04 June 2024 was to establish, more glaringly than ever, the fallibility of exit polls. Throughout that day a tremendous upset unfurled, slowly but surely, astounding supporters and opponents of the Narendra Modi-led government in equal measure. It began when Mr. Modi was initially trailing in his constituency, as opposed to the ideal situation in which a chasmal gulf would have intervened between him in the lead and the second candidate. Expressions of alarm were seen; premature, as it turned out. But there was an undeniable decrement of stature. Where previously Mr. Modi had won half a million more votes than the candidate in second position, this time the gulf had narrowed to only about a fifth thereof.

By the end of the day, the supporters of a party, that had now a few seats more than the totality of the opposing alliance, were crestfallen. Their sentiment had good reason. The fall from 303 to 240 was serious. Nor did it help that even the ruling alliance could only touch 295; well ahead of the 272 mark, crossing which would result in a majority, but short of the 303 hitherto held by the BJP alone. At its peak in 2019, the alliance had touched 353, which was to be disturbed with the decision of Uddhav Thackeray to sever ties.

The optics of 2024 were arguably worse than those of the Shiv Sena parting ways with the BJP in 2019.

With no discernible embarrassment, the analytical mavens on television smoothly began their explanations behind the errors of their exit polls.

The analysis that follows a concluded election is usually a reaffirmation of long-held prejudice. Few among the famed analysts in TV studios could justly claim immunity to it, much less a greenhorn such as myself.

Those begloomed by the sight of a Hindutva shorn of its virile conviction, swiftly ascribed the subtraction of seats to Hindu disillusionment. Apostles of the Indian variant of secularism, long perturbed that the glory of the Rāma Mandir might fetch the BJP an electoral tide, proclaimed with equal pace the overriding effect of economic — ‘development’ — concerns.

But seldom do people at large see the full picture. They are not to be blamed, nor must they be dismissed as unsophisticates. At play determining the outcome are factors of a dizzying multitude, the understanding of which demands a degree of patience and a keen eye lacking even among journalists. What to speak of those who are not even paid for such scrupulosity?

I was listening to the assessment by Bhau Torsekar, the seasoned Marathi political commentator. In Maharashtra alone, says he, there were twelve constituencies where, had there been an additional five to seven votes, those would have been won by the BJP. One wonders how many such seats there are, the loss of which proceeded not from assumed incompetence but from inadequate vote numbers.

One of the interesting changes to have occurred in the past several years is that analysts more freely speak of the Muslim vote than they might have in the yesteryears, when liberal sanctimony sought to silence it all as ‘communalism.’ Today the liberal sanctimony appears to have waned in puissance. It rather prefers to ignore such commentary.

  • To what extent this Muslim vote consolidated with the sole aim to defeat the BJP is also something that should warrant assessment. In Maharashtra, Muslims were not animated by the misgiving that they were voting for a man, whose legendary father was known for militant Hindutva. Nor did the sight of his saffron perturb them. They were animated by a clarity that the BJP, owing to perception or otherwise, was the mascot of Hindutva, the defeat of which ideology could only be achieved by defeating the BJP.
    • Upon this aspect, too, Bhau Torsekar spoke at some length. Hindus, on the other hand, had misgivings. The presence of Ajit Pawar in the BJP’s alliance irked them. They carried these misgivings with them to the voting booth. In battle the private misgivings of infantrymen must dissolve and faith in the general’s strategy precede. A cross-party coalition leading a national war effort must conceal its internal discord and project a fearsomely united front.
    • There are no solutions; only trade-offs, as Dr. Thomas Sowell says. Either the BJP’s voters could water the BJP’s tree despite some dismay — perceiving the election as a battle — or let their conscience cost the BJP some seats, profiting others. It is not for me to pass judgment on either choice; I merely say that such are the choices.

An unpropitious choice of candidates may also have contributed in some places. Kripashankar Singh, a man who would never endear himself to the standard-bearers of Hindutva, was decidedly one such choice. The BJP may certainly have had some reason to have him contest in Uttar Pradesh. But though not knowing the reason, we can indeed claim that it sprung from an erroneous calculation.

Much criticism was also levelled at the BJP’s excess reliance on ad agencies, influencers, and suchlike, at the expense of the karyakarta.

It is not indisputably clear that the results were a verdict on the government’s economic performance — a parameter that literate commentary invokes and forgets deferring to the dictates of convenience. The results of Haryana and Maharashtra indicate that Lok Sabha 2024 was an aberration. No sign was it of a wider ennui with the BJP.

A final word. Much mockery was aimed at the BJP’s slogan, “Abki baar 400 paar.” It will long be wondered whether this slogan caused complacency among BJP voters. There is reason to believe it did; perhaps it was seen as inevitable, which lackadaisical voting could not affect. But the mockery springs from a misunderstanding of the slogan. Not the most ardent of Modi’s supporters necessarily believed that the BJP would win more than 400 seats; anywhere between 325-350 was the more common and more rational expectation. Modi himself was to clarify on an Aap ki Adalat episode on India TV mere days before 04 June that it symbolized their goal as a political party. Left unsaid was that he was himself not expecting to cross twenty-score.

DISCLAIMER: The author is solely responsible for the views expressed in this article. The author carries the responsibility for citing and/or licensing of images utilized within the text.