Links: What the Karnataka election results mean for the Congress, BJP and 2024
All you need to read on the Karnataka election results.
The Congress’ success in elections in the South Indian state of Karnataka, where the party trounced the incumbent Bharatiya Janata Party and posted their best result in 35 years, has generated reams of commentary – about what this means for the state, for politics in South India and for next year’s General Elections.
Below I’ve collected some of the most interesting analysis and voices on the results.
But before we get to those, a few work links:
CASI: Shades of Grey – India, the US, and the Quad
In the second of our four-part series on India in the Quad on India in Transition, a publication from the University of Pennsylvania’s Centre for the Advanced Study of India, Aditi Malhotra takes a look at the “real-world complexities” of India-US relations.
Malhotra, the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Army Journal and a Fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, examines Indo-US ties through two IR concepts: compatibility in security role conceptions and convergence-divergence dynamics.
(Emphasis added)
“That differences exist within partnerships is not an anomaly and does not always denote a severe clash between actors. Instead, if there is sustained role compatibility, policymakers/diplomats develop the mechanisms to work effectively despite the problems and/or even socialize with each other on a specific issue over time. To illustrate, India and the US have contrasting views on “maritime order” and “freedom of navigation.” India has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) while the US has not, and both have distinct interpretations of the law (India’s interpretation is closer to China’s understanding of the law). While Indian law is against freedom of navigation operation in its exclusive economic zone, these differences have been managed well at the diplomatic level and have not adversely affected maritime cooperation, indicating a silver lining in a dark cloud.
Overall, India-US strategic and security ties are not perfect and are unlikely to be so in the coming future. The specter of divergences will continue to exist within the role compatibility the two enjoy. This may also affect the orientation of the Quad from a security perspective. However, the differences are unlikely to impede the incremental progress of their bilateral ties or engagement in a quad arrangement, especially if China remains the glue keeping them closer. In short, Indo-US relations and their engagement is not black and white but shades of grey.”
If you missed it, the first piece in the series featured Kate Sullivan de Estrada on how India leverages a ‘low-resolution liberal order’ in the Indo-Pacific.
As I mentioned a few weeks ago, please do check out India in Transition, and if you are a scholar working on India and would like to pitch a piece for the publication, do have a look at the submission guidelines here, and get in touch by writing to rohan.venkat@gmail.com.
CPR Perspectives: Partha Mukhopadhyay
For the Centre for Policy Research, I spoke to Partha Mukhopadhyay, senior fellow at CPR, where he also leads the Initiative on Cities, Economy and Society. Mukhopadhyay has been at CPR since 2006 and prior to that was part of the founding team at the Infrastructure Development Finance Company, following stints at the Export Import Bank of India and the World Bank in Washington.
This means he has a superb vantage point from which to observe shifts in Indian policymaking over the decades, including on subjects like urbanisation, Special Economic Zones and migration.
Here’s an excerpt from Part 1 of our conversation:
(Emphasis added)
“Somehow for all the work that’s been done on this, people still seem to think of migration as something bad. It is this old ‘do-bigha zameen’ kind of characterisation, that somehow migrants are leaving their space not out of choice but because they are being forced to leave, pushed out rather than being pulled into other spaces. Migration as an act of desperation, not an act of seizing opportunity.
And I don’t want to belittle a significant – though to my mind a minority – chunk where that is true. People are being pushed out, it is an act of desperation, and, especially with climate change, it is possible there would be more of that story. But for the large part migration is essentially about seizing opportunities though we may not be able to relate to those opportunities.
It’s hard to relate to a Mumbai taxi driver who goes home to a shared bed – a 12-hour shift where somebody else uses the bed [when he’s working]. But that person is doing that because he’s minimising the expenses in the city, maximising the surplus and sending money back to the village, where his child is then getting educated, intriguingly enough, in a pretty good quality school, that may have sprung up not too far from where he lives in his village. And that child may then have a completely different life and different set of choices and chances, which he is able to see. His being in Mumbai allows him to see the kinds of opportunities that people with certain types of human capital have. And yes, this person will not get the same opportunities as somebody who’s going to Bombay Scottish because life is not just about human capital, it’s also about social capital.
But it can be a step change. For him to go through what looks like a dismal life, to do what he sees as enabling his children to seize opportunities that he could never have dreamt of, that kind of transformation is not what people see. They see the squalor…
It is this [question], how do we create conditions that people feel empowered enough to seize opportunity. How can we make those conditions happen? That’s fundamentally what drives the way I think about development and change in India.
Many of my colleagues were excited about NREGS, but to me, it was never about [whether] it reduced migration or even being skeptical about whether they build real assets. A safety net is important. But I prefer to think about springboards. It’s important for government to focus on both, because only with safety nets, you’re not going to get very far. But it’s very difficult for people to jump off springboards unless they’re aware that there is a net underneath in case they fall.
It’s this balance between safety nets and springboards in government policy, that’s fundamentally what you’re looking for.”
You can also listen to the whole conversation here.
Linking Out: Karnataka
The Congress won state elections in Karnataka, capturing 135 seats – well ahead of the halfway mark of 113 in the 224-member assembly. The incumbent Bharatiya Janata Party was soundly defeated, having been reduced to just 66 seats. The Janata Dal (Secular), often seen as the ‘kingmaker’ third party in the state, saw its seat count also drop to 19 from 37.
Those headline numbers are a big deal, given Karnataka’s relative size and significance: It is one of the largest states in the country, featuring the immensely influential city of Bengaluru (India’s ‘silicon valley’) and the only state in South India where the BJP has been in power, though it has never won a majority in the assembly.
