India 2014 - Results

[covermyeyes]

This is an idiotic post, to say the least. Pilot lost because he was in the wrong party in this election, not because he supported development. I have no doubt that many great congress politicians lost because they were supporting Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi. Hopefully the good ones will gain their seats back in later elections while the rotten, old school socialists will be relegated to the dust bin of history.

I did not equate his defeat with development. Don't put words in my mouth.

The BJP did not win these many seats because of Hindutva, they won because the congress party lost. This election was caused entirely by congress. If they had actually followed Manmohan Singh's advice, the country would not be in such a bad situation and these election results would not have come to pass. Instead, they listened to the socialist nonsense of Sonia Gandhi.

Sonia Gandhi does not run the economy.

If Hindutva was so potent, the BJP would win every election, and we both know that is not the case.

In the past, factors like caste have countered the BJP. There is very good reason to believe that BJP might have emerged as a natural party of governance of sorts in north India if not for the rise of Mandal politics. This is the opinion of quite a many BJP supporters. I do know that BJP is a big tent center-right party. As such, it has a number of supporters with diverse views, and you might be representative of such diversity. But, please don't pretend there aren't those types in the party who make use of sectarian politics. You might not like that side of the party. But its no good pretending it doesn't exist.

Read this: http://5forty3.in/2014/05/2014-the-election-that-challenged-dilli-and-still-emerged-victorious/

[covermyeyes]

The BJP did not win these many seats because of Hindutva, they won because the congress party lost.

Do you really believe the INC "lost" UP and Bihar?

[covermyeyes]

The BJP did not win these many seats because of Hindutva, they won because the congress party lost.

Do you really believe the INC "lost" UP and Bihar?

Just to be more clear.

I mean to ask if whether it is really possible to say that BJP did not win UP and Bihar as opposed to other parties losing it? I don't understand how anyone can make such a argument.

[Sbane]

This is an idiotic post, to say the least. Pilot lost because he was in the wrong party in this election, not because he supported development. I have no doubt that many great congress politicians lost because they were supporting Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi. Hopefully the good ones will gain their seats back in later elections while the rotten, old school socialists will be relegated to the dust bin of history.

I did not equate his defeat with development. Don't put words in my mouth.

The BJP did not win these many seats because of Hindutva, they won because the congress party lost. This election was caused entirely by congress. If they had actually followed Manmohan Singh's advice, the country would not be in such a bad situation and these election results would not have come to pass. Instead, they listened to the socialist nonsense of Sonia Gandhi.

Sonia Gandhi does not run the economy.

If Hindutva was so potent, the BJP would win every election, and we both know that is not the case.

In the past, factors like caste have countered the BJP. There is very good reason to believe that BJP might have emerged as a natural party of governance of sorts in north India if not for the rise of Mandal politics. This is the opinion of quite a many BJP supporters. I do know that BJP is a big tent center-right party. As such, it has a number of supporters with diverse views, and you might be representative of such diversity. But, please don't pretend there aren't those types in the party who make use of sectarian politics. You might not like that side of the party. But its no good pretending it doesn't exist.

Read this: http://5forty3.in/2014/05/2014-the-election-that-challenged-dilli-and-still-emerged-victorious/

First of all you said that since Pilot lost (and JD(U)), that meant development lost and a BJP win meant Hindu nationalism won. That would have been true if it happened in a year such as 2009, when Varun Gandhi fought back a INC wave by exploiting religious tensions. It should be clear that this year, with this sort of mandate, the swing voter was voting for development, not Hindu nationalism. If they voted for the BJP because of Hindu nationalism, then why in 2014? Why not before? Do you really think BJP swept Delhi and Mumbai because the people there who voted for INC in 2009 suddenly wanted to express how Hindu they were? Has the BJP run on Hindu nationalism in this election or on development?

