Indian Politics and Political Parties - General Discussion

[jaichind]

1952

Front        Votes              Vote Share    Candidates     Wins                  
UPA      48,169,973           45.46%            486              367
NDA      11,706,524           11.05%            274               29
LF         15,630,858           14.75%            213               51  
SF         19,385,966           18.30%            427               31
JRF             796,730             0.75%               8                  3
PRF         1,111,975             1.05%              12                 4
RF           1,079,088             1.02%                                   4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          92.38%                                489      out of 489 seats

LF means Left Front
SF means Socialist Front
RF means "Regional Front"

1) This is the first post-independence election in India.  INC led UPA was expected to do well but the scale of victory was somewhat surprising.  

2) NDA which pivots around BJS did not do so great which is not surprising given the sigma of the Gandhi assassination although it did somewhat well in WB due to the popularity of BJS founder Syama Prasad Mookerjee.  BJS mostly has strength in urban areas but most of the seats this front won are mainly proto-Swatantra forces in rural Northern India mostly made up of former princes.  Center-right parties like RRP HMS UPPP KLP CNSPJP and GP all had their pockets of influence in rural areas and got their share of seats and votes for the NDA front.  

3) LF which pivot around CPI but also included a number of Leftist parties did well mainly because their strength was concentrated in WB, Hyderbad, and Kerela.  Having proto-DMK (mostly running as independents) with Left front also helped in Madras.  

4) SF which consist of mainly of SP and KMPP both which are Socialist-Left splinter of INC were hoping to do well and hold UPA below an absolute majority and had a disappointing result.  SF challenged UPA across the board with SP taking on UPA in urban areas and KMPP in rural areas and was defeated across the board.  

5) JRF is Jharkhand Regional front which is really JHP and some pro-JHP independents.  JHP's agenda is the creation of a tribal based Jharkhand from Bihar and really is proto-JMM.  This proposal has a large segment of support in the tribal dominated part of Southern Bihar.

6) PRF is Punjab regional front which is just SAD.  The SAD agenda is a creation of a smaller Sikh dominated Punjab versus the larger Punjab where the Sikh did not from an absolute majority.  SAD split honors with UPA in the Sikh parts of Punjab.
 
7) Most of the "Regional Front" seats are mostly from INC rebels which managed to win 3 seats as well other rebels from other fronts.

On the whole there were some coordination between NDA, LF and SF to try to put up a united opposition to UPA, or else the scale of UPA victory would be even greater.  About 8% of the vote went to true independents or very minor players which still indicates that the party system is still being formed with a low level of polarization.  

[jaichind]

1957

Front        Votes              Vote Share    Candidates     Wins                  
UPA      57,898,977           48.04%            494              371
NDA      14,458,076           12.00%            233               23
LF         21,688,524           18.00%            215               59    
SF         15,384,878           12.77%            222               26
JRF            832,570              0.69%             14                 7
RF          3,647,916              3.03%                                   8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          94.52%                              494      out of 494 seats

1) UPA which is pretty much just INC plus some independents was able to consolidate its position as the dominate ruling alliance.   SAD also merged into INC since 1952 adding to the UPA position in Punjab.

2) 1957 was another year of disappointment for NDA.  BJS was able to grow its base in urban areas but with the death of BJS founder Syama Prasad Mookerjee, it declined in WB.  Within the NDA there is consolidation toward the BJS as parties like HMS and RPP declined and their votes flowed to BJS and other center-right parties like ZP and KLP disappeared all together with most of their votes flowing to their BJS ally.   Also as UPA was able to grow its roots in former most rural princely states in Northern India, NDA backed independents in those areas also lost ground to UPA.  

3) LF for sure grained ground across the board.  Proto-DMK plus the rest of other LF parties continue to gain ground and seats in Madras.  A lot of various CPI united front leftist parties slowly merged into CPI which also help to consolidate LF.  

4) SF which was soundly defeated in its attempt to become a truly national opposition front to NDA became more realistic after its defeat in 1952 with the merge of SP and KMPP into PSP.  SF now contested a lot less seats concentrating its dwindling resources in places it can win.  As a result its vote share declined although its seat share did not go down much.  

5) JRF which is Jharkhand Regional front and dominated by JHP expanded on their success from 1952.  In 1957 they manage to expand into Orissa where some JHP backed independents also had strong performances in the tribal part of Orissa.

6) In the "Regional Front" side, they are various rebels of all stripes.  PSP rebels were especially numerous and has hurt the SF even as SF which had a disappointing 1952 election has seen their fortunes fall even more in 1957.  Proto-NJP which is about creation of a Gujarati speaking state out of Bombey state and has NDA leanings also appeared on the scene by winning a couple of seats.

Just like 1952, there were various tactical anti-UPA understandings between the NDA, LF and SF or else the scale of the UPA victory would have been even greater.  Around 6% of the vote went to true independents so there are signs that the party system is maturing.

