We are also beginning to see two political phenomena: diminishing anti-incumbency at the level of states, and the increased importance of performance at the state level. This is giving state-level parties even more confidence to go it alone. In fact, even national parties like the BJP are now several state parties stitched together. The fact that most people experience governance through the state was disguised for a long time by one simple fact. Barring some exceptions, for much of the period of the ‘70s to the ‘90s, there was very little room for the states to manoeuvre. The most important fact of that period was that the states were fiscally bankrupt, and could do very little. There was simply no basis on which to judge their governance. Therefore default reactions like anti-incumbency or identity politics were central.

Economic liberalisation — but particularly the transformation of government revenues, and the fact that states now have huge money to play around with — created the conditions where their governance performance matters. Now state governments can run on their record, and are being rewarded or punished appropriately. This argument suggests that the entrenchment of state-level issues, rather than being a sign of regionalisation of Indian politics, is also a sign that the building blocks for parties will be governance at the state level. This does not mean identity issues will disappear: they are reappearing in new forms, like the movement for EBCs for instance, or intra-caste politics. But they are also being articulated internally within states, rather than across them. But this suggests that national parties will not, in the short run, find it easy to expand their base, unless they adopt radically new organisational strategies.

... contd.