The Indian Election of 2014 (informed ramblings)
The greatest democratic election in the history of humanity concluded on Monday, May 12, after 551 million Indians cast their ballots for their own representatives in the Lok Sabha, the lower and more powerful House of the Indian Parliament. Turnout reached 66% (pretty good for India, and considerably better than what we manage in Presidential elections in the United States). Regarding the election, President Obama said:
"The United States and India have developed a strong friendship and comprehensive partnership over the last two decades, which has made our citizens safer and more prosperous and which has enhanced our ability to work together to solve global challenges," he said.
"We look forward to the formation of a new government once election results are announced and to working closely with India's next administration to make the coming years equally transformative."
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/obama-looking-forward-to-working-with-next-indian-govt/1/361573.html
India, being the largest republic on Earth in terms of population and a country with which we have strong economic ties, matters. If you want to know more about what just happened in India, keep reading. President Obama rightly noted that a new government will come to power in India as a result of this election, and that has significant implications for both the United States and for the world.
The Parties and the Players
The first thing you need to know is that India has been governed, with only a couple of interruptions, by the same political party and its coalition since India's 1947 independence. That coalition (called the United Progressive Alliance or UPA) is a center-left coalition that is dominated by the Indian National Congress--INC, for short, but this political party is usually called (quite simply) "Congress." Opposing Congress and its UPA coalition is a center-right coalition called the National Democratic Alliance (NDA for short). The dominant and controlling party in the NDA is the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP for short--in English the name means "Indian People's Party"
.
Leading Congress and the UPA is its candidate for Prime Minister, Rahul Gandhi, who is both young and attractive but also shy and reluctant. Rahul Gandhi effectively inherited his current position (Member of Parliament for Amethi) from the powerful Nehru-Gandhi dynasty that has dominated Indian politics since independence. Rahul's mother, Italian-born Sonia Gandhi, has been President of the INC since 1998. Rahul's father, Rajiv Gandhi, served as Prime Minister from 1984-1989. Rahul's grandmother, Indira Gandhi served as Prime Minister from 1966 to 1977 and from 1980 until 1984. Rahul's great-grandfather, Jawaharal Nehru was India's first Prime Minister and held the post from 1947 until he died in office in 1964. Nehru was a close associate of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (the Gandhi we all know), but also note that there is no blood relation between Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and the Nerhu-Gandhi dynasty. Nerhu's daughter, Indira, married Feroze Gandhi, a Zoroastrian Parsi from Bombay (Mumbai), who was not at all related to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, who was a Hundu and was born in Porbandar, in Gujarat (state), India. As you might imagine, many Indians object to the Nerhu family's adoption (and co-opting) of the Gandhi name in service to their own political agenda. Gujaratis are particularly sensitive to this as they see Mohandas Gandhi as their native son. Many of them reject the Nerhu-Gandhi political dynasty for having "stolen" their hero's name.
[font size=1]Speaking of names, we, in the West, often refer to Mohandas Kamarchand Gandhi as "Mahatma Gandhi." "Mahatma" means "great soul," but Gandhi, himself, believed in the essential equality of all souls. He rejected the honorific title "Mahatma." He claimed that it "pained" him to be so honored. Hindu Gujaratis continue to refer to Gandhi as "Mahatma" (because they are rightly proud of him), but I refrain from using that title because it is, essentially, in opposition to everything that Mohandas Gandhi wanted to achieve in his lifetime.[/font]
Opposing Rahul Gandhi and his coalition (the UPA) is the BJP/NDA's candidate for Prime Minister, Narendra Modi. Modi has been elected Chief Minister of Gujarat four times and has held that office since 2001. My Indian friends are primarily Gujarati (and if you know any Indians with the last name "Patel," it is likely that they are from Gujarat). These friends tell me that Modi is a great leader who will "clean up" Indian politics (and they are right to note that Indian politics are notoriously corrupt). Modi reformed the Gujarati economy, focused on public works, and (as these friends argue) "transformed" the state. Modi has benefited from vast media exposure, and is projected to be the next Prime Minister of India. (More on that later.) Modi leads the center-right NDA coalition, and he is a media star compared to the apparently-sedated Rahul Gandhi.