[jaichind]

1962

Front        Votes              Vote Share    Candidates      Wins                  
UPA      52,172,073           45.30%            494               362
NDA      17,892,730           15.54%            380                39
LF         21,988,577           19.09%            270                53  
SF         12,169,173           10.57%            292                23
NRF         1,436,851             1.25%              79                  3
JRF             525,598             0.46%              14                  3
PRF            944,878             0.82%                8                  3
RF           3,384,771             2.94%                                    8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          95.96%                                494      out of 494 seats

1) UPA declined somewhat from 1957 mostly due to split of Swatantra (SWA) which is a center-right split from INC which in turn joined NDA, but on the whole UPA was able to hold its own despite this defection because it was able to pick up support from SF voters to make up for this loss.  The rise of LF in Kerela where it formed the government in 1957 trigger the first intra-front alliance in a state.  PSP in Kerela joined UPA to fight the common enemy of LF.  

2) 1962 is the year of the NDA surge.  With SWA splitting from INC and joining BJS as a pivot party, the NDA vote and seat share surged. CNSPJP in the Jharkhand part of Bihar also merged into SWA.  Although due to poor coordination between the various NDA parties (BJS,SWA,HMS, and RPP) there were many states where alliances were not formed and as a result a lot of potentially NDA votes were accrued under "Regional Front."  If it had not been for this poor alliance building the NDA could have advanced even more.  Of course this is more of a process of BJS and SWA felling out each other's strengths in different states before committing to an alliance.  The NDA would have done even better in terms of seats if these alliances were worked out well and if the NRF were not formed as a center-right rival to NDA.

3) If NDA stagnated in 1957, then LF stagnated in 1962.   Only the whole LF was able to hold its own relative to 1957 but did not make much progress beyond that.  The LF advance in Madras was halted due to the growth of SWA which was able to capture a lot of the anti-UPA vote from DMK-CPI-REP which in turn blunted the LF advance in Madras.

4) The decline of the SF continued in 1962.  PSP split into PSP and SOC and even though this pair still formed an alliance at many states they were not perfect and added to the woes of the SF on top of an declining vote share.  PSP and SOC were still able to win in some of their old strongholds and still managed to not lose too many seats.  

5) NRF is NDA rebel front.  NRF consist of RRP which never really worked with NDA since 1952 and HMS which in 1952 and 1957 tried to work within the NDA framework took advantage of the clear right wing upsurge to try to capture some of that right vote share and seats for itself in its own front outside of NDA.  On the whole they did win a few seats but never made a real impact other than to hurt NDA chances in places like UP and MP where the drift to the right was obvious.

6) JRF is Jharkhand Regional front which consist of JHP and various pro-JHP candidates in Jharkhand and parts of Orissa.  The Jharkhand movement clearly is ebbing in terms of vote share but JRF did win 3 seats.  After 1962 JRF will fuse into INC but the Jharkhand movement will live on in various independent candidates with JHP background followed by the formation of JKP as a successor of JHP.  Later an even more radical JMM will emerge as a torchbearer of the Jharkhand movement.  

7) PRF is Punjab regional front.  In 1957 SAD merged into INC but due to conflicts where the SAD goal of a Sikh dominated Punjab was not realized, SAD split back out in 1962 and shared honors with UPA again in 1962 in Sikh part of Punjab.

8 ) The "regional front" is a combination of regional parties, INC rebels which in a troubling sign for UPA is now more numerous and taking up more vote share, and of course various center-right NDA parties that did not run within the NDA front for certain states.   ML also became an active force in Kerela and to some extent Madras which took a good deal of the vote and won 2 seats.  PSP rebels are also still numerous and managed to take a seat.

As the strengths of NDA and LF grows, the level of intra-front tactical coordination between NDA, LF and SF is on the wane so even as NDA and LF vote share grows and UPA vote share declines, the UPA seats are not that damaged.  Overall the trend of NDA and LF gaining in urban area from UPA and UPA gaining from SF in rural areas continued.  1962 is the year that the right finally is beginning to shake off the stigma of the Gandhi assassination of 1947.  1967 will be an even better year for NDA but that is merely fusing the various pro-NDA votes shares into one front.  The basis of the 1967 NDA success was planted in 1962.   This time only less than 5% of the vote share are going to true independents which is a even deepening of the party system and greater partisan polarization and the rise of the center-right NDA.

