Apparently the Congress party under Rajiv Gandhi’s leadership is set to win a kind of victory only a few people had expected or anticipated. This raises two questions. How has this massive victory been possible? And what does it portend for the future?
To begin with, let us admit that most of us journalists and commentators did not have a correct appreciation of what was going on in the minds of voters. We did not see a wave in favour of Rajiv Gandhi and the Congress when in fact a tidal wave was sweeping the country.
We were, however, not wholly to blame. The electors have learnt to keep their counsel to themselves. They often prevaricated in their replies when in fact they had decided to give Rajiv Gandhi a colossal mandate.
There was one indication of the popular mood through the length and breadth of India which many of us failed to read correctly. This was the big turnout for Rajiv Gandhi wherever he went to canvass support for his party.
At the beginning of the election campaign, there was in this turnout a strong element of sympathy for him on account of the brutal assassination of his mother Indira Gandhi. As the campaign proceeded, a number of people began to wonder whether the sympathy vote factor had not been greatly exaggerated. But if the sympathy wave was either not as big as it appeared or if it had receded, then the logical inference should have been that the turnout at Rajiv Gandhi’s meetings represented a popular endorsement of him.
We were only too well aware of the failure of the main opposition parties to agree on even seat adjustments and knew that the consequent split in the anti-Congress vote would help the Congress. But we have been so used to calculating in terms of castes, especially in the Hindi-speaking states, that we did not conclude that opposition parties could virtually be wiped out as a result of lack of any kind of understanding among them.
Journalists and commentators are, of course, not the only people to have misjudged the mood of the people. The Congress leaders themselves did not have a ghost of an idea of the strength of the current in their favour, though they would now pretend otherwise. Several Congress candidates who have won feared they had lost the election even after the voting had taken place. Opposition leaders certainly did not know that they were in for the kind of drubbing they have got.
Even now, there will be differences of opinion on what the outcome of the poll – the trend set on Friday is not likely to be reversed – represents. Is it a triumph for a martyred Indira Gandhi? Or is it an endorsement of Rajiv Gandhi? Is it an expression of support for the Congress? Or is it an expression of contempt for mostly old and tired opposition leaders who continue to behave as if nothing has changed in India since the sixties?
Assuming that the trend which has been firmly established at the time of writing on Friday night is not reversed, it would be sensible to take the view that Indira Gandhi’s martyrdom, the way Rajiv Gandhi conducted himself during the 13-day mourning period and subsequently, and the justified contempt for opposition leaders and their antics have all contributed to the Congress party’s landslide victory. It is obviously impossible to say which factor has contributed how much to this perhaps unprecedentedly high level of support for the Congress in terms of the percentage of votes and possibly in terms of seats as well.
In retrospect it would appear that when she spoke of the threat to national unity and integrity, Indira Gandhi was not so much trying to manipulate public opinion, as her detractors charged, as reflecting a widespread popular concern on that account. It is open to question whether this concern would have crystallised sufficiently to assure her victory if she had not been assassinated. She did not appear to be fully convinced that it would so crystallise. But there can now be little doubt that public opinion crystallised once she was gunned down.
This is unprecedented in the history of India as we have known it and as it has been taught to us. This would especially be the case if we assume, as in our opinion we should, that the Indian people have seen the threat to national unity primarily in domestic terms. The Indian people have never before been known to rally behind a leader for preserving national unity against an internal danger. But even if we take it that the Indian people have been concerned about Pakistan’s alleged involvement with Sikh extremists on the one hand and the arms build-up with US assistance on the other, the concern for national integrity as expressed in the vote for Rajiv Gandhi and the Congress party should be regarded as quite remarkable.
In this context, as Indira Gandhi’s son, heir and successor, Rajiv Gandhi would have had a head start over opposition parties even if they had managed to come together. If the people wanted a strong central government which could cope with the forces of disunity and destabilisation, as they apparently did, in the given situation, he alone could provide it. Since opposition parties had put themselves out of court for failing to unite or even make seat adjustments, the people do not appear to have cared to check his own credentials for leadership.
Rajiv Gandhi was clearly unfair in casting doubt on the patriotism of opposition parties by alleging that they had not condemned the Akali Dal’s Anandpur Sahib resolution. For all we know it was not necessary for him to do so. Indira Gandhi’s martyrdom had already convinced the Indian people that the nation faced a threat and that only a government in New Delhi assured of a comfortable majority could cope with it. But it is equally pertinent that by refusing to accept that a danger to the country’s unity and integrity had in fact arisen and by arguing that Indira Gandhi alone had been responsible for the aggravation of the Akali problem, opposition leaders had put themselves in opposition to the popular mood.
All things considered, the Congress could not have won the victory it is set to win if there had not taken place a significant shift in the caste Hindu vote in its favour and away from the Bharatiya Janata Party (the old RSS-backed Jana Sangh in a new incarnation) which has suffered a virtual slaughter. This is so because the party could not possibly have improved on its performance among the minorities and scheduled castes and tribes in 1980. These sections constitute about one-third of the total electorate and two-thirds of them are estimated to have voted for the Congress in 1980.
There has been a lot of talk of a shift in the Muslim and Sikh vote away from the Congress. Judging by the results in the capital and in other constituencies, where the Sikhs and the Muslims hold what is called the balancing vote, the shift cannot be said to have taken place on a significant scale, if it has indeed taken place. Be that as it may, the Congress party’s landslide victory cannot be explained except in terms of a significant increase in the support for it among caste Hindus.
A number of old-fashioned liberals and secularists have contended and will contend in coming weeks and months that first Indira Gandhi and then Rajiv Gandhi have deliberately communalised politics and appealed to Hindu chauvinism. This is a false charge if only because Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi have spoken in nationalist terms. They have talked of a threat to the nation’s unity and integrity. And nothing like an anti-Muslim sentiment has been in evidence before or during the election.
India is a remarkable young nation with 78 per cent of the population below 35. So Rajiv Gandhi’s and his friends’ youth could well have commended itself to the electorate. The Indian people have also for years held most politicians, including those belonging to the Congress, in contempt and have wanted a change. Perhaps they have seen in Rajiv Gandhi and his group the possibility of the change they have been yearning for.
But whether by design or otherwise, the Indian voter has, as it were, wiped the political slate as clean as he possibly could. He has given Rajiv Gandhi a mandate to inaugurate a new era in the country’s political life.
The Indian people gave a similar mandate to Indira Gandhi in 1971. For a variety of reasons, some within her control and some outside her control, she failed to live up to their expectations and in fact landed herself and them in a mess culminating in the emergency in June 1975. They then gave a similar mandate to the Janata in March 1977. The conglomerate not only failed to fulfil popular hopes but collapsed as a result of its internal squabbles paving the way for Indira Gandhi’s return to office in January 1980.
This unfortunate history should serve as a reminder to Rajiv Gandhi and his team that their real test begins now. India’s problems are at once too colossal and too complicated to yield to simple-minded solutions by impatient young men in a hurry. They call for a great deal of patience and skill. The people have given Rajiv Gandhi what it is in their power to confer – a comfortable majority in Parliament and a mandate for change. The rest he will have to accomplish himself.
The Times of India, 29 December 1984 [Page 1 comment on election]