Regarding India (and how these ramblings are informed)
Most Americans can't really fathom India. While the United States is highly multi-cultural and multi-religious, no nation-state on Earth compares to India in terms of religious, cultural, class, and racial diversity. None. As I mentioned above, I have Indian friends from Gujarat. Gujarat is the 10th most-populous state in India (and it has a population of 60 million, roughly the size of Italy). India's most populous state, Uttar Pradesh, has a population the size of Brazil (nearly 200 million people). If 800 million Indians died tomorrow, India would still have more citizens than the United States. It's really beyond the comprehension of most Americans.
Narendra Modi, having run a state with as many people as Italy has for the past 13 years, is no political novice. He knows what he is doing, and he has proven to be a capable leader. That said, he is the leader of the center-right coalition, and said coalition carries with it baggage that is quite familiar to us in the United States. All of the pro-Hindu religious parties in India back Modi's NDA (just as our Christian fundamentalists back the GOP). Modi uses Hinduism (and the fact that most of India is Hindu) to advance his agenda.
Nationalism vs. Communalism
Mohandas Gandhi was an Indian nationalist. He sought a united and independent India (in all its multi-cultural and multi-religious glory), but he opposed what he called "communalism" (that political tendency to favor religious/caste/state/regional interests over and above the health of India as a whole). Narendra Modi has been accused of being a "Hindu nationalist," but it chaps my hide to see Western media describe Modi in this way. Modi (if you want to disparage him) is a Hindu communalist, not a nationalist. Frankly, nobody can run India as a communalist, so these kinds of attacks on Modi are silly, imo, but there is no doubt that a number of Hindu communalist parties are allied with Modi's BJP.
There are roughly 150 million Muslims in India (nearly half the population of the United States). The Congress Party has consistently maintained a secular and tolerant attitude toward religion in India since the party's inception (following Gandhi's teachings). Note that Gandhi opposed the partition of India. He wanted a united, multi-religious India, and he did not think it wise to create separate states (Pakistan and Bangladesh) for Muslims. Nevertheless, the British decided to partition India because the Muslims (who ruled India under the Mughal Dynasty for hundreds of years prior to the British Raj), feared that they would be persecuted by the majority Hindu population if said population ever gained political power in India. Note that many religions originated in India, including Hinduism, Buddism, Sikhism, and Jainism, and that adherents of many other religions are present in India, including Christians, Zoroastrians, and Muslims. India is outrageously diverse in terms of religion, and I am of the opinion that no leader of the country could rule effectively as a "communalist," but that certain politicians (Modi is just one example) play upon communal instincts in the populace to advance their own political power.
Whereas the Congress Party defines itself by its multiculturalism and tolerance for all Indian religions, the BJP and its allies are perceived as being pro-Hindu and much less tolerant (and, given the company they keep, this is not a baseless accusation). That said, Modi (in his campaign) avoided discussing religion and caste and, instead, focused on economic development and the corruption within the Congress Party. Congress, for its part, occasionally played upon fears of religious genocide (some going so far as to evoke the name of Hitler) to stoke the fears of the religious minorities in India in order to secure their loyalty at the ballot box. This is the background from which we can understand the 2014 Indian electon.
2014 Exit Polls
In 2009, the Indian government banned the release of exit-polling data until the entire election was completed. We, in the United States, are accustomed to having a single "election day," but this isn't practical in India given the number of people who have to vote. Instead, the election is staggered over several weeks so that the state can marshal its resources and focus on one area of the country at a time. The election concluded on May 12. Results will be released tomorrow, May 16, 2014.
Exits polls (as is typical for India) have been all over the place. Exit polls are notoriously bad in India. In the 2004 elections, the exit polls showed a BJP landslide that did not materialize, and the same happened in 2009. This is not because the elections in India are corrupt or unfair, but for a couple of different reasons. For one thing, many Dalits are afraid to upset their landholders (Dalits, i.e. untouchables, are the poorest of the poor in India, and they are beholden to the wealthy people who own the land they farm). Dalits are often afraid to be honest when asked about their electoral choices, and, in addition, most Indians are fully aware that the Indian media is owned and controlled by wealthy interests in India. They want to appear on television as badly as your average American, and they think their chances are better if they tell the media what they think the media wants to hear (i.e. the right-wing media bias is as present in India as it is in the United States). Our exit polling in the U.S. tends to be more accurate because Americans are less afraid to say what they think (this is a blessing of our 1st Amendment which we protect vehemently--see Citizens United). The Indians don't have the same kind of reverence for speech. Thus, for these reasons, their exit polling has always been unreliable.
