This time, Indians voted with their minds – and feet
May 28 2009
The inscrutable Indian voter has delivered a near crystal clear verdict in the national elections against all predictions and expectations. Up until the final stages of the polling process almost every prediction and analysis pointed toward a hung parliament with either of the two major parties having to rely on a motley group of marginal players to be able to form the government much like what happened in the last elections in 2004.
But the Indian voter proved those predictions completely wrong and voted solidly instead for the virtues of stability, moderation, propriety, good sense, rising well above sectarianism. In fact most of these attributes are ingrained in the personality of the winning UPA’s prime ministerial candidate and Dr Manmohan Singh’s typically understated role in the coalition’s win has just been that – understated.
In past five years of his leadership, Dr Singh was severely criticised as being a weak and pliable puppet of the so-called Congress high command and described as unpatriotic and cowardly in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai that claimed more than 170 lives. His chances of leading the UPA to a victory were written off by many commentators when his government’s inability to prevent the IPL2 tournament from leaving Indian shores became apparent.
All that political punditry has been proved wrong. It might be months before socio-political analysts and expert statisticians and psephologists come up with explanations of why voters voted the way they did and what factors led to this near-clear verdict but what is there for us all to see is that this once the Indian voter voted with both mind and feet, leaving out the heart.
Not being swayed by unrelenting attempts at polarisation along religious lines especially in the wake of incidents like the Mumbai attacks but rooting instead for the calm, businesslike practicality, straightforwardness, sincerity and middle-of-the-road-ness exemplified by Dr Singh, the voters showed maturity and intelligence – voting with their minds. These qualities have never been attributed to the Indian voter in elections past with analysts contending that Indians have always voted emotionally – driven by their heart.
The Indian voter’s collective unconscious also seems to have figured out quite quickly after the experience in 2004 that a multiplicity of parties in power does not make for smooth implementation of policy. In the previous government smaller parties held the UPA to ransom on several occasions. A notable instance is the communist parties’ withdrawal of support because of the nuclear deal.
The coalition experience of the past couple of elections convinced some politicians that the politics of coalition was here to stay, which encouraged the formation of political forces like the fourth front. But this time the voter revered this trend marginalising such forces to the periphery as leaders like Lalu Prasad Yadav came to realise.
As well as a vote for stability and a virtual thumbs-up for Dr Singh’s – incidentally the world’s most well qualified politician today – understated style of leadership that shaped the Indian economy over the past few decades, this election also proved to be quite a shocker for both the criminal and maverick elements in the country’s politics.
In Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, people voted with their feet as well – booting out known criminals who contested the elections, many of whom had won previous elections through cunning and corruption. Some people, whose criminal records prevented them from contesting, promoted their wives’ and relatives’ candidature – but the voters were too smart to see through this subterfuge.
Dr Singh’s personality and role in shaping UPA’s victory despite not being a grassroots politician has not been acknowledged as much as it should be. His understated demeanour exudes intelligence, humility, deference, practicality, reasonableness and a quiet determination – attributes that run counter to the blusterous world of personality-based politics.
But these are exactly the values that middle India has strived for and enshrined in its culture through the millennia, the very values that have given India her identity and the strength to thrive as one of the world’s oldest continuously existing civilisations.
But the Indian voter proved those predictions completely wrong and voted solidly instead for the virtues of stability, moderation, propriety, good sense, rising well above sectarianism. In fact most of these attributes are ingrained in the personality of the winning UPA’s prime ministerial candidate and Dr Manmohan Singh’s typically understated role in the coalition’s win has just been that – understated.
In past five years of his leadership, Dr Singh was severely criticised as being a weak and pliable puppet of the so-called Congress high command and described as unpatriotic and cowardly in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai that claimed more than 170 lives. His chances of leading the UPA to a victory were written off by many commentators when his government’s inability to prevent the IPL2 tournament from leaving Indian shores became apparent.
All that political punditry has been proved wrong. It might be months before socio-political analysts and expert statisticians and psephologists come up with explanations of why voters voted the way they did and what factors led to this near-clear verdict but what is there for us all to see is that this once the Indian voter voted with both mind and feet, leaving out the heart.
