Political parties and pundits alike are busy interpreting the Telangana mandate 2018. While the TRS claims it to be a pro incumbency vote, the opposition congress finds many an alibi for its defeat ranging from tampering of EVMs to negative perception generated by the dominating role of Chandrababu Naidu in the electoral campaign. But, what does the mandate really mean?
The TRS won 88 seats and polled 46.9 percent votes which is a massive increase of over 12 percent as compared to 2014 . This shows a clear positive vote for KCR whose regime suffered no universal discontent . A slew of welfare schemes helped to build a strong vote bank among the poor and women voters. The increased participation of rural voters especially the women and elderly defined the mandate 2018, indicating the popularity of his schemes. In fact, many of TRS MLA’s who were re-nominated were incurring the anti incumbency. But, the popular ratings enjoyed by KCR could nullify the adversity .
The welfare schemes initiated by KCR like the cash support of RS. 8000 per acre per year, Rs. five lakh insurance, cash assistance of over one lakh for the girl child in BPL families at the time of marriage , pensions for the elderly, widows, beedi workers, and differently abled etc. have created a pro incumbency for TRS . The discontent was sporadic and confined to few sections like the educated unemployed . The results indicate that the TRS could muster support across caste, religion and regional divide, thanks to its populist schemes. In 2014, the TRS victory was more or less confined to North Telangana . But in 2018, barring the undivided Khammam district bordering Andhra Pradesh, the TRS swept the polls across the state.
Though it lost the polls very badly, the Congress could increase its voting tally from 25.2 percent in 2014 to 28.4 percent in 2018. Given the fact that it left about 20 seats to its allies indicate that the Congress voting tally would have been much higher as the party contested on its own in 2014 . This clearly indicates that the Congress as such improved its position , but the four party alliance which it forged, failed to deliver for a host of reasons.
The congress had an understanding with Chandrababu Naidu’s TDP and the Telangana Jana Samiti (TJS) led by Prof. Kodandaram, chairman of Telangana Joint Action Committee(TJAC) that spearheaded the movement for separate state, and the CPI . But, the electoral arithmetic did not work for the benefit of Congress. The TDP suffered huge erosion post bifurcation especially due to the defection of its leaders to TRS or congress. The post bifurcation narrative was in-congenial for the growth and survival of TDP in Telangana . The TDP is a ruling party in Andhra Pradesh with which Telangana has serious differences . The party is led by the Chief Minister of the neighbouring state.
This turned out into a big embarrassment for Congress, as TRS made this alliance with TDP the main political plank. KCR cleverly and successfully painted the contest as the fight with Chandrababu Naidu. This triggered Telangana sentiment much to the advantage of TRS. The sharp fall in TDP voting did not deliver the expected favourable electoral arithmetic for the Congress . The TDP voting plummeted to 3.5 percent from 14.7 percent.
The TJS was a non starter and the CPI was a negligible player. Thus, the people’s Front forged by the Congress failed to provide the much needed electoral muscle for the grand old party .
The united Andhra Pradesh was critical in catapulting Congress led UPA to power both in 2004 and 2009 . In a sharp contrast, the Congress failed to wrest Telangana even as it trounced the BJP in its strongholds in North India.
KCR ‘s strategy of premature dissolution of state Assembly has certainly yielded rich electoral dividend. Fearing a political polarisation for and against Narendra Modi in which Congress can be on an advantageous ground, KCR went for early polls . The TRS which supported the idea of simultaneous elections for state assemblies and Parliament thus ended up delinking the two for political reasons . However, the electorate endorsed KCR’s stand.
The absence of even a single woman minister in KCR’s cabinet, non representation to the two major dalit groups, Madiga and Mala in state cabinet, stifling of democratic dissent which even the High Court has found fault with, the allegations of unprecedented escalation in the cost of irrigation projects indicating large scale politician-contractor nexus etc. failed to win away the voter from TRS as such issues remained the concerns of urban middle classes who were Luke warm to electoral participation.
The sad part of the story is that state witnessed unprecedented display of money power which does not augur well for the democratic process in the new state formed after decades of struggle and hope.
( Prof.K. Nageshwar is India’s noted political analyst. He is a former member of the Telangana Legislative Council and professor in the Department of Communication & Journalism, Osmania University, Hyderabad, India )