Current exit polling shows a victory for Modi and the NDA. How big a victory is the only question. It takes 272 seats to control the Lok Sabha. Current exit polls show the BJP (alone, minus its allied parties) getting anywhere between 220 and 290 seats. Even if the BJP (alone) doesn't get 272, it's clear that the center-right coalition (The NDA) will cross the 272 threshold. Barring unforeseen circumstances, a new Indian government led by Narendra Modi will soon take power in India.
My Conclusions
As I mentioned above, I have a number of Gujarati friends, and they are quite excited about a Modi victory. Modi is from Gujarat, after all, and state loyalty means more in India than it does in the United States. In part, this is because most states have their own native languages--Gujarati (Gandhi's native language) is different from Hindustani, Bengali, Urdu, Marathi, and all the Dravidian languages of Southern India). Frankly, as enthusiastic about Modi as my friends are, I don't share their enthusiasm, but I placate them. It's their country, after all, and I feel I have little right to object to their politics.
Modi's project is essentially neo-liberal, and the more I study the issue, the more I dislike the BJP and the center-right coalition. In many ways, Narendra Modi is the Ronald Reagan of India. That said, Congress has been in power for too long, and a brief respite may be in order. That is my hope ... for a brief NDA coalition government, followed by the return of a stronger, less-corrupt, left-center, Congress-led coalition in 5 years. Rahul Gandhi is a very weak candidate, ultimately. Besides which the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty has ruled for too long. Dynasties are not healthy for a republic.
I seriously doubt, however, that the BJP will get over 240 seats. The NDA, on the other hand, will cross 272. That much seems certain, but recent history shows that exit polls showing a BJP/NDA landslide are usually in error. I will be stunned if the BJP gets the 290 seats predicted by the exit polls of the most pro-Modi members of the Indian media.
Results will be announced tomorrow, May 16, 2014. Stay tuned.
-Laelth
= new reply since forum marked as read
-Laelth
thanks. 
-Laelth
Glad you found the piece informative, and thanks for the kick.
-Laelth
I confess, I haven't followed Indian politics except in the most superficial general sense - Congress Party corruption and nepotism, strains of Hindu nationalism in the BJP, massive unwieldy bureaucracy. I really appreciate your erudite summary.
I look forward to finding out the election results tomorrow, and following how India absorbs whatever these results end up being.
Thank you for your wonderful post! 
-Laelth
Great write-up Laelth!
I might have to disagree on the term "center-right" applied to the NDA though.
They are pro big government, pro public education and pro investment in national infrastructure(eg: highways). As someone originally from that region of the world, I find that me and most of my friends of my generation (Millennial's) are pro NDA/AAP. Hardly anyone in my varied friends circle supports the congress. They are seen as utterly corrupt, and stuck in the 1950s. The way the Congress party seems to be approaching the election is virtually unchanged. They swoop in on their limos, make promises , give handouts to the poor and promptly vanish when the elections are over.
The Educated and the Youth of India have grown out of the "we need to be helped/need handouts" mentality. They now demand opportunity so they can help themselves. The biggest hurdles for India's development at this moment are corruption, the lack of investment in national infrastructure and lackluster funding for higher education. Unlike republicans, or Ronald Reagon; Modi is not against big government or taxes, nor is he pro big business. However Businesses do like him not because he supports less regulation, but because he has never been accused of corruption. If you are a young Indian entrepreneur, your chances of making it big are really slim under the current Congress government. The moment your endeavor starts making money, the local politician's goons would pay a visit, asking for their "cut". Want to bid for government tenders? forget it...unless you are willing to pay millions in bribes. The current election results are a window into the changes happening in India. Times have changed, and the congress lost because it did not keep up with the changes.
*storytime 
*
With Regards to the "Hindu Nationalism/Communalism" of the BJP, there is an interesting back-story. Often news media just parrots the "Hindu Nationalists" title without hinting at their origins or what they stand for. The BJP's origins can be traced back to Sarvarkar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinayak_Damodar_Savarkar. He , along with Subash Chandra Bose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subhas_Chandra_Bose were once members of the Indian national Congress; the parent party out of which the current congress party originated. However, Unlike Gandhi and Nehru, Bose and Sarvarkar were not fans of the non-violent struggle. They were pro nonviolent struggle early on, but decided that it is not worth it when the early non-violent protests were crushed by the British. Subhas Chandra Bose was the president of the Indian National Congress then.(And would have been the first PM of India had he stayed).
