Nature of the Indian voter

The outcome of the recent election in India was certainly surprising -- more so than the 1977 election, when Indira Gandhi was "dethroned". I would, in fact, compare it to Atlee's victory over Churchill, back in the late '40s, wherein, to quote Churchill, he was "ordered off the turf".

Surprise though the result may be, has the Indian electorate shown maturity or have they been rather unwise in casting their votes? Or is the result simply evidence of the great divide between the haves and the have-nots?.

The divide is certainly not an urban-rural divide: In the cities, the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) was routed. Neither is it a north-south divide, as the NDA was defeated in Andhra Pradesh as dismally as it was in Uttar Pradesh. The NDA did everything to ensure a landslide victory -- it brought out a dream program to woo the middle class, by making computers cheaper, air travel cheaper, etc.

It tried to woo industrialists by announcing industry and corporate packages, it brought the election timetable forward a few months to cash in on their spectacular victories in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh (they had lost in Delhi only), and gave so-called campaign wizards like Pramod Mahajan and Arun Jetley a chance to campaign. Opinion polls from late March to early April predicted the total demise of the Congress Party and Sonia Gandhi.

Then, something mysterious happened -- something that will take months to unravel, and Indian voters showed that they keep their intentions to themselves, and as such, electoral movement became very difficult to predict.

The road ahead is difficult: Mohan Singh is saddled with an unenviable job with some major coalition partners who are poles apart and oppose the very idea of liberalization. How long will this government last? Logically speaking, just a few months.

However, the elections are so expensive that the legislators elect would likely be uninterested in another election anytime soon, so they will play a game of nerves. But eventually, some party will yield, exactly as one did during Narasimha Rao's rule.

In the process, will the business of running the country efficiently and effectively be the last priority? Only time will tell.

Observing this, one could compliment Indonesia for choosing the principle of Presiden pilihan rakyat (president chosen by the people), wherein at least the job of the head of state does not depend on the vagarious loyalties of legislators.

K.B. KALE, Jakarta