it needs to do is recognize this fact before the elections rather than accept it afterward. If it does so, then a coalition against the BJP-led NDA will begin to fall into place. There will still be much acrimony over seat-sharing as contradictions emerge in states like Karnataka where the prospective allies compete for the same space.
But at least there will be a theoretical alternative to the NDA that can become practical once the numbers are in.
Vagueness, in fact, suits regional leaders like Deve Gowda, who see a possible opportunity in confusion. If Deve Gowda brings a handful of MPs to the next Lok Sabha, he will offer himself as a candidate for prime minister and hope for the best. Without Sonia Gandhi, a Congress leader would be the natural head on any such coalition.
Astrologers are always in heavy demand when election season descends. Which sensible astrologer gives bad news? The number of senior leaders who have been told they will become prime minister would extend into double digits.
It does not need an astrologer to advertise the good fortune of Atal Behari Vajpayee. He must be the only Indian prime minister who could be re-elected with the help not only of his own side but also the leader of the opposition.
NEW DELHI — The most iconoclastic approach to elections I have ever heard was from an old woman with laughing eyes who had been elected four times from Bihar to the Lok Sabha. She never aspired to be a minister; she was happy in Parliament, she never understood what the fuss was about. Those were the days when an election campaign stretched to 40 back-breaking days. This charming lady never risked her back. For 36 days, she said, she locked her room from inside and instructed her staff to lie generously to any voter or campaign aide who wanted to know where she was. Then, four days before polling she handed out funds from her election budget to everyone in queue.
The logic was simple. First, this saved her totally unnecessary physical work. Second, the sight of money at the last minute calmed all the anger of denial during the previous 36 days. Third, spending for four days was far more sensible than spending for 36 or even 10. Finally, elections were won by waves, so why exert oneself. If the wave was in your direction it would carry you to glory. If not, it would leave you among the great unwashed. So why worry?
The attitude was truly iconoclastic, because it smashed every holy image of democracy. But who has the courage to say she was wrong? If it is all a matter of fate, why interfere? Leave the management of waves and tides to the leaders, and be happy. Don’t argue with fate.
But of course every election is an argument with fate. That is what gives it dynamism. Elections are civilized battles for power, and they are crafted as meticulously, war-gamed as rigorously as any campaign planned by military generals. The mathematics of weakness is a science of its own, and every general takes as much care as he can to ensure that every breach in the demographic fort is mended before start of actual hostilities.
Certain positions are axiomatic. No election is a repetition of the last one. Victory, as usual, is far less instructive than defeat, which is why incumbents are far more vulnerable than the hungry. The hungry have nothing to lose but their dreams; the incumbents have five years of comfort, cash and power to protect; they have accountability at stake. The edge is raw on both sides, but hunger for power is always a more decisive motivation. Those who ride in on a wave must understand that a second wave will rise for reasons different from the previous one; the crest will look similar but will be patterned differently. Hence, the foam of oratory must travel in a new language. The language of the past will deflate any wave before it has taken you to your destination.
It is equally obvious that no general believes he is heading for defeat. Ground realities are not the issue. In politics reality must be transformed into fact, and that can only happen when the ballot is beyond reach in the ballot box. A general cannot be defeatist before the day of battle, otherwise there will be no battle. Opinion polls may stare an incumbent in the face and wallop him across the brain, but a hundred loopholes will be used to puncture the opinion poll. There is even some merit in such self-confidence. For starters, opinion polls are not sacrosanct. And an opinion is precisely what it says it is, an opinion. In other words, if it is an opinion then it is open to change. A campaign is all about either changing or consolidating an opinion. The danger lies in a closed mind or shut eyes. The worst defeat that the Congress suffered was in the general elections of 1977, but not a single Congressman saw it coming. He could not. The party in 1977 was too full of itself to see beyond itself.
Battle lines are being drawn again, bringing such thoughts back into circulation. The Congress can no longer be accused of being blind to its overall situation or it has sensibly lowered its expectations from 300 seats in the next Lok Sabha elections to 200. The latter figure may be optimistic but, unlike 300, it is not stupid. The Congress accepts privately, although it cannot admit publicly, that it has mortgaged itself in a key state like Bihar to the irascible coattails of a Laloo Yadav, and can do nothing about it now.
And yet, if someone in the Congress had the sense to ponder, he would look at the state of the party in Jharkhand (till the last polls a part of Bihar) and wonder why the Congress was, comparatively, healthy in Jharkhand and non-existent in Bihar. The answer is obvious. In Jharkhand the Congress retains its identity and awaits its opportunity. But for such thoughts to surface we will have to await the Simla conclave of 2005.
With the Congress virtually non-existent in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Bengal, Tamil Nadu, and heading toward defeat in a clutch of states where it is in power (including Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and the Northeast), the 200-mark may be beyond its reach. What it can try to do is hope to emerge as the largest single party in the next Lok Sabha and then appeal for a coalition that finesses the BJP.
But here lies the rub. The Congress has been candid about its fortunes but not candid enough. It has not recognized that Sonia Gandhi is unacceptable as leader of any coalition. Congressmen dismiss this point as personalized and accusatory. But as Sharad Pawar says, it is pointless basing political judgment on a personal whim. The people of India are not ready to accept a lady of foreign origin who is unable to communicate with the Indian voter as their prime minister. Between Atal Behari Vajpayee and Sonia Gandhi it is a no-contest. You have to be particularly dull not to recognize that.
Arguably, without Vajpayee the BJP would not have been able to retain its position as the largest single party. When the option becomes for prime minister, Vajpayee increases his coalition’s vote by a distance. It is not Sharad Pawar alone who accepts this.
Mulayam Singh Yadav, who is fighting a bitter battle with the BJP and Bahujan Samaj Party in Uttar Pradesh, agrees. Mulayam Singh Yadav should know. He fights his battles on the field, not from air-conditioned rooms. In Karnataka, Deve Gowda says the same thing. And there cannot be a non-BJP alliance without Sharad Pawar, Mulayam Singh Yadav and Deve Gowda. The Congress can contest the next Lok Sabha elections with Sonia Gandhi as its leader, but it cannot offer a coalition with Sonia Gandhi as the coalition leader.
All it needs to do is recognize this fact before the elections rather than accept it afterward. If it does so, then a coalition against the BJP-led NDA will begin to fall into place. There will still be much acrimony over seat-sharing as contradictions emerge in states like Karnataka where the prospective allies compete for the same space.
But at least there will be a theoretical alternative to the NDA that can become practical once the numbers are in.
Vagueness, in fact, suits regional leaders like Deve Gowda, who see a possible opportunity in confusion. If Deve Gowda brings a handful of MPs to the next Lok Sabha, he will offer himself as a candidate for prime minister and hope for the best. Without Sonia Gandhi, a Congress leader would be the natural head on any such coalition.
Astrologers are always in heavy demand when election season descends. Which sensible astrologer gives bad news? The number of senior leaders who have been told they will become prime minister would extend into double digits.
It does not need an astrologer to advertise the good fortune of Atal Behari Vajpayee. He must be the only Indian prime minister who could be re-elected with the help not only of his own side but also the leader of the opposition.