This resulted in a considerable segment of the members of the Indian freedom movement cutting their ties to the Indian national congress and forming their own parties. Subhas Chandra Bose would end up forming the formidable Indian National Army, and die fighting the British, and Sarvarka would lay the groundwork for the current BJP.
Naturally it would not be correct to claim that Sarvarkar was the sole originator of the core ideals of the party, but rather he was one of the most vocal proponents of it. And he was an Atheist. Yes...this is not something most people are aware of..and is not something the news media events hints at. The term "Hindu Nationalist" might configure up notions of some frenzied group of religious cultists frothing at their mouth at a chance to have a go at the religious minorities, however the "Hindu Nationalist" as defined by Sarvarka simply meant someone who considered himself the son of the soil.
The word "Hindu" is not of Indian origin. Its the bastardization of the word "Sindu" . Sindu is the name of a river on the northwestern part of India, and the Persians called those who lived around and to the east of the river the "H(S)indhus". S morphs to H in Persian. Sarvarkar's Hindu Nationalist is defined thus in his own words.(shamelessly copied from wiki yet again )
“ that People who live as children of a common motherland, adoring a common holyland ”
Scholars, historians and Indian politicians have been divided in their interpretation of Savarkar's ideas. A self-described atheist,[2] Savarkar regards being Hindu as a cultural and political identity. While often stressing social and community unity between Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains, Savarkar's notions of loyalty to the fatherland are seen as an implicit criticism of minorities e.g. Muslims, Christians, etc. who regard Mecca, Medina, Jerusalem, etc."
I digress. There were a huge number of Indians who supported the ideals of Subhash chandra bose, and Sarvarkar. They considered the path Gandhi took to be very demeaning and believed that freedom should not be begged in a non-violent manner, but fought for using any means. My grandfather, and great grandfather were supporters of the Indian national army, whereas some of their relatives supported Gandhi/Nehru. It was based solely on personal preference and not because one faction was considered more liberal and the other more religious.(Both my grandparents were Atheists).in fact both factions were (and are) very liberal and are hardly different when it comes to social issues; even to this day.
Modi, was a child laborer (as a child,sold tea to support his family),is from one of the "lowest castes" and had neither money nor dynastic power. The Opposing candidate is the scion of the ruling dynasty, was born with a silver spoon and belongs to the "highest" caste. While Modi is not perfect, he sure is way better than what the opposition has to offer...and his story is one of the unlikeliest stories in India.
A former child laborer getting elected as the Prime Minister of a Billion people? This is indeed a proud moment for Indian democracy, and a testament to how far it has come in the past 65 years.
PS:
I created a thread on Bose a couple of years back, in case anyone is interested in checking it out
Divergent paths to the same goal, Gandhi and Bose
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9244480
Of course, everything is relative in politics. India is still quite liberal compared to the United States, so when people refer to the NDA coalition as "center-right," that's true only in Comparison to the UPA coalition which is "center-left." That said, I may have missed your point. Are you suggesting that the BJP is actually more liberal than Congress?
And thanks for the link.
-Laelth
As a person of south Asian origin and one who belongs to the younger generation, The "liberalism" the congress claims to espouse looks pretty wonky to me.
For example, the bill that would have allowed women a minimum 33% seats as MP's on the parliament has been stalled thanks to some Congress/Congress-affiliated bigwigs. Their reason? allocating such seats to women would mean minorities would have less seats (
). Modi recently proposed a 50% reservation for women, and hopefully this would come into effect, now that the Congress party is truly trounced.
This brings us to what a lot of Indians find wrong with the way congress goes about enacting their "liberal policies". They pander to minorities. We all speak of the need to improve the status of women in India..but what does the Congress party do? they go ahead and allow Muslim men to marry four women.
Why does a democracy make such an exception to a minority? especially a regressive one such as this? Congress party wants this because they can be assured of the Muslim vote-bank in the elections. IMHO, having such a law is a disgrace to any democratic country. When did liberalism allow certain segments of a democratic country to have special rights such as this?