Of course the BJP has its crazies within it. I have never been shy about admitting that. Nor would I associate myself with the BJP on a regular basis. My ideal candidate would be someone like Manmohan Singh who has actually read at least half an economics textbook and isn't associated with a party whose base consists of anti-muslim rednecks. Unfortunately that is not what we saw. Manmohan Singh had no power and the inept Gandhis held all of it. They need to go. I don't think that the INC will come back to power until that is the case (at least I hope so) and they are replaced by younger members who have better ideas about development.

As for parties such as JD(U), I don't think their defeat indicates that the people voted for Hindu nationalism over development, they just voted for the party that they best thought could remove congress from power at the center. This was a national election, not a state election. I doubt the BJP could sweep or even win Bihar in a state election. People like Nitish Kumar and Patnaik are also ideal candidates in my mind, perhaps even better than Manmohan Singh since they have the experience of leading a state. Why not run them against Modi instead of a man child?

[Sbane]

The BJP did not win these many seats because of Hindutva, they won because the congress party lost.

Do you really believe the INC "lost" UP and Bihar?

Just to be more clear.

I mean to ask if whether it is really possible to say that BJP did not win UP and Bihar as opposed to other parties losing it? I don't understand how anyone can make such a argument.

The people wanted INC out at the center, and they voted for the party most likely to make it happen. Although UP is a slightly different case because of the Muzzafarnagar riots, the reason why the BJP won is development. I have not seen the BJP basing their campaign on Hindu nationalism in this election.

I will also add that one thing you mentioned earlier as a bad BJP policy, advocating for a uniform civil code, is an issue where I strongly support the BJP. Do you think that makes me a Hindu nationalist? Everyone must follow the same civil codes, as is the case in most other countries in the world. Are they all [insert dominant religion in country] nationalists as well? Would you be opposed to something like this?

[covermyeyes]

First of all you said that since Pilot lost (and JD(U)), that meant development lost and a BJP win meant Hindu nationalism won. That would have been true if it happened in a year such as 2009, when Varun Gandhi fought back a INC wave by exploiting religious tensions. It should be clear that this year, with this sort of mandate, the swing voter was voting for development, not hindu nationalism. If that was the case, then why in 2014? Why not before?

Pilot's defeat was pretty much Hindu consolidation. Jat + Rajputs vote for a Jat candidate at the same time? While a popular leader with easy access to central funds to lavish projects was available? I am not quite sure how familiar you are with politics of India if you believe that's anti-incumbency.

Do you really think BJP swept Delhi and Mumbai because the people there who voted for INC in 2009 suddenly wanted to express how Hindu they were?

Do you know who won in Mumbai? Shiv Sena. There is pretty much a secular urban left liberal vs the Shiv Sena types dichotomy going on in Mumbai. Of course, that alone would not account for a defeat. So I admit there could be a case of anti-incumbency as well that swung voters or inspired SS supporters to turn up in force.

As for Delhi, I did not equate the victory there with Hindu nationalism. It's pretty clear that INC voters (left-leaning urban middle class) have shifted to the AAP.

Has the BJP run on Hindu nationalism in this election or on development?

I am from Assam. I can pretty much and unequivocally give you the answer. A big fat yes. The entire BJP campaign was built on Modi, anti-Muslim rhetoric with disgusting code words like 'imports' (illegal immigration) and talks about how while Hindu Bangladeshi's are refugee's the Muslims who come over here are jihadi warriors out to islamamize Assam by stealth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So would you credit Sonia Gandhi, with no grounding whatsoever in economics, with India's greatest period of economic prosperity under UPA I? She being the real ruler and all. No. I doubt she ran the economy at all.

As for parties such as JD(U), I don't think their defeat indicates that the people voted for Hindu nationalism over development, they just voted for the party that they best thought could remove congress from power at the center. This was a national election, not a state election. I doubt the BJP could sweep or even win Bihar in a state election. People like Nitish Kumar and Patnaik are also ideal candidates in my mind, perhaps even better than Manmohan Singh since they have the experience of leading a state.  Why not run them against Modi instead of a man child?