[jaichind]

1967

Front        Votes              Vote Share    Candidates     Wins                  
UPA      59,494,852           40.79%            517              284
NDA      27,193,889           18.64%            445               83
LF         31,802,222           21.80%            329              102
SF         12,681,612             8.69%            256               33
RF           6,026,539             4.13%                                 18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          94.06%                               520     out of 520 seats

1) 1967 is a watershed election as it herald the end of the INC system of 1952.  The disastrous war with PRC in 1962 after the 1962 elections, death of Nehru, and economic problems meant that the domination of the INC was coming to and end.  UPA lost votes across the board and a combination of alliances between rival fronts plus a lost of vote share to other fronts and rebels meant that the INC seat count fell significantly as to be barely over the majority mark.  More regional INC splinters emerged that came to hurt UPA.  BAC was formed in WB and aligned with LF while JAC formed in Orissa and aligned with SF.  The only thing on the positive side of the ledger since 1952 is the merger of a weakened JHP into INC which does help UPA in the Jharkhand part of Bihar.  The growth of INC rebels and splinters bodes poorly on the prospects of UPA for the next election if it continues on this path.  It will turn out things will NOT continue on the same path.

2) NDA gained ground in terms of seats mostly due to consolidation and coordination within NDA parties like BJS and SWA which also took advantage of the relative decline of UPA.  NRF parties like RPP and HMS mostly becoming inactive and transferring their vote base into NDA also helped with the consolidation.  In terms of vote share once we take into account of the consolidation and coordination within NDA parties NDA did not grow that much.  Again, the growth seems to take place more in urban areas while UPA still has the advantage in rural areas.  

3) LF made gains against UPA mainly in WB (due to alliance with BAC and PSP), Kerela (due to SSP coming over to support LF as well as MUL), and Madras (to be called TN after 1967 as DMK came into power) (due to the anti-Hindi movement as well as SWA joining LF in Madras into a DMK-CPI-SWA grand united front which crushed UPA).  Also SAD joining LF added to the seats and vote share of LF.  CPM split from CPI in 1965 but for the purposes of federal election both CPI and CPM are part of LF and both are pivot parties of LF.

4) SF continued their slide in vote share but due to a even greater slide in UPA support actually gained seats relative to 1962.  In some LF bastions the SF parties are beginning to join LF due to the decline of SF strength.

5) The "regional front" this time around is mostly massive number of INC rebels which won a large number of seats (6) and votes.  INC rebels hit hard in places like WB where INC splinter BAC already took a bloc of INC vote share there and Maharastra.   It also includes the re-emerged JKN, ADM which is a SAD splinter and various other small state regional parties.    Proto-TPS which are pro-Telegana INC rebels also are appearing in larger numbers.   There are also more BJS and SWA rebels since this time NDA is doing a better job of coordinating which in turn leads to more rebellion.  SWA rebels also won 2 seats and damaged NDA in Bihar. While JHP merged into INC, the Jharkhand movement continued as proto-JKP took its place and won a seat in the Jharkhand region along with some of the old JHP vote base.

In 1967 the truely independents actually captured 6% of the vote which is an increase from 1962.  This is a sign of a breakdown of the INC machine but not all the votes lost are flowing to significant players in other fronts but instead is splintering.  The number of NDA LF and SF supported independents are going down as the party structure continue to solidify and party identities continues to grow at the voter base level.  On the other hand the decline of UPA also means that this is the beginning of era of horse trading and politics of defections at the politician level.  Intra-front tactical deals are on the decline between NDA LF and SF in the pre-election phase or else the UPA decline would have been worse.  On the other hand as the UPA declines and the prospect of a non-UPA government increases the level of deals between NDA LF and SF post-election increases.

[jaichind]

1971

Front        Votes              Vote Share    Candidates     Wins                  
UPA      74,520,762           50.83%            498              400
NDA      34,300,507           23.40%            486               52
LF         10,588,294             7.22%            148               28      
SF           4,107,884             2.80%            139                 4
BF           3,135,694             2.14%              89                 1
CF           5,312,919             3.62%              79               15
WBRF      1,138,146             0.78%              29                 2
TRF         1,873,589             1.28%              14                10
PRF         1,257,802             0.86%              12                 1
ORF         1,053,176             0.72%              20                 1
RF           2,659,099             1.81%                                   4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          95.46%                               518     out of 518 seats

After 1967, the INC when through a series of splits which in turn led to a realignment of the party system.  First Charan Singh split off and crated the BKD taking OBC middle small landing peasants in UP and other parts of Northern India with him.  At the time BKD was seen as a leftist split from INC.  VHP as a Haryana splinter also split from INC in 1967.  Then in 1969 INC itself split down the middle between Indira Gandhi's leftist INC(R) and the Kamaraj and later Morarji Desai's rightist INC(O).  All things equal INC(R) was stronger and was supported by other parties of the LF like CPI and DMK.  INC(O) formed an alliance with NDA and became a pivot party of the NDA.  Also in 1969 TPS which is really proto-TRS with a one point agenda of creating Telenagan split from INC as well as UTC which is a proto-BJD split off from INC as an Orissa splinter.  INC(R) continued was a minority government with outside support from CPI and DMK until the mid-term elections of 1971.  The leaders of INC(O) made a mistake by delaying their fallout with Indira Gandhi.  One of the reasons INC(R) retained most the the old INC support was that in the 1969 Presidential elections, the Indira Gandhi faction aligned with the LF to support the leftist independent Giri, while the rightist Syndicate faction of the INC aligned with NDA to back the official INC candidate Reddy.  Giri won which was a signal for those in the INC on the sidelines that they should jump on Indira Gandhi bandwagon.  Had the split taken place before the Presidential election the INC(R) advantage would not have been so great.

