Analysis: Three-and-a-half allies help BJP win in Gujarat

Let us begin with Bansur, Sagwara (ST) and Bali before moving to neighbouring Gujarat.

There were three by-elections being held in Rajasthan. Going into the polls only one of the three seats was held by the Bharatiya Janata Party. Today, it holds all three. Remember this when you hear the 'experts' pontificate on how the Bharatiya Janata Party swept Gujarat only because of the Narendra Modi factor.

The BJP would probably have won a majority in Gujarat in any event. But would it have buried the Congress party under a landslide if not for three-and-a-half unlikely allies? Who were they? Step forward the Congress party, the English media, the militants, and, last but not least that 'half' ally, the Election Commission.

The Congress party was right in trying to shift the focus to economic development. But it made a couple of tactical errors. First, it assumed that people have short memories. Second, it made Shankersinh Vaghela its flagbearer.

Who is Vaghela? Leave it to the Congress party itself to describe the man who left the BJP to form a ministry with the Congress party's support. In October 1997, the party withdrew support from the Vaghela administration. Explaining why, in a letter to the governor, the party described the Vaghela administration as "corrupt, inefficient, weak, autocratic and whimsical". It went on to list eight separate counts of corruption, three counts of maladministration, and finished by accusing Vaghela of political failure as well. Five years is not enough time to forget this catalogue, is it?

This was not the only error made by the Congress party. Several leaders came to campaign, both from within the party and from outside. To buttress the claim of 'Development vs Destruction' it would have made sense to put an S.M. Krishna or a Digvijay Singh on every platform. But the first was underutilised and the latter refused on the ground that he was unpopular because of squabbles between Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh over the Narmada river. So, who drew the largest crowds for the Congress party?

Laloo Prasad Yadav! The Rashtriya Janata Dal leader may have several virtues, but is he really a role model for "development"? Bihar is repeatedly held up as the most backward state in India, the worst by any standard of human development. He drew crowds thanks to the buffoonery that is his hallmark, but his presence did nothing to press home the message of "development".

The Congress party sought to project itself as the party of Mahatma Gandhi and Sardar Patel. But the voters perceived it only as the party of Sonia Gandhi and Ahmed Patel...

What of Narendra Modi's second ally, the media? The English print media and their television colleagues have been spewing venom against the chief minister of Gujarat. Some spoke of "state-sponsored violence", "pogroms", and the like. With never a shred of evidence to back up the rumours, each fresh accusation rested on the back of the previous, unfounded, allegation.

In the process the English media destroyed its own reputation for fairness. The idiocy did not end even with the declaration of the results. Just look at some of the feeble excuses being offered by the 'experts'!

"The BJP could win seats only in central Gujarat where the riots took place!" "The BJP lost when the Congress party succeeded in making development the issue."

Let me sum up the expert opinions in two sentences: "When there is an earthquake, the BJP loses. When there are riots, the Congress party loses!"

Yet the results demonstrate that the BJP maintained its hold in quake-struck Kutch. And in Gujarat as a whole it bettered its previous performance, winning a two-thirds majority. What did the media expect, 100 per cent? But only the Saddam Husseins of the world achieve that. (By the way, I'm surprised nobody compared Modi to the Iraqi, they certainly called him everything else!)
Let me leave my colleagues in the media with one thought: "You are free to say what you like. But do you really want to demonstrate how utterly ineffective you are in affecting public opinion, and how graceless when proved wrong?"

Narendra Modi's third set of allies came in the form of foreign intervention, especially terrorism. Dislike of Pakistan is probably the one thing that will unite all Indians. It was a gift from heaven when General Musharraf raised the issue of the Gujarat riots at the United Nations. And it was another when Shankersinh Vaghela brought it up on a visit to the United States, supporting the call for an international probe. The idea of "outsiders" trying to interfere in a domestic election raised hackles all across Gujarat.

But it was probably the attack on Akshardham that was the last straw. Gujarat, the state with the longest coastline in India, is worried about its safety. That vicious terrorist thrust underlined Modi's argument that national security was an issue even in an assembly election. (The bonus came in the form of angering the powerful Patels; annoyed as they may have been at the removal of Keshubhai Patel, they were far more furious at the attack on their temple.)

Finally, there is the 'half ally' - the Election Commission. That body, specifically the Chief Election Commissioner, was seen as biased. It recommended President's Rule - something that is beyond its authority. It delayed polls on the grounds that it needed to revise the electoral rolls - and then presided over the most incomplete set of rolls in the history of Gujarat. And all this helped Narendra Modi.

The sitting chief minister had a tough job. He had to contend with the anti-incumbency factor. His predecessor, Keshubhai Patel, had presided over a government notorious for cronyism. He had to deal with the aftermath of the earthquake. And yet he managed to lead the BJP to an enhanced majority in the Vidhan Sabha.

I think Narendra Modi would have won anyway. But he has to thank his witless allies for the massive majority!

T.V.R. Shenoy is a noted political analyst.