Not being swayed by unrelenting attempts at polarisation along religious lines especially in the wake of incidents like the Mumbai attacks but rooting instead for the calm, businesslike practicality, straightforwardness, sincerity and middle-of-the-road-ness exemplified by Dr Singh, the voters showed maturity and intelligence – voting with their minds. These qualities have never been attributed to the Indian voter in elections past with analysts contending that Indians have always voted emotionally – driven by their heart.
The Indian voter’s collective unconscious also seems to have figured out quite quickly after the experience in 2004 that a multiplicity of parties in power does not make for smooth implementation of policy. In the previous government smaller parties held the UPA to ransom on several occasions. A notable instance is the communist parties’ withdrawal of support because of the nuclear deal.
The coalition experience of the past couple of elections convinced some politicians that the politics of coalition was here to stay, which encouraged the formation of political forces like the fourth front. But this time the voter revered this trend marginalising such forces to the periphery as leaders like Lalu Prasad Yadav came to realise.
As well as a vote for stability and a virtual thumbs-up for Dr Singh’s – incidentally the world’s most well qualified politician today – understated style of leadership that shaped the Indian economy over the past few decades, this election also proved to be quite a shocker for both the criminal and maverick elements in the country’s politics.
In Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, people voted with their feet as well – booting out known criminals who contested the elections, many of whom had won previous elections through cunning and corruption. Some people, whose criminal records prevented them from contesting, promoted their wives’ and relatives’ candidature – but the voters were too smart to see through this subterfuge.
Dr Singh’s personality and role in shaping UPA’s victory despite not being a grassroots politician has not been acknowledged as much as it should be. His understated demeanour exudes intelligence, humility, deference, practicality, reasonableness and a quiet determination – attributes that run counter to the blusterous world of personality-based politics.
But these are exactly the values that middle India has strived for and enshrined in its culture through the millennia, the very values that have given India her identity and the strength to thrive as one of the world’s oldest continuously existing civilisations.
The inscrutable Indian voter has delivered a near crystal clear verdict in the national elections against all predictions and expectations. Up until the final stages of the polling process almost every prediction and analysis pointed toward a hung parliament with either of the two major parties...
The inscrutable Indian voter has delivered a near crystal clear verdict in the national elections against all predictions and expectations. Up until the final stages of the polling process almost every prediction and analysis pointed toward a hung parliament with either of the two major parties having to rely on a motley group of marginal players to be able to form the government much like what happened in the last elections in 2004.
But the Indian voter proved those predictions completely wrong and voted solidly instead for the virtues of stability, moderation, propriety, good sense, rising well above sectarianism. In fact most of these attributes are ingrained in the personality of the winning UPA’s prime ministerial candidate and Dr Manmohan Singh’s typically understated role in the coalition’s win has just been that – understated.
In past five years of his leadership, Dr Singh was severely criticised as being a weak and pliable puppet of the so-called Congress high command and described as unpatriotic and cowardly in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai that claimed more than 170 lives. His chances of leading the UPA to a victory were written off by many commentators when his government’s inability to prevent the IPL2 tournament from leaving Indian shores became apparent.
All that political punditry has been proved wrong. It might be months before socio-political analysts and expert statisticians and psephologists come up with explanations of why voters voted the way they did and what factors led to this near-clear verdict but what is there for us all to see is that this once the Indian voter voted with both mind and feet, leaving out the heart.
Not being swayed by unrelenting attempts at polarisation along religious lines especially in the wake of incidents like the Mumbai attacks but rooting instead for the calm, businesslike practicality, straightforwardness, sincerity and middle-of-the-road-ness exemplified by Dr Singh, the voters showed maturity and intelligence – voting with their minds. These qualities have never been attributed to the Indian voter in elections past with analysts contending that Indians have always voted emotionally – driven by their heart.
The Indian voter’s collective unconscious also seems to have figured out quite quickly after the experience in 2004 that a multiplicity of parties in power does not make for smooth implementation of policy. In the previous government smaller parties held the UPA to ransom on several occasions. A notable instance is the communist parties’ withdrawal of support because of the nuclear deal.
