The standard thesis that Indian politics is centrist and moderate in its orientation also holds. The BJP’s core dilemma is that the politics of polarisation can give it local victories, a Gujarat here, a Pilibhit there. But it cannot sustain a broad national presence. Its leadership has consistently failed to recognise this point. Indeed, aversion to a politics of polarisation may also explain the backlash against Mayawati. Hazari Prasad Dwivedi once wrote a remarkable sentence in the context of Indian culture that sums up our politics as well: bharat ka loknayak wahi ho sakta hai jo samanvaya kar sake. This was the core premise on which the Congress was built; it was punished when it departed from it. It may now be able to reoccupy that space.

The election has also complicated the dialectic of fragmentation. While smaller parties have played the spoiler in a few states, they have ended up reinforcing the space of national parties, as in the case of Maharashtra. The election also demonstrates the Indian electorate’s aversion to hubris. One of the most dramatic results is from West Bengal, where the Left has suffered a serious setback. Much ink will be spilt over the analysing of whether it was its opposition to Manmohan Singh or Nandigram that did it in. But the Left, particularly in Bengal, had acquired a sense of hubris that was overdue for a rebuff. This is also an era where two things are evident in voters’ responses to governance and development issues: on the one hand, their expectations are rising; they want a politics of hope, not resentment. On the other hand, they are exercising nuanced judgments, not instinctive anti-incumbency.

... contd.