Even then, the Congress ran it close in Chhattisgarh, suggesting that for various reasons, the Congress is capable of holding its own against both Modi and the local BJP leadership. The reason why the Congress performed quite satisfactorily was apparently because Chhattisgarh is in a special category because of the Maoist insurgency. The fact that the rebels had wiped out the Congress’s top leadership in a murderous attack may have created a sympathy wave for the party. But, the fact remains that the presence or absence of Modi made no difference.

Elsewhere, as in Madhya Pradesh, it was a combination of the popularity of a chief minister like Shivraj Singh Chauhan and the Congress’s failure to get its act together notwithstanding the presence in the state of a plethora of leaders like Digvijay Singh, Kamal Nath and Jyotiraditya Scindia, which let the party down. It might have performed somewhat better if Scindia was formally made a chief ministerial candidate, but internal rivalries and the reluctance of the first family to boost the prospects of another young man probably stood in the way.

In Rajasthan, it was the lacklustre performance of the unprepossessing Ashok Gehlot which let the Congress down in the face of the challenge from the far more energetic Vasundhara Raje. Although the latter gave credit to Modi for the BJP’s good showing, it was more an act of courtesy than an acknowledgement of the reality.

But, it was the Delhi result which showed that there was virtually no Modi effect, for if there had been one, then the BJP would have won far more seats in place of the greenhorn Aam Admi Party (AAP). That the untested and inexperienced AAP came out of the blue to trounce the Congress and Sheila Dixit personally was a sign that the voters exercised their options without being swayed by any outsized figure.

Their sole intention was evidently to oust the deeply unpopular Congress and they were ready to vote for either of its two opponents. Considering that a sizeable percentage of the AAP supporters told a survey that they would vote for Modi in a parliamentary poll, it is obvious that, to them, there was little difference between the AAP and the BJP. Nor is this surprising since the RSS had claimed that its followers constituted a major portion of those who were present at Anna Hazare’s anti-corruption rallies in Delhi in 2011.

Given this link, one would have expected the Modi effect to be more apparent in Delhi, especially because the national capital is an urban conglomerate without the large rural segments of the other states, which are supposed to be not so amenable to Modi’s appeal. What this shows, therefore, is that the so-called electoral “surge” which is expected by the BJP to take the party’s tally close to the 200-mark in the Lok Sabha is an overestimation.

Moreover, it has to be remembered that the BJP has only a minimal presence in eastern and southern India unlike the latest elections which were held in the BJP’s perceived strongholds. If Modi is unable to make his presence felt in these areas, he can hardly be expected to do so in the east and the south. As a result, the gainers there will be the regional parties which form a part of the amorphous Third Front, which becomes a talking point on the eve of almost every election.

The loser will be the Congress. And the primary responsibility for its failures lies with the first family, which continues to believe that the only way to the electorate’s heart is through freebies. Hence, its preference for doles and subsidies such as the rural employment scheme and the food security bill. What Sonia and Rahul Gandhi do not seem to realize is that India has changed from what it was in the 1960s.

Not only has an affluent middle class appeared on the scene, which no longer shies away from exercising their franchise as before, the underprivileged, too, are more interested in bijli, sadak and pani, viz, an overall development, rather than on handouts and quota systems. As much was evident during the U.P. elections earlier in the year when the Congress’s promise to provide the backward castes among Muslims with reservations failed to sway the voters in its favour. And it is evident again this time when the Congress’s promises of “entitlements” failed to cut any ice. (IPA Service)