The results provide a shot in the arm to Opposition parties around the country, ahead of further Congress-BJP contests in state elections later this year, and the General Elections due in 2024. And they serve as a reminder that the BJP, for all its success in the Narendra Modi-Amit Shah era, has struggled to translate its national dominance into state-level victories.
The Congress’ success brought a bit of its classic factionalism to the fore – with the party waiting a few days to decide between two different candidates for chief ministerial status – but with Siddaramaiah in charge, and DK Shivakumar content to be deputy for now, it is likely the party will start looking ahead to the next assembly polls and what its Karnataka victory could indicate about 2024 plans.
Scroll.in has 45 charts that reveal where the BJP went wrong – and what went right for Congress.
Sanjay Kumar, Suhas Palshikar and Sandeep Shastri look at the CSDS-Lokniti survey results to examine how the Congress built its majority.
Vandita Mishra says it’s not as simple as saying that the Congress won because the BJP sidelined BS Yeddiyurappa, which led to a shift in the Lingayat vote.
S Bagashree tells us the story of Siddaramaiah, Karnataka’s returning Chief Minister.
Devender Sharma argues that the Karnataka Assembly election marks a “consolidation of the Congress’ ideological core” built around social and economic justice.
Ashish Ranjan on how the election played out within the state:
Neelanjan Sircar’s succinct summary of how welfarism plays into elections involving the BJP: “Much like in West Bengal or Delhi, the Karnataka elections continued a series of elections in which the BJP performed poorly when faced with welfarism and a political leader who could credibly claim to represent disadvantaged or poor communities. In these contexts as well, the BJP sought overt Hindu-Muslim polarisation as an electoral strategy with little success. By contrast, in Uttar Pradesh, the BJP was seen as the welfarist party against an Opposition that was led by a dominant caste Yadav, whose community does not always share good relations with other, more marginalised, caste groups.”
Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd on Siddaramaiah as a ‘rational OBC counter’ to Modi’s ‘communal OBC politics.’
Johsnon TA on why Karnataka’s wait for a Dalit chief minister continues.
Rasheed Kidwai on how the Congress reached a solution when it came to the question of Siddaramaiah vs DK Shivakumar for chief minister.
“It is no doubt true that the BJP has broadened, in the recent past, its electoral catchment area among subaltern sections (Dalits, tribals, poorer non-dominant backward castes),” writes Asim Ali. “[However] in state elections, it is these very sections which tend to shift back heavily towards the Congress or regional parties, sowing doubts about their ideological commitment to the BJP or conventionally-defined Hindutva, let alone to a subaltern-driven, anti-elite variety of Hindutva.”
What lessons does this significant loss hold for the BJP, both in the state and beyond? Amrith Lal looks at the failure of the party to address the social justice politics within the state. Coomi Kapoor points out that the occupants of the top two organisational posts in the BJP, JP Nadda and BL Santosh, have both overseen losses in their respective states (Himachal Pradesh and Karnataka). And DK Singh has a long piece saying that, despite the common refrain insisting ‘state elections don’t change the 2024 picture’, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has much to worry about.
In a conversation with Milan Vaishnav, Sugata Srinvasaraju points out that the BJP managed to retain its vote share despite the loss, and has effected a change in leadership from the Yediyurappa years, even if that came with a major defeat. “I have a feeling that it was the decision of the BJP high command to let go of the victory, maintain the vote share and move into new areas in Karnataka ... to become a pan-Karnataka party."
While the Congress can form the government comfortably for the next five years, Shivasundar argues that this victory itself cannot be construed as the defeat of communalism or of the BJP.
Seema Chishti has ten factors to remember following the Congress’ win, starting with a reminder that an Opposition victory isn’t proof that all is well with Indian democracy and the Centre’s unfair practices that have become institutionalised.
“We should abandon the idea that India is an “electoral autocracy”, as V-Dem reports put it. India remains an “electoral democracy,” where power can change hands. Elections may not be as free and vigorous as they can potentially be, but they remain sufficiently competitive,” writes Ashutosh Varshney.
Pratap Bhanu Mehta writes: “There is a rather simplistic binary that we often use: Was it Hindutva or was it governance? This is an unproductive way of posing the question. Political competition is about creating credibility on a broad front. If the BJP had administratively governed better, Hindutva would have been consolidated as a consequence. You could pose the question the other way around. Despite a government that, by all accounts was a disaster, the BJP has still managed to hold onto its vote share in Karnataka.”
Arun Dev on the JD(S)’ worst performance since 2004, and the question of whether Karnataka is becoming a bipolar state.
“The real reason why the Karnataka departure from the majoritarian path has limited potential lies in the arena of cultural contestation. Already, the broad contours of political culture in states like Gujarat, MP or UP are marked by both majoritarianism and authoritarianism,” writes Suhas Palshikar. “The Karnataka defeat shows the vulnerability of the BJP. But does it show a willingness of society to welcome a challenge to Hindutva?”
Milind Sohoni asks: Given the growing centralisations, does the new Karnataka government have enough agency to help its people?
Meanwhile, echoing Neelanjan Sircar’s point from above, in Uttar Pradesh, where the BJP won big in urban local body elections, Badri Narayan writes “the results make it clear that the social welfare programmes focussed on the poor and their implementation undertaken by the Yogi Adityanath-led state government continues to yield electoral dividends for the BJP…. In the past, local elections were a contest between competing local interests. It was at this level that social bases and connections mattered. The image CM Adityanath has cultivated has been able to transcend this “localness” (sthaniyata) and draw voters across neighbourhoods, castes and communities to the BJP.”
That’s it for this edition of India Inside Out. If we missed out any useful pieces or analysis on the Karnataka elections, drop the links in the comments below.