The same thing goes for the "reservations" for minorities. For Example, if you are a minority, you are allocated a certain minimum quota for jobs/universities, regardless if you qualify for that job; or earned enough points in an exam for college. Why do we need such a framework in a democratic society where everyone is treated equally? And yes; I do agree that poverty makes a big difference and allowances need to be made; thus why not have the quota for disadvantaged people based on family income, than on their religion/caste?
The BJP on the other hand, envisions an India where there is no Caste. They even proposed the abolition of caste in the birth certificate; a proposal that never went anywhere thanks to Congress opposition. Imagine an India without caste? well we cant have that now..can we? If we do, where else can the Congress party go asking for votes?
What Indians want now is not a party that plays favorites or panders to certain segments of the society while paying lip-service to "liberalism". What they want is a party that allows Indians to decide their own fate. The BJP may or may not be this party, but at least they have a pretty good chance of being that one.
The Congress liberals would never have let a low caste child laborer become PM, however the so called "conservative" BJP did. Imo actions speak better than words. So yes, imo The Congress is not truly liberal.
PS: The BJP won by a landslide even on Muslim Majority states, such as Jammu and Kashmir. This makes one wonder about Muslims not voting for BJP
PPS:
Oh also, the Gandhi dynasty presided over one of the largest ethnic riots in Indian history; the Riots against Sikhs(After Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards). And the Congress party has been heavily implicated in these riots.
""When a great tree falls, the earth is bound to shake."
So Rajiv Gandhi is reported to have responded as violence took hold after his mother's death and accounts began to emerge of Congress party members leading the mobs.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26235314
PPS: Apologies for the delayed reply
It made me wonder what would have been the path of India's freedom struggle had Vivekananda lived longer.
One of the possibilities I could think of is that he would probably have supplanted Gandhi as the driving force for India's independence. He was a truly remarkable person, and someone I admire a lot. His views (in the late 1800s) were so far ahead of their time.
Whats your take on the Vivekananda factor? provided he lived longer.
Ps: Just noticed you have his Avatar pic
IIRC Gandhi met Vivekananda once right when he returned from South Africa. It's odd that Vivekananda, Gandhi, and Tagore were practically contemporaries (all born in the 1860s) but we (or at least I) definitely think of Vivekananda as belonging to the generation before Gandhi (Tagore sort of fits in both).
The time after Vivekananda's death was what I've seen called "the unmaking of Bengal" (there's a book called that or something like it I'm reading now). Communalism overcame nationalism among Bengalis, to nobody's ultimate benefit (other than the British).
Actually there are two "what-if's" here: what if both Vivekananda and Bose had lived to see independence, and what if Vivekananda had survived but Bose's plane had still crashed? My guess is that in either case (but particularly in the first case), East Pakistan would have been dead as a concept, which IMO at the time would have made the entire partition more difficult for the British.
As to the movement's leadership in this alternate reality? That's a very interesting question. Could Vivekananda have had the same close relationship with Ghaffar Khan that Gandhi did? I'd like to think so; Vivekananda's own speeches at the parliaments of religion suggest he believed it was possible, and his conduct of the Ramkrishna missions suggests he could carry it into practice. Even if he wasn't doing day to day leadership (and, let's face it, the man was notoriously bad at practical details -- he only met Dr. Wright in Boston because he had lost his train tickets to Chicago...) having his presence as a senior religious figure would have to have been a positive support for the INC and Quit India. Particularly given his fame in the US and Europe, the British would have found it much harder to shuffle him off or silence him. And, frankly, it might have tempered some of the Hindu communalism that began to develop as independence loomed. But specifically, I don't think he could have overcome Gandhi's political acumen, organizing ability, and mass media genius -- my own guess is that Gandhi would have still been "the leader", whether in name or simply in fact.
We'll never know, of course, but I can't imagine a world that he lived in for longer could have been anything but better for that fact...
The BJP (alone) has won 247 seats and still leads in 34. Congress has won 38 seats and leads in 8 more.
Narendra Modi will be PM. The only remaining question is whether the BJP can govern India alone or whether they will still need the support of their NDA allies. Wow.
http://www.india.com/election-2014/election-results-live-streaming-for-web-and-mobile-57324/
Here, have a lotus.
