May 13, 2004

A COUNTRY BADLY IN NEED OF A POLL TAX:

In Huge Upset, Gandhi's Party Wins Election in India (AMY WALDMAN, 5/13/04, NY Times)

The B.J.P. had constructed an American-style presidential campaign around Mr. Vajpayee's perceived popularity, but it ran aground on the realities of the Indian parliamentary system, in which voters turned on incumbent legislators who they felt had delivered little. Indian voters are known for their anti-incumbency, and that was in evidence today.

But even more, voters — particularly, but not exclusively, in rural areas — rebelled against the idea of "India Shining" that had been pedaled by the incumbent government in a glossy, costly public relations campaign.

The resentment of the B.J.P. and its efforts to pedal the "feel-good factor" was almost palpable today among a small knot of working-class men gathered to watch the results on a news ticker in New Delhi. Many expressed dismay, common among Indians nostalgic for the quasi-socialist economy of India's first 40 years, at the economic reforms with which the B.J.P. had proudly identified itself.

"Basically it is the anger of the working class," said Sawali Rai, 34, who works in a public sector bank. "Privatization, no government jobs, prices rising. On the pressure of the World Bank they are pressuring the common man."

And unlike in the United States, where the most prosperous also vote the most, in India it is the poor who turn out in greatest numbers. That meant that the very voters for whom India has been shining — urbanites from the middle and upper classes who benefited from globalization and reforms — are also least likely to vote.

The B.J.P. also seemed to suffer from its association with the Hindu nationalism that had powered its rise. Muslims, still repelled by the anti-Muslim carnage in the B.J.P.-controlled state of Gujarat in 2002, resisted the party's efforts to woo them, as did many Indians concerned about the weakening of the country's secular identity. Congress and its allies had united around a secular platform.

At the same time, hard-core Hindu nationalists have been disillusioned by the party's tempering of Hindutva, or Hindu-ness, in its time in power and in this campaign. Ram Madhav, a spokesman for the Association of National Volunteers, the parent Hindu nationalist organization, said today that the B.J.P. had campaigned on Mr. Vajpayee's personality and policy, he said, but ideology — "an emotive issue" — was missing.


The rejection of Hindu nationalism is healthy, but a turn away from economic liberalization would be disastrous.

Posted by Orrin Judd at May 13, 2004 10:08 AM
Comments

The assumption that it is inevitable, probable
or even desirable that India can morph into a
Western nation with it's current racial/ethnic/linguistic makeup is unrealistic.

The cream of the crop is gone to the far reaches of the globe. What is left behind are superstitious backward illiterate masses who know nothing other than dependency.

India's elite tries on new political ideologies like new hats becaue there is nothing coming from
the culture.

Posted by: J.H. at May 13, 2004 11:04 AM

I remember in 1996 right before the BJP first assumed power; my Indian friends said it would be an economic disaster if the BJP would come in because they would stop the liberalization begun by Rao, but thankfully the BJP could never win. They were wrong on two counts.

I doubt Congress would overturn a decade of economic growth by changing strategies. However, they probably will spend more on social programs.

Posted by: Chris Durnell at May 13, 2004 11:38 AM

There are 1 billion people in India. I'll wager that almost anything anyone says about the country is true in part.

Posted by: Paul Cella at May 13, 2004 1:25 PM

Free-enterprise parties suffer reverses in most countries after a couple of terms when people have forgotten all about the corruption and stagnation they suffered under the left. It's back to "Let's all feel the pain of the poor." If too many of us haven't learned by now, why would they in eight years?

A little worrisome on the strategic front, though.

Posted by: Peter B at May 13, 2004 2:47 PM

That's the problem with electoral democracy. You don't get to vote for one prime minister to run the economy and a different one for nationalism.

I'm very surprised that religion (which is what it was about, not nationalism, although in India the two are hard to tell apart) suffered a setback, but it might only be temporary.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at May 13, 2004 5:16 PM
« HARSHER, PLEASE: | Main | DUE DILLIGENCE: »