How the Congress and BJP act upon these indicators regionally, the structural changes they undertake in internal decision-making — especially in a state like Uttar Pradesh — will be one of the most interesting stories of the next year. It is equally important, however, what lessons they take in making policy at the Centre, whether in government or in opposition. Even before this localisation of Indian politics started to be internalised or at least taken note of by the national parties, state-level elections had been something of an alibi for the party at the Centre. It even led to some demand a few years ago that it be made mandatory for national and state elections to be held simultaneously. The logic being that then the party/coalition ruling at the Centre need not live election to state election, with every result seen as a referendum on its policies, and thereby inhibiting difficult decisions.

The result has been waywardness and lethargy in economic and foreign policies. Fareed Zakaria points to this consequence of regional assertiveness in his new book, The Post-American World, an examination of the rise of India and China: “They (these constraints) make it difficult for New Delhi to define a national interest, mobilise the country behind it, and then execute a set of policies to achieve its goals, whether in economic reform or foreign policy.” Perhaps the Indian voter will sort this out too, just as she has of late shown a distaste for the non-serious actor using electoral tools for narrow self-gain, the Janata Dal (S) in Karnataka or the Telengana Rashtriya Samiti in Andhra Pradesh.