1) The UPA of 1971 is well to the left of the UPA of 1967 and was able to retain a majority of the old UPA vote base.  The UPA election machine of 1967 was in decline and Indira surged to victory by destroying the old INC machine (much like Koizumi 2005 "Vote for LDP to destroy LDP") and making direct appeals based on a new leftist agenda.  UPA with INC(R) at its core got CPI from the LF to join it in certain states (like Kerela, TN and Punjab) and limited understanding with CPI Front (CF) in others (UP, WB).  UPA also got DMK from the LF to align with UPA. UPA also got PSP to support it in Gujarat and other places where PSP was not running.  Most literature speaks of the INC in 1971 as "restoring" the old position of INC in the Nehru's days.  If one looks at it from a front perspective, Indira Gandhi's UPA far exceeded what Nehru's accomplished both in terms of vote share and seats, especially when we take into account that UPA did not contest all seats since it had some tactical understanding with CF in UP and WB.

2) The NDA with the injection of INC(O) had expected to do well enough to keep UPA from a majority if not capture a plurality itself.  SWA by now had come into decline and the NDA pivot parties are now INC(O) and BJS.  SSP also now joined NDA in several states as did VHP and even BKD in Maharashtra.   Overall the NDA also known as the Grand Alliance in 1971 totally flopped as they could not come up with a leader that could match Indira Gandhi's charisma.  In fact, by NDA running against Indira Gandhi actually hurt their cause (perhaps like UPA and TF running against Modi in 2014 boomeranged on them).  Overall all INC(O) seems to have done is to cannibalize the NDA vote although INC(O) was strong in Gujarat and TN and was able to push up NDA support in those states.

3) The LF completely split under the leftward shift of the UPA.  DMK when over the UPA as did CPI in some states.  RSP and MUL also went over to UPA with CPI in Kerela.  Dalit based RPG split from RPK went from LF to UPA in Maharashtra.  In WB it is complete chaos with CPI coming to a partial understanding with UPA but CPI and CPM pitted with each other in a fratricidal battle.  Worse, BAC also had a falling out with LF and went off on its own taking FBL with them.  In Punjab SAD ended their alliance with LF and went off on their own.  What the LF is left with is a CPM dominated alliance in Kerela and WB, and CPI joining UPA in some states and split off into its own front in other states that choose not to join UPA.  As a result in terms of vote share and seats LF fell in a dramatic fashion from 1967.

4) The SF is coming close to ceasing to exist also as a result of the polarization between UPA and NDA stemming from the INC split of 1969.  SSP joined NDA in several states and PSP is backing UPA in several states as well.   Also BKD led BF also is competing for the same vote based as the SF and adds to the woes of SF.  What remains tried to put up a front with SF but in terms of shares of votes and seats it is coming close to the end of this front which is really just one of the last steps of the decline of SF since 1951.

5) The BF (BKD front) led by BKD was considered left of UPA in 1967 when it was formed but by 1971 was considered center-right.  BKD clearly had some understanding with NDA and had some tactical alliances and even joined NDA in Maharastra. Overall BF did well in terms of votes as a new front but did not win much in terms of seats other than to split the anti-UPA vote.

6) The CF (CPI front) is mostly CPI in states that it did not join UPA.  In places like UP and WB CF reached tactical understanding with UPA and to some lesser extent in places like Orissa and Bihar.   As a result, CF should be seen as a allied front of UPA as CF supported to UPA after the election.

7) The WBRF (West Bengal Regional Front) was led by INC splinter BAC that was with LF in 1967 but then broke with the CPM and now is leading a front in WB of other former LF members like FBL and RSP to challenge UPA NDA and LF figuring that it could fish in troubled waters.  It failed to do well an by 1977 BAC would reemerge back into INC.

8 ) TRF is Telengana Regional Front based on TPS. Note that pro-Telengana INC rebels have been already fighting the UPA in the Telengana region of AP for years.  In 1971 this movement exploded with the creation of TPS which is mostly made up of INC rebels.  TPS managed to take 10 seats in a year where the UPA is winning everywhere which is quite impressive.

9) PRF is Punjab Regional Front which is a reunited SAD that decided to leave the LF to go off on its own again.  SAD was brushed aside by the UPA wave but did establish itself as the main opposition to UPA in Punjab.

10) ORF is Orissa Regional Front which is made up of the INC splinter UTC.  UPA swept Orissa as UTC split the anti-UPA vote with the SWA led NDA in Orissa.  UTC did establish itself as the main opponent to UPA in Orissa.