The coalition experience of the past couple of elections convinced some politicians that the politics of coalition was here to stay, which encouraged the formation of political forces like the fourth front. But this time the voter revered this trend marginalising such forces to the periphery as leaders like Lalu Prasad Yadav came to realise.
As well as a vote for stability and a virtual thumbs-up for Dr Singh’s – incidentally the world’s most well qualified politician today – understated style of leadership that shaped the Indian economy over the past few decades, this election also proved to be quite a shocker for both the criminal and maverick elements in the country’s politics.
In Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, people voted with their feet as well – booting out known criminals who contested the elections, many of whom had won previous elections through cunning and corruption. Some people, whose criminal records prevented them from contesting, promoted their wives’ and relatives’ candidature – but the voters were too smart to see through this subterfuge.
Dr Singh’s personality and role in shaping UPA’s victory despite not being a grassroots politician has not been acknowledged as much as it should be. His understated demeanour exudes intelligence, humility, deference, practicality, reasonableness and a quiet determination – attributes that run counter to the blusterous world of personality-based politics.
But these are exactly the values that middle India has strived for and enshrined in its culture through the millennia, the very values that have given India her identity and the strength to thrive as one of the world’s oldest continuously existing civilisations.
But the Indian voter proved those predictions completely wrong and voted solidly instead for the virtues of stability, moderation, propriety, good sense, rising well above sectarianism. In fact most of these attributes are ingrained in the personality of the winning UPA’s prime ministerial candidate and Dr Manmohan Singh’s typically understated role in the coalition’s win has just been that – understated.
In past five years of his leadership, Dr Singh was severely criticised as being a weak and pliable puppet of the so-called Congress high command and described as unpatriotic and cowardly in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai that claimed more than 170 lives. His chances of leading the UPA to a victory were written off by many commentators when his government’s inability to prevent the IPL2 tournament from leaving Indian shores became apparent.
All that political punditry has been proved wrong. It might be months before socio-political analysts and expert statisticians and psephologists come up with explanations of why voters voted the way they did and what factors led to this near-clear verdict but what is there for us all to see is that this once the Indian voter voted with both mind and feet, leaving out the heart.
Not being swayed by unrelenting attempts at polarisation along religious lines especially in the wake of incidents like the Mumbai attacks but rooting instead for the calm, businesslike practicality, straightforwardness, sincerity and middle-of-the-road-ness exemplified by Dr Singh, the voters showed maturity and intelligence – voting with their minds. These qualities have never been attributed to the Indian voter in elections past with analysts contending that Indians have always voted emotionally – driven by their heart.
The Indian voter’s collective unconscious also seems to have figured out quite quickly after the experience in 2004 that a multiplicity of parties in power does not make for smooth implementation of policy. In the previous government smaller parties held the UPA to ransom on several occasions. A notable instance is the communist parties’ withdrawal of support because of the nuclear deal.
The coalition experience of the past couple of elections convinced some politicians that the politics of coalition was here to stay, which encouraged the formation of political forces like the fourth front. But this time the voter revered this trend marginalising such forces to the periphery as leaders like Lalu Prasad Yadav came to realise.
As well as a vote for stability and a virtual thumbs-up for Dr Singh’s – incidentally the world’s most well qualified politician today – understated style of leadership that shaped the Indian economy over the past few decades, this election also proved to be quite a shocker for both the criminal and maverick elements in the country’s politics.
In Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, people voted with their feet as well – booting out known criminals who contested the elections, many of whom had won previous elections through cunning and corruption. Some people, whose criminal records prevented them from contesting, promoted their wives’ and relatives’ candidature – but the voters were too smart to see through this subterfuge.
Dr Singh’s personality and role in shaping UPA’s victory despite not being a grassroots politician has not been acknowledged as much as it should be. His understated demeanour exudes intelligence, humility, deference, practicality, reasonableness and a quiet determination – attributes that run counter to the blusterous world of personality-based politics.
But these are exactly the values that middle India has strived for and enshrined in its culture through the millennia, the very values that have given India her identity and the strength to thrive as one of the world’s oldest continuously existing civilisations.
Leave a Comment