The controversial Indian author Salman Rushdie had, in a documentary prepared as a part of his 40th birthday celebrations in 1987, effectively shown the increased disparities in life. In a scene, the camera focus is on a poor woman making chapattis on a Chula of bricks at the sea wall on Nariman point in Mumbai while her two year old child was playing with water poodle nearby. The camera shifted focus to a kitchen on the fifth floor where a young housewife was making kebab. One piece falls in mouth of dog that had shaken her by pulling her sari. Similar disparities persist even now.

Yet the ad-campaign unleashed by the government through full page claims of what the NaMo government has offered to deprived classes and weaker sections in five years. War hysteria dominates the TV programmes and social media. This does not recognize that most voters are not enamoured by what was given or promised to be given in future at least on paper. They are not impressed even by the past performance of governments or regimes.

Narsimha Rao government had tripled the economic growth rate compared to the previous four decades and had created immense numbers of jobs. Yet he ended up with 162 seats in 1996 where as Rajiv Gandhi had gained 242 seats in 1989 despite the dismal performance in every field in addition to barrage of accusations of corruption in the defence deals. The Atal Behari Vajpayee government had delivered scintillating performance in his term and yet his yield in 2004 election was 138 seats from 172 seats in the previous election. The Manmohan Singh government was in the saddle for a decade. Few million families got monthly subsistence in the rural employment guarantee scheme. Few months before the election 2014 the reluctant Prime Minister was even forced to implement the scheme of cheap food to half the nation under the Food Security Scheme. Despite its promise of charity programmes of rupees two lakh crore the party could not win enough number of seats even to be recognized as the main opposition. Though its major achievement reflected in sudden upsurge in proportion of school going children from below 80 per cent in 2004 to 96 per cent in end 2013, it did leave little impact on the voters. The improved literacy rate did not yield positive results for the party that had won the clear mandate in seven and ruled for three more times in lead of coalition regimes in 16 elections since 1952.

The most intriguing fact is its loss of all but three in 107 seats in seven states where it was alone to oppose the juggernaut of Narendra Modi. In 14 states it could not even open the account. Why was so? Causes of defeat are as important as the causes of victory.

Narendra Modi was known as the efficient chief minister of Gujarat though he had to suffer barrage of accusations of partisan attitude. He did not promise any enticements or charity. On the contrary his demand was for hard work in the rapid economic growth regime. Most surprising achievement was his inroads in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar where power resided for previous 25 years in consolidation of the Other Backward Classes. Upper castes were thrown out of power corridors. He had demolished their citadel by grabbing 71 out of 80 in UP and 23 out of 40 in Bihar. Nitish Kumar was left with mere 6 seats.

The election 2014 was unprecedented in many ways for the election symbol that had failed consistently since 1952 and even in 2004 after its scintillating performance for six years had gained 283 seats a clear mandate. The electorate had over-looked its past, charity offered by the party in power and class consideration in two main states. What factors constituted the political mind of voters to deliver such an unusual verdict was the question that forced the world leaders to turn their eyes to India. Leaders of three economic powers - America, Japan, and China - came to capture attention of the power that had potential to be fourth economic power for they could clearly visualize in response to the priority of toilets before temple. The electorate, particularly young had responded to seek the glory in future.

For first 18 months, Narendra Modi remained true to his idealism of rapid economic growth through direct investments from abroad not only of capital but also production mechanisms to improve employment generation. He suddenly was made to give up his efforts to improve relations with Pakistan and pour out his hatred through surgical strikes. In every public address since second surgical strike he never misses to use threatening postures. The ad campaigns are talking of his charity to various sections. His politics seems to be back to the traditional concept of win the votes through enticements of various kinds. The temple and only temple is forced on him as his priority. It only indicates that he may be projected by the social media and political analyst class as the towering political personality that has no challenger. Yet the agenda that is forced on him indicates that power resides somewhere else. Can it help him to gain the access again to the political mind of more educated class of voters? The literacy rate tells that Indian voter is no more illiterate.

Now that the election schedule has been announced, it leaves a little scope for major changes unless he decides to assert even at the pains of isolation. He cannot blame if no one would want to come to closure for he fought his battles alone for five years.