11) The RF first of all various INC rebels.  And the rest are rebels of all types as regional parities that are active in very small number seats such as JKN which mostly ran as independents since JKN boycotting polls and the newly emerged SHS in Maharashtra.  A reemerged JKP which continued to push for Jharkhand  also made its appearance as well as CNSPJP which split from SWA to form JAP also emerged in the Jharkhand part of Bihar.

The vote and seats share received by UPA was unprecedented and represented a massive mandate for UPA.  The true independent vote fell to less than 4% and is a sign of the polarization of the electorate.   The chaos of the split of the old INC lead to a great fragmentation of political forces with many regional forces going off on its own to try to capture a share of the power on its own.  Of course turnout in 1971 actually dropped from 1967 which itself is a sign of the death of the turnout machine of the old INC which mostly went over to INC(O) only to be crushed by Indira Gandhi's new INC.  Those that did turnout clearly voted for a mandate for UPA.

P.S.

I tried to create a chart of estimated the net flows of votes were from 1967 to 1971 and I came up with below

xxx   UPA   NDA   LF   SF   BF   CF WBRF  TRF   PRF   ORF   RF    Oth    67
UPA   35.7  3.3   0.0  0.0  0.7  0.5   0.0    0.4    0.0    0.2   0.0   0.0   40.8
NDA   0.0  17.8  0.0  0.0   0.3  0.0   0.0    0.2   0.0    0.3   0.0   0.0   18.6
LF      9.3   0.9   6.9  0.0   0.0  3.1   0.8    0.1   0.7    0.0   0.0   0.0   21.8
SF      4.0  0.7   0.3   2.7   1.0  0.0   0.0    0.0   0.0    0.0   0.0   0.0     8.7
RF     1.0   0.5   0.0   0.1  0.0   0.0   0.0   0.5    0.1    0.1   1.8   0.0     4.1
Oth   0.8   0.2   0.0   0.0   0.1  0.0   0.0   0.1    0.1    0.1   0.0   4.6     6.0
71   50.8 23.4   7.2  2.8   2.1  3.6   0.8   1.3    0.9     0.7  1.8    4.6   

The far right is column is the 1967 results and bottom row are the 1971 results.  One can see that LF lost a lot of votes to CF (makes sense) and WBRF (makes sense) as well as UPA which is really the result of the shift left by UPA.  LF also lost SWA in TN which was in LF in TN in 1967 but was in NDA in 1971 in TN.  UPA lost votes to NDA through the defection of INC(O), BF via the creation of BKD, and various regional fronts with mostly the various INC splinters.  SF lost votes to UPA NDA and BF through polarization.  What this chart shows how little impact INC(O) had on joining NDA which is small relative to what UPA got from getting LF and SF votes.  The truly independent and minor party vote from 1967 stayed there or went over to UPA or NDA as part of the polarization and mostly in favor of UPA.  What is also clear is that out of the around 41% vote share that the UPA got in 1967 it retained most of that vote share, around 36%, even though it shifted to the left to capture the LF vote.

[jaichind]

1977

Front        Votes              Vote Share    Candidates     Wins          
UPA      76,191,101           40.33%            542              188
NDA    101,283,752           53.61%            539              352
CF           3,110,163             1.65%             87                   0
RF           2,443,760             1.29%                                    2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          96.88%                               542  out of 542 seats

The period between 1971 and 1977 is a period of party consolidations mergers and then extreme polarization around Indira Gandhi and the Emergency of 1975-77.  In the aftermath of the UPA landslide of 1971 various INC splinters re-merged into INC such as TPS and BAC.  SWA which had been in decline even by 1971 fell further after the death of its founder Rajaji and by 1974 had merged with BKD to form BLD.  The two Socialist parties SSP and PSP also concluded that they had to merge into SOC and concentrate limited resources.  Seeing the power of the UPA in the 1971 landslide, BJS, INC(O), SOC and BLD formed an alliance on a state by state basis to try to counter UPA.  They were able to beat UPA in the Gujarat Assembly elections in 1975 which along with a Allahabad High Court judgment against Indira Gandhi on some election technicality infraction led Indira Gandhi to put India in a state of emergency for 21 months.   The emergency was actually positive for the economy but that coupled with various draconian measured related to family planning and slum cleanup led to the erosion of Muslim and Dalit support for UPA in Northern India.   Still, when the emergency was suspended and the 1977 election came, it was expected that the UPA would win.  What upset this expectation was the merger of INC(O), BLD, BJS and SOC into the Janata Party (JNP).  Then CFD which is led by INC dalit leader Jagjivan Ram split from INC and merged into JNP.  Furthermore, other INC splinter parties such as UTC and JAC that were hostile to Indira Gandhi ergo did not merge into INC now also merged into JNP.  The result was a massive anti-UPA landslide in Northern India even while UPA had the upper hand in Southern India.

