Predicting human choices is often beyond the reified world of psephology. And therefore, notwithstanding the statistical projections, the exercise of ‘meaning-making’ or making sense of the what, why and wherefore of voters’ choices is inevitable in every election’s aftermath.

Take the result of the just-concluded election in Manipur. One of the major issues that have rocked the state, and even forced a reluctant government at the Centre to respond, has been the controversy over the Armed Forces Special Powers Act. It has been an ‘election issue’ with many political parties promising that they would work for the removal of the Act, if they come to power. But the Congress, a party which not only blocked a resolution to have the Act removed in the just dissolved 8th Assembly but also did not include the issue in its election manifesto, retained power in the state. That too, by significantly improving its performance from the earlier election, barely missing the figure of absolute majority. How do we make sense of this?

Or, take the case of ‘Naga integration’ in the hills of Manipur. The United Naga Council (UNC) fielded eleven candidates as the ‘consensus’ representatives of the ‘Naga people’. But not only did other Naga candidates fiercely contest them, only six of them managed to win. In Tamenglong, a part of the proclaimed ‘Naga Areas’, Khanthuanang Panmei, who had been reportedly forced to announce ‘retirement’ from the elections by the NSCN (I-M) after he was kidnapped, won by a significant margin. How do we make sense of this ‘consensus’ of ‘Naga aspiration’?

... contd.