But these explanatory frameworks failed us with the rise of the BJP, combined with the emergence of regional political parties, which could provide viable alternatives both at the level of political processes and governance. Our formulation of ‘the Sangh Parivar’ lacked both the empirical solidity and theoretical refinement of “the Congress system.” The Congress had become mono-syllabic, while the BJP and the RSS changed the very language of politics; through raths, yatras, and mastery over political prose. As the BJP successfully introduced deep cleavages in the political culture, we were forced to define our response in prosaic, sparse terms, reminiscent of the way in which we define properties of materials. One could either be a ‘soft’ Hindu or a ‘hard’ one; secularism could be ‘elastic’ or ‘plastic’, we even spoke of a plural state and more dangerously, we even believed that the state could, and should, be a plural one.

At a time when our political theory was becoming puerile, two processes came together to fill the gap in our understanding. One was the old fashioned, empirical study of voting behaviour combined with political sociology. The second was the celebration of our democracy through the media, especially television. They combined to give a new lease of life and respectability to psephology. As election studies multiplied, we created one of the largest databanks of political behaviour. While that is a lasting contribution, we should not mistake statistical mastery for understanding of political processes. This process also elevated elections as the most important signifier of politics. In times of fractured political mandates, our answer was a deeply statistical one: anti-incumbency. It is a very arresting phrase; it captured our restlessness with ruling parties and individuals, while allowing us to graphically explain the outcome through ‘swing factors.’

The events of the last two weeks have brought the limitations of this framework sharply in focus. One was the response of the people to the terror strikes in Mumbai and the second was the recently concluded assembly elections. When people came out in the streets to express their grief, disbelief, anger and stoic resolve, neither they nor the media had a framework within which to understand it. Social movements and protest movements have become marginal, and we could only express our coming together in negative terms — as disenchantment with party politics and politicians. We did not construe our act as a political one, but that of turning away from politics. And yet, we went out and voted in large numbers. Clearly, we had a notion of the economic might of urban, middle-class India, understood the symbolic economy of its desires; but very little inkling of the language and form that its politics could assume.

The election results defied the logic of anti-incumbency. And we were quick to relegate the term to history, as representative of a politics of the past. We inaugurated the politics of development, of governance, of accountability.

The history of anti-incumbency tells a cautionary tale. Psephology must provide an empirical basis for our understanding of political processes but it cannot masquerade as theory. Anti-incumbency is no Rag Darbari, and till we have a modern fable we shall have to cherish Vaidyaji and Langad.

The writer is an Ahmedabad-based academic