Elections and results

I subscribe some of the socio political magazines, both English and Tamil. Some are Thuglak, Frontline. I had to read the political postmortem (or autopsy) of the just concluded general election ’09. I could not resist myself from wondering how these writers come to know about the thoughts going on in the minds of common people.

In one of the analyses of the result, the writer has claimed - people voted for stable government. Not only that, the people decided that only congress party can give the stable government. I never come across any body who is bothered about the stability of the government, nor are they worried about the expenses due to frequent elections. The people I have met may be very few. Certainly I can not claim this as a result of another opinion poll. There is no difference between the fortune teller sitting under a village tree telling your future and the people sitting in the TV channels’ drawing rooms telling the possible outcome of the election. The only difference is the man under the tree at least does not claim any thing scientific. In that sense he is more truthful in his approach.

Another analysis says that congress crushed other parties in the election. In the very next paragraph the author says that the smaller parties behaved as the spoilers. Then how can we say that congress’ game plan worked? Does it mean that congress created these regional parties with the aim of spoiling other parties’ winnability? The congress party itself did not believe in their strategies and started looking for post poll allies. Or is it that congress crushed its opponents accidentally? Certainly it is not after going through the performance of Mr Manmohan singh. He just sat there in that chair for five years displaying the skills that he acquired as a bureaucrat.

The party men vote for the party they belong to – whatever be the performance. The elites, who, we assume, think about the stability, performance etc, do not venture out for any election, because their job is before and after the election. Otherwise who will analyse and tell the ill informed uneducated villagers about the condition of the nation. They did not go to the polling booth. The percentage of polling tells the truth.

The recent one from Times of India claims that around 153 MPs won the election securing only 10% of the votes. How can we claim that India voted for continuity or against communal forces? (The polling was less than 50% in many of the constituencies.) We have to assume that the remaining 50% did not bother about who will come to rule.

The communal forces won in some states and rest of India votes against communal parties. So can we say those states which supported communal forces are communal? And the rest are secular? In my personal opinion congress party protected or supported Hindu dominance more than the so called Hindutva forces. There is some substance when Mr Arun Jaitley (I think it is Arun, if my memory is not weak) said that in the past sixty years after independence congress did nothing to uplift the conditions of Muslims. The blame certainly is on congress because congress party ruled more than 40 years. By giving some MP seats and some ministries to a few from a particular community, you can not uplift an entire community. Somehow congress party managed to keep the communal difference continue. BJP was never a dominant party till Babri issue or Shah Bhano case. BJP is communal. Congress too. As far as communists are concerned we can say 100% that they are not communal. Are Communists’ philosophies irrelevant? I do not think so. Like congress and BJP(?), communists need to reinvent their ideas in accordance with 21st century.

This victory is not about communal forces, economy, security or political wisdom. This victory or loss can be attributed only to confusion among the voters. It is like fishing in troubled waters. No one can say who will get how much. This time it is congress. Next time?