The recent elections in India were the first major elections anywhere in the post-Gaza conflict world where you can reasonably hope to see an effect of the Gaza conflict. I am excluding the elections in Mexico, which just elected a Jewish female (Congratulations on that to all Mexicans, as an aside)… Mexican politics is not affected by the state of the Islamic world.
So what lessons can be drawn from the exit polls and surveys of Indian elections?
As everyone likely knows, Mr. Modi managed to win a very close re-election; with the results being much closer than what pre-election surveys had suggested. Can we draw any lessons from the shifts in voting patterns ? Perhaps!
First, let us look at some survey results. From
The CSDS Lokniti survey is the gold standard for Indian elections. Their topline numbers are as follows:
|
|
COngress+ |
change from 2019 |
BJP+ |
change from 2019 |
|
| Upper caste hindu |
|
21 |
3 |
61 |
-1 |
|
| upper OBC Hindu |
|
35 |
11 |
48 |
-4 |
|
| lower obc hindu |
|
25 |
7 |
58 |
0 |
|
| dalit hindu |
|
32 |
7 |
36 |
-5 |
|
| adivasi hindu |
|
31 |
-6 |
51 |
6 |
|
| muslim |
|
65 |
20 |
10 |
0 |
|
| christian |
|
32 |
-13 |
28 |
12 |
|
| sikh |
|
32 |
-8 |
11 |
-20 |
|
| other minority |
|
21 |
11 |
45 |
9 |
|
Mr. Modi’s ruling coalition (i.e. the BJP+) lost ground amongst “Dalit Hindus” and “Upper OBC Hindus”. The opposition (Congress+) gained ground with Muslims, Dalits, lower OBC and upper OBC.
Ignore the other nominal changes.
- The nominal loss amongst Sikhs, and among upper OBC Hindus is down to a change in coalition partners.
- The gain amongst Adivasi Hindus is down due to Mr. Modi appointing an Adivasi as a President of the Republic. Adivasi refers to the original inhabitants of India prior to the arrival of the Aryans. The gain amongst Christians is also likely due to this same factor. A substantial chunk of Christians in India are also Adivasi.
OBC stands for “other backward castes”, and Upper OBC is a grouping of such caste groupings that were relatively well off (because of sizeable land holdings). Dalits are the lowest caste hierarchy, and are afforded special protections in the Constitution with respect to government jobs and admission to government funded educational institutions. Most Muslims in India used to be Dalits (some Muslims are descended from Persian immigrants who moved to India to join Mughal nobility), but are not afforded similar protection as Dalits.
Thus, Dalit Hindus and (most) Muslims have a lot in common and should have similar voting preferences. In fact, these two groups used to vote almost lock-step with each other, and for the Congress+, until about 1980 or so. In India, the elections of 1984 were an anomaly ~ they happened just 2 months after Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated, and her Congress party swept the elections on the back of a huge sympathy wave. But, starting in 1989, the Dalit Hindu vote and the Muslim vote became increasingly bifurcated.
Prior to 1947 (i.e. the India-Pakistan partition) Muslims in India were inclined to vote for the Muslim League (i.e. a sectarian party) on the rationale that only a Muslim sectarian party can protect Muslim interests. However, when the leader of the Muslim League decamped to Pakistan, taking with him all Muslims who could afford to leave, the Muslims who remained in India shifted their voting preference to a non-sectarian party (i.e. the Congress+) that they could trust to protect their interests. This was not due to an absence of a choice ~ there are Muslim sectarian parties in India, but most Muslims have concluded that their interests are best served by a non-sectarian coalition that they can trust.
That was also the case for Dalits in India till about 1980. Again, this was not down to a lack of options. However, starting in the 1989 elections, Dalits moved increasingly away from the coalition they trusted (i.e. the Congress) to a sectarian grouping of their own, or to the BJP… which is an overtly anti-Muslim grouping. The same pattern held for other groupings as well. It became increasingly unacceptable for individual groupings to remain within a coalition that also included Muslims.
Keep in mind that this shift does not have to be down to bigotry, although there were plenty of bigots who were promoting bigotry. In fact, I suspect it most likely wasn't due to bigotry itself. Rather, it was down to a values-based order in which Muslims were deemed to be “bad” based on a rational criterion that is not captured by bigotry. Muslims were bad because they were loyal to Ayatollah Khomeini, and not to the Indian constitution. Muslims were bad because they were potential terrorists. Muslims were bad because they are aligned with those who blow up the statues of the Bamiyan Buddha. And, once the ISIL induced carnage of various sectarian groupings happened…. Muslims were bad because their religion teaches them to be genocidal maniacs. There have always been bigots in the world; but their job was made easier by the antics of the Taliban and ISIL.
Regardless of why Muslims were bad, it became increasingly difficult for any sectarian group to remain in a coalition that also included Muslims. Thus, you ended up with the election of 2019 in which Dalits voted mostly for Mr. Modi’s coalition while Muslims voted largely for the Congress (even though by now, they were also looking for options).
And that brings me down to the post-Gaza world.
Regardless of how you may feel about the origins of the Israel-Palestine conflict, there is one absolute reality. Most of the world sees the Palestinians as victims. And with the level of destruction rained down on them, it becomes increasingly difficult to view Muslims as genocidal monsters (who wiped out the Yazidi’s, for instance)… instead, it becomes easier to view them as victims of genocidal monsters (Israelis, in this instance...who happen to be friends with Mr. Modi).
Thus, the change you should expect is a revival of a coalition that includes Muslims (in this case, the Congress+), at the expense of the coalition that excludes them.
Is this analysis correct?
That will be decided once we have additional data points. If the analysis is correct, then we should see a something similar happen in elections worldwide… in any entity in which Muslims are a sizeable enough voting block.
