Why do people by pass Narendra Modi in assembly elections

people by pass Narendra Modi in assembly elections


After the BJP's performance in the elections of Jharkhand and Maharashtra after the impressive victory in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, it seems that the BJP's victory has stalled


After the BJP failed to win a majority in Haryana, it formed a government after forming an alliance.

But in Maharashtra, the BJP failed to maintain a pre-poll alliance with the Shiv Sena.

Now in Jharkhand, BJP has faced a severe defeat.

All these election results can be analyzed separately.

But there is a trend in all these election results. And it is not possible to understand it from different analysis.

Extreme victory from center to state
After the massive victory in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, the BJP also had an edge in these states.

This shows that after the victory in the Lok Sabha elections, the BJP was successful in changing the atmosphere of the entire country. And Modi's charismatic personality played a big role in it.

But after this, BJP got more seats than before in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections. The victory was even more intense than before.

In such a situation, why did the BJP not succeed in performing well like the Lok Sabha elections in the assembly elections held just six months after this victory? Why did Modi's popularity not work for BJP?

Is the poor work of BJP-ruled governments responsible for this? After all, why did the BJP's performance in all these state elections deteriorate?

If this has happened then it should be said that a party which can fight and win elections with full force is not capable of running governments.

But surveys in Maharashtra show that people were not dissatisfied with the Fadnavis government.

However, the BJP governments in Haryana and Jharkhand did extremely bad work.

What goes on the minds of voters?

If we look at the elections held before these assembly elections, then an interesting thing comes out.

The BJP had to taste defeat in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh before registering a landslide victory in the Lok Sabha. These elections were held in December 2018.

In 2018 itself, BJP did not get majority in Karnataka assembly elections.

In such a situation it may seem that the BJP was successful in winning the elections at the central level but it proved difficult for him to do it in the assembly elections.

This trend is called split ticket voting.

In a democracy, when this mentality is seen among the voters, the voters do not vote for a particular party in the assembly elections simply because they voted for that party in the Lok Sabha elections.

In such a situation, voters make their decision based on the leaders, programs and promises of the electoral parties.

State is different, country is different

But if voters feel that the issues, promises and leaders of a particular party are not needed to run the government at the state level. In such a situation, they can choose those parties whose announcements they like more from the other parties present in the election field.

This means that even though the BJP has been successful in grabbing the attention of voters at the national level, it has not been successful in doing so at the state level.

BJP believes in winning the hearts of voters on the basis of issues like aggressive nationalism, raising doubts about Muslims and national security at the national level.

But in the assembly elections, voters can think what role all these issues play in running the governments of their state.

This can also be asked in such a way that when voters express their confidence in different regional parties in the assembly elections, why do they vote for the BJP in the Lok Sabha elections.

There are two answers to this question


The first answer is that BJP's nationalist electoral agenda does not work in assembly elections.

At the same time, the state-centric view of the regional parties motivates them not to vote in the Lok Sabha elections.

But it didn't always happen
After the nineties, the politics of India took such a turn, due to which this trend is being seen in Indian politics.

In the nineties, there is a desire among voters to see their Chief Minister becoming Prime Minister.

This was a period when the political status of the Congress was diminishing. And regional issues were making their way to the national arena. In such a situation, voters were not interested in differentiating between regional and national politics.

Instead, he was interested in getting his regional identity and related issues included in national issues.

Except for a few states, there was a similar atmosphere in the whole country.

But by the end of the nineties, voters began to doubt the ability of regional parties.

And only regional parties were responsible for this.

But NDA and UPA were also responsible for this.

These alliances helped regional parties to retain their place in power at the Center. But his role in deciding the trend of national politics was reduced.

Therefore, for the last two decades, regional parties have been stuck in the grooves of regionalism.

This triggered another process.

Regional parties began to feel that it is enough for them to think about their regional interests.

This mentality was also present in Indian politics before. But, in the 2000s, this was deeply ingrained among the regional parties.

Major leaders of regional parties were not ready to go beyond the post of Chief Minister.

In such a situation, the regional parties opposed or supported the ruling parties at the center on the basis of their advantages and disadvantages.

There was a time when Chandrababu Naidu was being seen as the future Prime Minister of this country.

But when he refused the post of a minister in Vajpayee's Union Cabinet and decided to get more money for Andhra Pradesh instead, his political tact was considered ironic.

But his decision limited him to the politics of the state.

BJP's new phase
Because of this, when BJP won election after election and spread Hindu nationalist policy throughout the country, no regional party could stand against them.

Although some alliances were formed opposing the BJP, but these regional parties were not able to contribute anything ideologically to these coalitions.

They could only say that the BJP is against the interests of their states. The only exception to this was DMK.


 What were the regional or state parties doing during the Lok Sabha elections held in May?


She was anticipating the danger of BJP in their respective states. Someone accepted to become a BJP supporting party (Shiv Sena).

These few parties (ADMK) adapted themselves to the changed circumstances. Some parties kept quiet (Biju Janata Dal or Telangana Rashtra Samithi) or they went with BJP.

In such a situation, the voters had the option to choose either BJP or Congress in the Lok Sabha elections. And there was an option to choose BJP or regional parties at the state level.

It is like two parallel moving stories in a film. In such stories, the characters interact with each other for some time, but their life stories are different.

Their love stories are different; And the villain is decided on the basis of context. Current politics has become a film like two different stories in such a similar way.

On the one hand, regional parties are unable to refute Modi's nationwide arguments at the national level. Such a picture emerges in which 'people of this country' seem to support Modi and his argument.

On the other hand, voters prefer different options at the state level, rejecting Modi and his arguments related to national politics.

The same voters who vote for the BJP, preferring Modi, make political choices according to their regional expectations, keeping their choices aside in state elections.

So long as Modi and the BJP disdain religious and nationalist issues that are misleading by their politics (as it seems difficult to be.), Or non-BJP parties do not create a new thinking, which will be a confluence of regional and national concerns, Till then, voters will continue to vote on the same trend for different parties in the state and at the center.