Why did Congress Lose in the Indian General Election?

The 2019 national election verdict is an eye-opener and a significant event that redefines and reshapes India as a nation. With all the drama and excitement out of the way, we need to calm down and rationally analyze what went wrong with the secular and moderate school of thought in India, before turning our attention back to BJP and its thumping victory.

This election, the results for the once unbeatable political force — Indian National Congress, that led India to independence, and governed for most of the decades since — were dismal. Congress’ influence and impact on Indian politics has been dwindling for the longest time now. Yet, with Rahul Gandhi’s renewed initiative before the elections, some had hoped that the party could appear as an alternative to Modi’s hardline approach, even if it came to power as a part of a coalition.

As reality set in on Thursday, Congress admitted that BJP had run a more superior campaign and that they needed to change their approach to elections. As they go back to the drawing board to discuss what they could have done better, here are some quick and broad pointers about what Congress did wrong.

Rahul Gandhi, the head of Congress, was always considered a light weight compared to Mr. Modi, and did not possess the optical foresight or the maturity to understand the wave of change coming over Indian voters since 2014.

After Congress won Assembly elections in three out of five states six months ago, all in the heartland---Rajasthan, Chhatisgarh and Madhya Pradesh, the party became overconfident and focused on four major issues that could be used against BJP. Yet, they fell short as they did not think through their arguments.

1. Rural distress: The farmers’ suffering in India is not a new phenomenon. But the problem with India’s agricultural sector is more of a structural challenge than a political slip and needs plenty of time and restructuring to reverse. Five years is not enough to correct it. Besides, the neglect of the rural sector did not begin with BJP regime, it started way back when Congress was in charge. The short-term solutions Gandhi talked about were not enough to change the bigger structural set up for Indian agriculture. BJP has come up with flagship schemes like Sahaj Bijli Ghar Yojana and Ujjwala Yojana to make a lasting change in the rural sector.

2. Rising unemployment: India has seen a jobless growth for the last couple of years and this has been a more controversial issue than the others. But, Indian voters understand that the five years is not enough for BJP to solve the unemployment issue and is willing to give Modi government another chance to consolidate its efforts towards helping India’s economy. Besides, a fractured coalition held together precariously by Congress could not have bolstered Indian’s hope to have the stability to prosper economically. It is only when economy grows that jobs will be created.

3. Demonetization: It has been a bold step that was announced midway through Modi’s first term, and something this audacious is bound to cause disruption of some sort. But, the middle-class Indian like the transition to cashless economy and digital transaction since they don’t understand the rationale of macroeconomics and perceive demonetization as a positive step towards flushing out black money.

4. Goods and Services Tax: Gandhi called GST the “Gabbar Singh” tax and his shrill tone did nothing to soothe the Indian voters because the Goods and Services Tax is a brainchild of Congress and other political parties as well and can’t be called as something belonging exclusively to BJP. Also, in a complex federalism, rolling out GST is never a simple task and is often full of flaws and omissions. No one gets it right the first time, anyway. But, at least this complicated tax reform was taken up by the Modi government, whereas other governments before, refused to touch it even with a barge-pole in fear of getting attacked.

The other tactical mistakes the Congress is guilty of, are:

1. Congress did not push hard enough to create a united front of major national and regional parties. In New Delhi, the party did not form an alliance with the Arvind Kejriwal-led Aam Aadmi party which rose to fame in 2014 with a rebellious electoral campaign and victory. Neither Gandhi nor Kejriwal, both critics of Modi, could set aside their differences to jointly contest elections in the capital. It also did not consolidate its strengths within the party. There was a lot of in-fighting within and no coordination among themselves.

2. It did not have a clear messaging of what it would offer if their government came to power.

3. NYAY: Former RBI governor I.G. Patel mention in a 1992 EPW edition that it is because the successive governments of 1980s chose to abdicate their responsibility to the nation for short-term political gains that Indian economy has witnessed so many crises. Rahul Gandhi’s Nyuntam Aay Yojana (NYAY) or minimum income scheme is such a short-term idea that could spiral over time, causing more harm than good.

4. Rahul Gandhi made a number of other promises like raising education budget, a planning commission to replace NITI Aayog, next generation GST, but these are generic promises that Indian voters have heard before.

5. Congress attack on Modi, especially their slogan “Chowkidaar chor hain”, backfired. It was not well received and reeked of an uber-elitist sentiment that made the voters feel that they were not intelligent enough to understand politics. Congress focused too much on criticizing Modi but failed to understand why he could connect with the people of India.

6. Burden of a legacy: Rahul Gandhi bears the burden of his father, former Indian PM, Rajiv Gandhi’s failed policies. The underwhelming policies of Rajiv Gandhi during his prime ministerial tenure in 1984-89, has got blamed for the economic crisis of 1990-91. The Nehru-Gandhi name which was the golden feather in the Congress crown, has turned into an outdated burden now. The young voters of India sneer at intergenerational dynasty generated advantages and look for self-made leaders, rising out of poverty and making it big, solely based on their own ability. That is one of the reasons why they were enamored by Modi.

7. This election was all about the leader: Rahul Gandhi was never quite able to emerge as a concrete counterpoint to Modi because a counterpoint requires that you position yourself as strong where the other person is weak. This is exactly what happened with the attempt to project himself as someone who practices a ‘politics of love’ as against Modi’s supposed barbarism and lack of decency. Gandhi came across as “soft” whereas Modi had a compelling narrative as a strong, nationalistic leader.

Winning in an election is ultimately about which leader and party offers more stability at the market and about personal trust, from the point of view of public image, in face of everyday struggles and injustices, for the general people of a country. No one is perfect, but who is more reliable? That is the question the voters asked themselves in the end. This time, Modi won the vote of confidence.