1) UPA still retained the CPI as part of UPA in some states (like WB, Kerela, and TN).  DMK had broken with UPA over the emergency, but DMK itself split in 1972 and the AIADMK allied with UPA instead.  UPA also retained dalit support like RPI in Maharashtra and also parties like RSP, KEC and MUL in Kerlea.  As a result UPA did well in the South and Maharashtra but was crushed in Northern India.  What took place in Northern India was real all anti-UPA forces merged into JNP PLUS the defection of the significant part of the INC Muslim and Dalit vote based to JNP.  As a result most election results in Northern India were along the lines of JNP 55%-60% vs INC 30%.  One the plus side UPA did rope in JKN into UPA and as a result UPA managed to do well in J&K.

2) I still called the JNP led front NDA mostly because almost all the components of the JNP are to the right of INC in 1977.  The emergency led to all sorts of political forces now joined up with JNP to defeat UPA.  They included regional parties like DMK and SAD as well as the the CPM across the board and other leftist parties like PWP and RPK in Maharastra as well as FBL and RSP in WB.  So in other words, the LF in 1977 pretty much merged into NDA to form a grand alliance to defeat UPA.  It is in this context one has to understand the impressive and unprecedented 53.61% vote share of NDA in 1977.

3) CF which is CPI led front is the CPI in states which did not choose to join UPA.  Given the bipolar battle between UPA and NDA this front did not come up with much votes and no seats.

4) There are really no other real fronts in 1977 other than a bipolar fight UPA and NDA.  The only seats won by RF is a JNP rebel and MAG which is a Goa regional party that did not join either UPA nor NDA.  In WB there are also significant INC rebels due to CPI being in UPA in WB.  At the same time in WB there are significant LF rebels due to the merger of LF and NDA in WB.  The Kashmir Accord of 1975 also meant that the extremist separatist elements will now contest elections and won a good bloc of votes in J&K.

To date what NDA achieved in 1977 is the highest vote share won by any front ever and not to be matched since.  Of course this is only possible because of the bi-polar nature of the election of 1977.  In fact the UPA vote share of 40.33% is quite respectable and not that different from UPA in 1967.  The seat share difference were massive when compared to 1967 mainly due to the almost complete consolidation of the anti-UPA vote in Northern India.   The fact that around 3% of the vote went to minor or truly independent candidates is another sign of the polarized nature of the election.

From my point of view, what UPA accomplished in 1971 with 50.83% vote share was more impressive than what NDA achieved in 1977 with 53.61% mostly because of the bipolar nature of 1977 whereas 1971 was still more of a multi-polar election and UPA did not run in all the seats due to tactical adjustment with CPI led CF.  

[jaichind]

1980

Front        Votes              Vote Share    Candidates     Wins                  
UPA       91,714,202          46.36%            528              381
NDA      45,067,903           22.78%            481               34
LF         17,824,808             9.01%              97               57
NF         23,258,522           11.76%            357              43
CRF         7,746,439             3.92%            186                8
JRF             549,025             0.28%              28                2
RF           1,859,841             0.94%                                  4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          95.04%                               529  out of 529 seats

The JNP led government started to show signs of falling apart a year or so into the new administration.  This makes sense as JNP is really a fusion of disparate parties like BJS SWA BKD, SOC, INC(O), CFD, and various other regional splinters.  There then developed a rivalry between BKD and SOC factions on the one hand and the BJS SWA INC(O) and CFD facations on the other.  The other development which helped the JNP in the short run but then actually acted as a force to accelerate the JNP split was the breakup of the INC.  Indira Gandhi wanted an INC which was completely loyal to her which led to two rounds of splits of INC into INC(I) (pro-Indira) and INC(U).  The BKD and SOC factions then, with support from both INC(I) and INC(U) broke away from JNP to form JNP(S) which brought down the JNP government.  Then INC(I) backed out of their support of JNP(S) leading to new elections.  JNP(S) formed an center-left alternative  front to the JNP led NDA which I call National Front (NF).  The real NF would not be formed until 1989 but just like in 1989 the NF of 1980 was a center-left opposition front and had tactical alliances with the LF and in some states NF parties joined LF and vice versa.

1) UPA this time, under the influence of Sanjay Gandhi, ran much more to the right than the UPA of 1977 and 1971.  It focused on bringing stability to Indian politics.  In a reverse of 1977, UPA this time roped in DMK as part of UPA and also retained JKN as a member in J&K.  In Goa INC(U) actually joined UPA even thought INC(U) is with NF in most relevant places.  JNP actually joined UPA in Kerela which is a sign of the extreme polarization between UPA and LF that national enemies of UPA would still join UPA in Kerela.  Overall UPA was able to sweep the elections as the anti-UPA vote was split in Northern India as well as the return of Muslim and Dalit vote to UPA.   The JNP government was seen as a regime for upper castes and OBCs and that drove Muslim and Dalit votes back home to UPA.  Still, UPA could not replicate its 1971 results mainly because CPI and other Leftist parties now are solidly back with LF now that UPA has swung back right again.  The UPA victory in terms of vote share and seats very much resembles 1962.  

