Take governance, for example. While voters were split along party and caste lines about whether Mulayam Singh Yadav’s government should get another chance, there was shared ground on assessing the strengths and weaknesses of various parties: the SP was considered better on development and on looking after the interests of the farmers, while the BSP was considered better on general welfare, reduction of corruption and law and order. People did see this issue through the spectacles of caste, but there is a common sense that cuts across the caste divide. In this sense, it was a positive verdict — from within a limited menu, as always — with serious expectations.

The same applies to development. Those looking for ‘development’ in the voters’ behaviour often take a very narrow definition of development: economic growth, investment-friendly climate and infrastructure. This clearly did not mean much to the UP voters. They did understand the other meaning of development — bijli, sadak, paani — and they thought the SP was the best party for development in this sense, but this consideration did not change their vote in a decisive way.

Yet it would be a mistake to conclude that economic conditions did not make a difference. When the UP voters were asked to spell out the principal consideration for voting, the leading choices were in terms of economic conditions: price rise (a euphemism for poverty), unemployment, conditions of farmers and of course development in the sense of bijli-sadak-paani. Besides the economic condition, they mentioned corruption and law and order.

... contd.