In last election, Narendra Modi bagged 100 seats of 120 in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. 107 seats had come from six other states claiming all but only two of total in these states. If Maharashtra and Karnataka tally is added, he got his numbers out of only 325 seats and very little from remaining 218 seats. It is obvious that he cannot repeat same performance in these states nor can gain from other states to make up for losses in his citadels. He has to now account for the non delivery and voters generally do not accept excuses. Voters are dismayed that he could not keep his electoral promises of rapid industrialisation to accelerate employment generation. Young are more disappointed by his failure to deliver on his promises that had built higher expectations.

He cannot plead on internal resistance to his drive for rapid growth as young expect him to have done his home work before raising high expectations. No one can blame the Sangh Parivar for hindering and not supporting his drive for economic growth. His hasty economic step of demonetisation did not earn him kudos from any sections for it had not calculated the gross impact of slowing down growth rate and causing more unemployment.

Young also could not the miss the shift from industries to agriculture in the last two budgets. In the election campaigns and for eighteen months after the takeover he spoke as a person who would pull India out of the rut of traditional politics and economic thinking to take Indians to the top and compete with the world as a new economic power and also as a modern nation. In the last twenty five months he seems to have fallen in the rut of traditional BJP politics unable to deal with the rising intolerance against the Dalits, the Muslims and other deprived classes as a rule. The Una incident in Gujarat proved that the young of upper castes had derived sadistic pleasure of whipping the Dalit young and had used cow protection as mere cover for it. The video run on social media of their sadistic pleasure was much more annoying to provide a stepping stone to young lawyer Jignesh Mevani to built resentment among the Dalit in Gujarat.

He did not hold his grip over his efforts to improve relations with Pakistan to realize dream of Atal Behari Vajpayee. He went ahead to please the party with his surgical strike against terrorist camps inside the Pak occupied territory in Kashmir. The about turn was not missed by the diplomats. He could not even suggest action against the party MLA in Delhi who threatened in public to take law in his hand by bashing the accused in the court premises. His helplessness was evident in owning the responsibility for defeat in the Bihar assembly polls. Though reasons were too apparent and guilty too were known he agreed to share the responsibility.

He could not even introduce corrective measures to free the economy from strangle hold of rich farmers who have been reaping all benefits of annual increases in the minimum support prices since 1971. They control 80 per cent of marketed surplus of agriculture products while 88 per cent of small and marginal farmers have no marketable surplus to derive benefits of increases in price support. Their produce is not sufficient even to meet their annual family need. Support prices increased from Rs. 700 per ton in 1971 to Rs. 18000 last year for wheat. The minimum wages for land workers increased from Rs. 14 per day in 1972 to Rs. 169 a day last year. And most land lords do not even pay the rates. They also remain exempted from tax payments as they were in the Congress regimes. Industries and business are subjected to tax terrorism. The finance ministry equipped with more powers the tax enforcement sections that enjoy a bad reputation as the most corrupt wings for searches and verification of records of large and small unit holders in the non agricultural sectors.

Why business community alone was painted as dishonest and tax evaders? The demonetisation was the capping event to show that the Prime Minister did not favour business men as they were corrupt, tax evaders and hoarders of black wealth. The Sangh Parivar and the party were not pleased with measure as it hit very sharply only class that had stood with the party for three decades and in each election. They could not be misjudged. There is a shifting of the power base away from the traditional middle class.

Most commentators perceive Narendra Modi as only tall personality with no one around in the party or outside to challenge him. But they do not specify what he stands for. He does not stand for business because of its corrupt image. He cannot vouch for big farmers as they are worst exploiters. What class of people will opt for him is not explained while presenting him as the only tall personality without a challenger. The commentators need to read the political history again. Indira Gandhi had an image of a weak woman politician when she won the massive mandate in 1971 and she was Durga Devi only political personality standing against defeated and discarded old guard in 1977 election and yet she lost. Rajiv Gandhi was no personality and was not known closely even to his party men in 1984. VP Singh had emerged a political personality with his sustained campaign on corruption against Rajiv Gandhi of the Congress and yet could get hundred seats less than what Rajiv Gandhi won. And even Narendra Modi was merely chief minister of Gujarat when he fought and won majority in 2014. No one can say he won because he was a personality. He won on his mantra to raise expectations as Indira Gandhi had in 1971. Can one conclude that he might meet same fate that Indira Gandhi met after her failure to meet the expectations she had raised?