2) NDA is mostly the JNP which now is composed of the BJS SWA INC(O) and CFD factions.  Even though AIADMK supports NF at the national level, in TN, AIADMK joined NDA since JNP's INC(O) faction still has significant strength in TN.  AIADMK's main goal is to find significant allies to counter its local DMK enemy in TN.  CPI and CPM also joined NDA in TN and fought along side AIADMK against DMK-INC even as they oppose NDA at the national level. This is also a sign of the TN polarization between DMK and AIADMK.  SAD also stayed with NDA just 1977.  The NDA was defeated on all places and despite a significant vote share only ended up with 34 seats.  The creation of the NF led by JNP(S) split the anti-UPA vote in Northern India and if anything NF got its support in the right places to win a few seats whereas NDA could not even manage that.

3) Now that UPA has swung right the schism between CPI and CPM over CPI's support of Indira Gandhi is over as CPI and CPM are both back in LF.  The CPM traditionally has been strong in WB and Kerela but weak in places like UP and Bihar whereas CPI has strength in Northern India like UP and Bihar.  The experience the CPI had where it allied with UPA in 1971 and 1977 had led this block of support in those states to dissipate.   As a result LF in 1980 focused mostly in states like WB and Kerela where it had strength and CPI/CPM mostly joined up with NF in states where they were weak.  INC(U) joined LF in Kerela to fight UPA there.  The realistic approach LF took in 1980 as well as unity between CPI and CPM led to LF winning a good haul of seats despite its lower vote share.

4) NF is pivoted around JNP(S).  Other than leftist parities that joined in NF in some states, NF is mostly JNP(S) and INC(U).  Although INC(U) coordination with NF is inconsistent.  INC(U) is actually with UPA in Goa, LF in Kerela, and running under its own front in most states.  INC(U) joined NF in Gujarat and AP.   Still in a good portion of states the INC(U) led CRF front had tactical understanding with NF which had good concentration pockets of support in UP and Bihar that it was able to withstand the split of JNP and JNP(S) when it came to beating INC.  NF and LF also had some tactical understandings even in states where they could not legally join forces (like in states where CPI/CPM joined NF).  As a result NF managed more seats than NDA even though it got a lot less seats.

5) INC(U) intended to join NF but as the election started it ended up running on its own front with the CRF front or Congress Rebel Front.  INC(U) joined UPA, LF, and NF in different states but overall CRF ran on its own account.  CRF did have some tactical understanding with LF and NF in some states and was able to win a few seats when it could have ended up with nothing if the anti-UPA vote was completely split.

6) JRF is Jharkhand Regional Front which has reemerged as a significant force once the 1977 polarization is over.   In the Jharkand region JKD and its more radical version proto-JMM continues to grow.  The 1977 polarization suppressed the Jharkhand vote but now the movement continues where Jharkhand parties continues to win vote share in Jharkhand part of Bihar as well as tribal parts of WB and Orissa.  JRF managed 2 seats but showed that the Jharkhand movement is alive.

7) Various small regional parities and rebels won the 4 seats that RF managed to get.   There are still some INC rebels one of whom managed to win a seat.  SUC which is a LF splinter in WB won some votes.

Just like 1977 although it is not as extreme, the competition between UPA NDA and LF/NF/CRF ate up most of the political oxygen. Around 5% of the votes are for true independents or minor players which is fairly low by historical standards when compared to the 1950s and 1960s.  Turnout is down from 1977 as a sign of disillusionment by the failure of the JNP government.  

[jaichind]

1984

Front        Votes              Vote Share    Candidates     Wins                  
UPA     126,599,922           50.72%            541             431
NDA      18,306,629             7.33%             237                1
LF         21,791,496             8.73%             133              31
NF         46,579,147           18.66%            386              59
LDF       15,091,577             6.05%            184                4
JKRF        1,105,392             0.44%               6                 3
ARF         2,588,847             1.04%              14                7
RF           6,245,062             2.50%                                  5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          95.48%                               541  out of 541 seats

After the election of 1980, Sanjay Gandhi passed away in an airplane accident which in turn led Rajiv Gandhi to enter politics to take his place in the INC.  The BJP which is just the new version of BJS also split from JNP taking some SWA supporters as well as INC(J) which is really just CFD did so as well.  This left JNP with the original INC(O) plus various INC regional splinters plus some SOC supporters.  BJP became the pivot party of NDA on the right and the rump JNP became pivot party of NF.  JNP(S) became LKD and went off on its own to form its own front (LDF which is Lok Dal Front) and retained some OBC support in Northern India.  In the period between 1980 and 1984, the JNP which was crushed in Northern India actually started to pick up strength in INC stronghold of Karnataka where the JNP was dominated by the original INC(O) faction.  In AP the TDP emerged as a regional party which was aligned with NF and was able to defeat INC is one of the old INC strongholds.  The INC reverses in Karnataka and AP gave opposition hope that if NDA NF and LDF could cooperate in Northern India and then perhaps UPA could be checked in the 1985 elections.  The crisis in Punjab and assassination of Indira Gandhi in 1984 changed that.  UPA called early elections to cash in on the sympathy  wave in 1984 and lead to a massive UPA win.