[img]
[/img]
-Laelth
(just in case you needed some context for the lotus in the post above--also note the indelible ink on his finger that shows he voted)
-Laelth
Here's what they had to say:
US reaches out to Modi; ready to work with next govt
I seriously doubt we'll see either pogroms or wars with Pakistan or China, but I am quite curious to see what does happen. The BJP has never before had a mandate of this magnitude.
-Laelth
-Laelth
-Laelth
(My laptop has been broken and I couldn't fix it until today.)
This is a really good post and I'm really glad you wrote it.
Some additional thoughts:
The joke making the stand-up rounds now is that the election just goes to show that a Gujarati will do anything for a US visa. Ha ha.
An element of Congress's collapse that should not be overlooked was the division of the state of Andhra Pradesh (you've probably heard of Hyderabad; that's its capital) and the creation of the new Telugu-majority state of Telangana. This completely divided Congress in the south and led to a macing of one MP by another on the floor of the Raj Sabha (their Senate, roughly). It was widely (and, frankly, fairly) seen as a cynical attempt at gerrymandering and even the Telugu nationalists who would normally want it felt left out of the process.
About the 1947 partition, I think it's always important to remember that the lines were literally drawn by a British civil servant who had never been to India. I'm using this comparison only because it's contemporary to it; if you know any Palestinians and how deeply they feel about the Naqba, it's like that, only affecting 10,000 times as many people. My Hindi teacher still remembers having to flee Sindh in the middle of the night as a little girl.
Modi neither started nor ended communal violence. He's not a figure like, for instance, Marathi nationalist Bal Thackery of the Shiv Sena, who openly and frequently encouraged his followers to riot. Modi's sin was failing to do anything to stop them, not encouraging them. Many Sikhs would point out that Sonia Gandhi (the Italian-born president of the Congress party and matriarch of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty) got a US visa and she has as much if not more to answer for from the 1984 massacre as Modi does from 2003.
Laelth touched on this, but it's important to remember that names in India are a kind of map. When you hear someone's name, that places them in location, community, religion, and caste (caste sort of covers all of those things -- but more on that in a minute). So, if you've heard of the actor Shah Rukh Khan, that name tells you immediately he's a Pathan Muslim whose parents probably moved from Pakistan during the partition (or before). That doesn't mean he believes in Islam, incidentally, just that that is his community. Similarly, the Prime Minister's name, Manmohan Singh, tells you he's Sikh and probably from Punjab. The President's, Pranab Mukherjee, tells you he is a Hindu Brahmin from West Bengal (that's where Calcutta, or as it's now called, Kolkata, is). I bring this up because the name "Narendra Modi" tells you he's a Ghanchi from Gujarat, one of the most economically disadvantaged groups in northern India (though was never nearly as poor as his hagiography makes him out to be). People have talked about the "electric" feeling for minorities in the US at looking on TV and seeing a non-white President; this is similar to that but frankly more intense. It's like having Lincoln's "born in a log cabin" story be inherent in his name.
Now, caste. Caste (it's pronounced just like "cast", incidentally, not "kayst" is a very, very uncomfortable subject in India, more so even than race is in the US. Castes were legally abolished in India at independence, but that's like saying racism was legally abolished in the US with the Civil Rights Act: it was a start, not the end. It's not really comparable to anything in the US; it contains elements of class, race, ethnicity, religion, and community. There are, for instance, very rich Dalits ("untouchables" and very poor Brahmins (there's a Bengali saying along the lines of "never trust a Brahmin who took up a trade" . If you remember the Indian diplomat/maid kerfluffle from earlier this year, the maid was actually of a higher caste than the diplomat. The most historically disadvantaged castes are grouped into "schedules" and given quotas in civil service. This has been good for individuals in the community, but has bred corruption, nepotism, and resentment, and that resentment is barely under the surface in this election. When I said earlier that Modi was from "one of the" most disadvantaged castes, that's important: it was not the most. The Ghanchis were not scheduled (at least as far as I know). They are comparable to poor whites in the South, in that sense: near but not at the bottom, and resentful of people "below" them trying to work their way up. What's important here is that Congress has largely always been a coalition of Muslims, low caste Hindus, and the 1%, against a more communitarian lower-middle class. Up until now, that has been enough, but the emergence of a true bourgeois class presented it a challenge it did not rise to, and BJP did.
Anyways. Should be some interesting times here in the next little bit...
