For the Congress, the failure to project itself “politically” has implications for its future in the medium term and for the next Lok Sabha polls. Now “political” is a vague though much bandied-about term, which alludes to a strong sense of association with what is going on in people’s lives, and an ability to transform that information and instinct into an idea or larger policy; charisma is an important part of one’s ability to connect, but not the only thing required. So the Congress did well in seats visited by Rahul Gandhi, but the stamina needed to turn his freshness and charisma into a new or energetic “politics” (not just seats) just wasn’t there.

The BJP was imaginative in the way it played the electorate in different regions of the state. It spoke the “city” language in Bangalore (read, “infrastructure”, which affects all city-dwellers). So while delimitation has meant more urban seats, it was also sensitive to the fact that the nature of Indian cities has changed, and it is not just posh colonies that “city” means, but more of the aam aadmi leaving villages to seek a better life. The BJP worked to pick up reserved seats, reflecting national aspirations to build up the Dalit base and not to be known as a party of Hindi-speaking upper castes.

They fought this not as a Hindutva election, which should help in later attempts this year and after 2009 to broaden the NDA network and appear more electable, consequently, more “align-able”. Reports from the ground suggest they did their best to prevent this election from taking on communal overtones, to prevent consolidation of minorities, poor and non-Lingayat backwards around the Congress. They fought this, to use the same vague but very important word, “politically”; they spoke of price rise, referring to the Congress government’s non-acknowledgement of the problem as inept and indecisive. And they constantly reinforced the point that they had a backward candidate as the CM aspirant, one who had been “betrayed”.

... contd.