This was pretty much an election where Hindu nationalism wiped out both JDU and RJD at the same time. There is practically no other way for that to happen without massive Hindu consolidation. That's plain political fact in India. How come we are even arguing that?

[covermyeyes]

The people wanted INC out at the center, and they voted for the party most likely to make it happen. Although UP is a slightly different case because of the Muzzafarnagar riots, the reason why the BJP won is development. I have not seen the BJP basing their campaign on Hindu nationalism in this election.

That does not stand up to scrutiny.

I will also add that one thing you mentioned earlier as a bad BJP policy, advocating for a uniform civil code, is an issue where I strongly support the BJP. Do you think that makes me a Hindu nationalist? Everyone must follow the same civil codes, as is the case in most other countries in the world. Are they all [insert dominant religion in country] nationalists as well? Would you be opposed to something like this?

When did I say that's bad? I agree with it actually.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Note that in UP the BJP vote went up from 17% to 42%. Pretty massive electoral shift in anyone's book, I think. Situation in Bihar is more complicated given shifting alliances, though is less dramatic no matter what.

[covermyeyes]

And no wanting an uniform civil code does not make you a Hindu nationalist. That makes you one type of BJP supporter. I don't have anything against you guys seriously. But you have to understand that there is more to the party than the western style upper-middle classes with leanings towards fiscal or social conservatism.

I come from a place where the two main opposition parties (including BJP) to the INC pretty much run their campaigns on ethnically cleansing Muslims.

[covermyeyes]

Anyone still doubting the results. Read what most of the media have to say for the results in UP and Bihar

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

And also look which seats stayed above the waves in UP.

[covermyeyes]

I will add that I don't believe everyone voted for BJP on the basis of Hindu sectarian rhetoric. India is a diverse country and people are not hive bees. But its clear that BJP has used its old tricks to devastating effect in certain areas of the country.

[ag]

I will add that I don't believe everyone voted for BJP on the basis of Hindu sectarian rhetoric. India is a diverse country and people are not hive bees. But its clear that BJP has used its old tricks to devastating effect in certain areas of the country.

Most definitely, many people voted for BJP based on the "development" promises - or for whatever other (non-sectarian) reason. The problems is: can they argue that they were unaware of what else comes in the package? I am not talking here of the villagers, who voted one way or another because of the agreements by their caste leaders or whatever. I am talking about the educated urbanites, who had to know what they were purchasing - like our friend Sbane here. They most definitely knew, evaluated the trade off and consented to the consequences. So, whatever happens now, they are responsible - even if they found some of Modi´s past distasteful, and voted for him for whatever other reason.

And, yes, this was a major Hindu consolidation. The communities are set apart against each other.

[Famous Mortimer]

So in that seat where all the Muslims got killed:

BJP backed independent supported by non-Bodos won?

Incumbent Bodo who broke away from the Bodo party because they were too crazy came in second.

Bodo party candidate came in third.

Is that right?

[Beet]

"not my friends and family who will be killed"... "the consequences" and "whatever happens"? Forgive my ignorance, but I'm not sure why just because some riots happened 12 years ago anything like that's going to be repeated now. BJP was in power in the 1990's were they not, and there were no mass anti muslim pogroms?

[jaichind]

So in that seat where all the Muslims got killed:

BJP backed independent supported by non-Bodos won?

Incumbent Bodo who broke away from the Bodo party because they were too crazy came in second.

Bodo party candidate came in third.

Is that right?

BJP backed independent Hira Sarania won.  Incumbent BPF ran as an independent because BPF nominated someone else  BPF wanted to nominate someone that is more inclusive and more likely to get votes beyond the Bodo community.  So the Incumbent BPF MP ran as the BODO candidate in the election.  BJP backed Hira Sarania won because of the split in the Bodo vote.  Hira Sarania was an ULFA extremist and a commander of an ULFA battalion.  ULFA is a terrorist organization that fights for the independence of Assam mainly to keep out non-Assamese.  He was arrested back in 2012 for robbery, kidnap and murder but somehow was allowed to contest and now won.

