These parties, though winners in their respective states, are likely to have diminished influence moving forward. The Samajwadi Party is already out after overplaying the Anil Ambani agenda and ticking the Congress off pre-election. Even though DMK, TC, and NCP will be part of the UPA Government, the Congress Party is not dependent on them for survival. Hence, in addition to Congress being able to push its own agenda (and peddle its own influence), corporate India will have less ability to use the regional parties to get its way.

Now, of course, Congress can be influenced too. But that requires big players. Like Mukesh Ambani. So, little guys like Anil Ambani will be out of favor, but big guys like Mukesh Ambani will prosper. “Big Enough to Manage (the Government)” would be the keyword.

No one is really blaming the Indian government for the economic downturn because the downturn in India is not as bad as in other parts of the world.

Also, there have been terrorist attacks when the BJP ruled also, so, for them to say that the government has not been able to protect the country doesn’t make any sense.

The Muslim population is wary of the right wing BJP ruling at the centre and even the outside chance of Modi becoming the PM means that all those votes are lost for the BJP. The same must be true for other minorities also.

There has been real progress and development on the ground and the country is doing much better than it was ever before.

The reforms process has slowly moved ahead and most people don’t seriously think that either the BJP or Congress will reverse it or add to its speed substantially.

In such a scenario, people probably felt safer to go with a much more secular government with cleaner records than the hawkish right wing BJP.

Stability is good though and the Congress led alliance should do much better than the last five years.

Haha, this is a good joke. Didn’t know Baseline Scenario has turned into Comedy Central.

http://www.indiatogether.org/2009/mar/psa-forbes.htm

This election result is not easily explained by anti- incumbency and the economy doing well and so on…and here is why:

a) I think the economy was doing better than now during the last elections and still the BJP was voted out of power. In fact, the feel good campaign of BJP then was a complete failure…

b) Anti-incumbency was in great evidence even this time around in states like Uttar Pradesh (where BSP finished a distant third), West Bengal (where the communists lost after a 30 year rule) and Kerala where the ruling LDF lost.

c) You do not talk about electoral arithmetics and alliances (made and not made) which probably gave the UPA the kind of victory they got. That was probably a biggere reason than any great economic performance.

d) I believe Indians dont vote for a central govenment. People vote for local concerns. If you look at the states where local and national elections were held together, people generally voted for the same parties. No thoughts like this party locally and congress in Delhi. Similarly, ministers like Chidambaram who apparently delivered the economic performance which you claim resulted in Congress succcess, almost lost the elections. So, I feel people still voted local and in the end it added up nicely (accidentally?) for the congress party.

e) I dont think India needs Rahul Gandhi to be prime minister. I cant think of any good reason why anyone should propose or want that when you have an experienced and educated prime minister who is around and performing. Unless one is a fan of dynastic rule or the gandhi family. Of course, like you, the press has been speculating that this might happen, not surprising since we Indians love Masala!

Finally, your suggestion at the end that India could offer a new model of development based on dynastic democracy is frivolous.

Unless you were writing tongue firmly in cheek.

I should expect this to be a good idea why?

Not that there is any escape. Al Gore Jr., Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush… We are basically India already.