[Sbane]

INC will recover.

BJP has a huge mandate and needless to say, also huge expectations now.

Oh, I don't disagree. The (electoral) danger of an absolute victory is absolute responsibility.

Which we in India might not get. A huge mandate could embolden the BJP to launch itself headfirst on contentious issues like article 370 and Muslim personal law.

Covermyeyes, this is what I was talking about when I said you were against an uniform civil code.

First of all you said that since Pilot lost (and JD(U)), that meant development lost and a BJP win meant Hindu nationalism won. That would have been true if it happened in a year such as 2009, when Varun Gandhi fought back a INC wave by exploiting religious tensions. It should be clear that this year, with this sort of mandate, the swing voter was voting for development, not hindu nationalism. If that was the case, then why in 2014? Why not before?

Pilot's defeat was pretty much Hindu consolidation. Jat + Rajputs vote for a Jat candidate at the same time? While a popular leader with easy access to central funds to lavish projects was available? I am not quite sure how familiar you are with politics of India if you believe that's anti-incumbency.

Do you really think BJP swept Delhi and Mumbai because the people there who voted for INC in 2009 suddenly wanted to express how Hindu they were?

Do you know who won in Mumbai? Shiv Sena. There is pretty much a secular urban left liberal vs the Shiv Sena types dichotomy going on in Mumbai. Of course, that alone would not account for a defeat. So I admit there could be a case of anti-incumbency as well that swung voters or inspired SS supporters to turn up in force.

As for Delhi, I did not equate the victory there with Hindu nationalism. It's pretty clear that INC voters (left-leaning urban middle class) have shifted to the AAP.

Has the BJP run on Hindu nationalism in this election or on development?

I am from Assam. I can pretty much and unequivocally give you the answer. A big fat yes. The entire BJP campaign was built on Modi, anti-Muslim rhetoric with disgusting code words like 'imports' (illegal immigration) and talks about how while Hindu Bangladeshi's are refugee's the Muslims who come over here are jihadi warriors out to islamamize Assam by stealth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So would you credit Sonia Gandhi, with no grounding whatsoever in economics, with India's greatest period of economic prosperity under UPA I? She being the real ruler and all. No. I doubt she ran the economy at all.

As for parties such as JD(U), I don't think their defeat indicates that the people voted for Hindu nationalism over development, they just voted for the party that they best thought could remove congress from power at the center. This was a national election, not a state election. I doubt the BJP could sweep or even win Bihar in a state election. People like Nitish Kumar and Patnaik are also ideal candidates in my mind, perhaps even better than Manmohan Singh since they have the experience of leading a state.  Why not run them against Modi instead of a man child?

This was pretty much an election where Hindu nationalism wiped out both JDU and RJD at the same time. There is practically no other way for that to happen without massive Hindu consolidation. That's plain political fact in India. How come we are even arguing that?

You are assuming that because more Hindus voted for the BJP, it automatically means that it was because of Hindutva. Yes, there would need to be some level of Hindu consolidation for the BJP to win, but that is just simple math since Muslims won't vote for the BJP. That doesn't mean it's because of communal reasons. Indeed, the fact that caste voting is not as widespread is a good thing, even if it is inconvenient for you ideologically.

You live in Assam so tensions between Hindus and Muslims are particularly high. But did the BJP create those tensions? If the BJP were to disappear tomorrow, would that be the end of communal tensions in Assam? Someone else would just take their place, like the AGP or even Congress if the opportunity presented itself. Don't think the Congress doesn't have blood on its hands. It butchered Sikhs in 1984 and Muslims in Mumbai in 1992. It is all about electoral opportunity.

The bottom line is that the BJP did not run a communal campaign this year. That is not why the BJP has got such a huge victory. The people who vote along sectarian lines do so every time. The BJP won this election on a promise of development alone. If they had ran on communalism, they would have lost. It can be great to fire up your base, but it doesn't win you elections.

[Sbane]

The people wanted INC out at the center, and they voted for the party most likely to make it happen. Although UP is a slightly different case because of the Muzzafarnagar riots, the reason why the BJP won is development. I have not seen the BJP basing their campaign on Hindu nationalism in this election.

That does not stand up to scrutiny.

You are going to have to justify this statement. The proof is in the campaign that was waged, which is public record for anyone to scrutinize. It has been a very moderate campaign by the BJP based on development, not sectarian strife. And they have been very inclusive in their language since their win as well.

[Sbane]

"not my friends and family who will be killed"... "the consequences" and "whatever happens"? Forgive my ignorance, but I'm not sure why just because some riots happened 12 years ago anything like that's going to be repeated now. BJP was in power in the 1990's were they not, and there were no mass anti muslim pogroms?

All the posts about Muslims being killed are borne out of ignorance. They have got to be unaware of the type of campaign the BJP ran this year and are stuck on events that happen more than a decade ago. And if the BJP had to run this sort of campaign in order to get this huge win, why would they set about creating sectarian strife which will cause damage to the economy, and thus their re-election in 2019.

[ag]

"not my friends and family who will be killed"... "the consequences" and "whatever happens"? Forgive my ignorance, but I'm not sure why just because some riots happened 12 years ago anything like that's going to be repeated now. BJP was in power in the 1990's were they not, and there were no mass anti muslim pogroms?

This is not about BJP, but about one particular man: Narendra Modi. Putin, in a rare sincere moment, once said that "there is no such thing as a former KGB man". Well, equally there is no such thing as a former mass murdrer. This man has shown that he is willing to kill for political gain. At one point or another most may find it politically expedient to kill. Most do not. This guy will.

[ag]

So in that seat where all the Muslims got killed:

BJP backed independent supported by non-Bodos won?

Incumbent Bodo who broke away from the Bodo party because they were too crazy came in second.

Bodo party candidate came in third.

Is that right?

BJP backed independent Hira Sarania won.  Incumbent BPF ran as an independent because BPF nominated someone else  BPF wanted to nominate someone that is more inclusive and more likely to get votes beyond the Bodo community.  So the Incumbent BPF MP ran as the BODO candidate in the election.  BJP backed Hira Sarania won because of the split in the Bodo vote.  Hira Sarania was an ULFA extremist and a commander of an ULFA battalion.  ULFA is a terrorist organization that fights for the independence of Assam mainly to keep out non-Assamese.  He was arrested back in 2012 for robbery, kidnap and murder but somehow was allowed to contest and now won.

I guess, this is the fine example of the inclusive pro-development campaign BJP ran this time.

[ag]

"not my friends and family who will be killed"... "the consequences" and "whatever happens"? Forgive my ignorance, but I'm not sure why just because some riots happened 12 years ago anything like that's going to be repeated now. BJP was in power in the 1990's were they not, and there were no mass anti muslim pogroms?

All the posts about Muslims being killed are borne out of ignorance. They have got to be unaware of the type of campaign the BJP ran this year and are stuck on events that happen more than a decade ago. And if the BJP had to run this sort of campaign in order to get this huge win, why would they set about creating sectarian strife which will cause damage to the economy, and thus their re-election in 2019.

By the way, I have never said it is just the Muslims that will be killed. Hindus have at least as much to be worried about. But, hey, electing an unapologetic mass murderer is good for development, isn't it?

[ag]

And BJD did take 20 out of 21 Orissa seats. Good for them.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

How many UPA cabinet members were defeated?

[jaichind]

According to CNN-IBN it is now NDA 334 38.31% UPA 60 23.84%.  I wonder if the voting percentages are normalized fort he NOTA vote which is around 1.1% since the ECI does not consider NOTA votes to be valid votes meaning NOTA cannot win an election even if it wins a plurality.