1) The UPA swapped partners in TN and went with AIADMK as opposed to DMK in 1980.  If the UPA shifted right in 1980 from 1971 and 1977, the UPA of 1984 wen even further to the right to cash in on the national unity vote in the aftermath of anti-Sikh riots in Delhi.  UPA was so successful in picking up the NDA vote that even RSS which is the parent organization of BJP, seeing that NDA could not win, supported UPA in many states.  In many ways the 1984 election from the INC point of view was a bizzaro version of 1977.  The UPA completely swept in Northern India both on a swing toward UPA from 1980 as well as splintered opposition between NDA NF and LDF which was the reverse of 1977 when an united anti-UPA alliance crushed UPA in Northern India.  On the other hand, UPA lost ground in Karnataka and was crushed to an all opposition NF dominated opposition in AP whereas in 1977 UPA won a massive victory in these two states.  In 1977 the UPA also did well in Assam and J&K which were one of the few places it did well in Northern India.  In 1984 the UPA was crushed by proto-AGP and lost significant ground in J&K to JKN.  In both states, INC rebels played its part in the defeat of UPA in these two states.   The only part of the 1977 and 1984 elections which were consistent were the UPA victories of TN and Kerela.  

2) The NDA which was reduced to BJP managed only to win one seat as it only ran in Northern India.  The BJP won a second seat in AP but that was won with BJP joining NF in AP.  The NDA vote share is not disastrous as it showed that the basic BJS vote was still mostly intact and any losses to UPA were temporary due to the sympathy factor and national unity consolidation behind UPA in light of the riots.  The UPA victory showed that the trend of the electorate it toward the right and on the long run NDA can benefit from this.  This is the low point of NDA as their fortunes will rise from here.

3) The LF maintained their vote share and lost some seats in the LF bastions of WB and Kerela
due to sympathy factor.  NF parties did not join LF in places like Kerela and WB helped UPA. The fact that LF was able to survive this UPA wave shows the resiliency of the LF in their heartland.  There were various places where LF parties just joined NF like in AP Karnataka Maharashtra Orissa and TN or had tactical understanding with NF where some seats were saved from the UPA wave.  

4) The NF of 1984 is really the NDA of 1980 without BJP.  The NF also roped in TDP which was a strong regional rival of INC in AP.  Regional parties like DMK and SAD are also on board.  The TDP did well as part of the anti-INC trend toward TDP during this period and SAD did well due to the Sikh factor.  JNP did gain some ground in Karnataka at least in terms of vote share if not as much in terms of seats.  But other than that NF was wiped out due to the surge of UPA as well as the split of NDA NF and LDF vote in Northern India.  INC(U) which became ICS was much reduced but still had some pockets of strength and was able to win 3 seats.   In a ray of hope of the future NF did improve in Karnataka and was able to sweep AP most based on BJP joining NF in these two states as well as LKD being non-entities in Southern India ergo did not split the UPA vote.  

5) LDF which was just LKD and some pro-LKD independents in Bihar and UP was mostly a OBC party in Northern India only won 4 seats despite a pretty good vote share in place where they were strong.  INC(J) which split from JNP and was the successor party of CFD from 1997 joined LDF in Haryana and Bihar but it was to no avail as far as eating into the UPA seat share.  The split factor between anti-UPA fronts was a factor but sometimes the raw votes of the UPA was so high even a united effort could not stop UPA in Northern India.

6) JKRF is Jannu & Kashmir Regional front which is the JKN JPP alliance front against UPA.  JKN was with UPA in 1980 but had a falling out after JKN founder Sheikh Abdullah passed way.  JKRF managed to win 3 seats out of 6.

7) ARF is Assam regional front.  The Assam movement which is a reaction of Bengali immigration into Assam led to a crises where most of Assam could not even vote in 1980.  The compromise between the central government and the Assam movement led to the creation of AGP as a regional party which manage to win half the seats in Assam in 1984 defeating the UPA in a state where the UPA has dominated until now.

8 )  RF is first of all INC rebel, especially in Assam and was a factor in the victory of proto-AGP, and INC rebels won 2 seats.  With the rise of an Assamese dominated AGP also led to the Muslim dominated proto-UMFA which is sort of a proto-AUDF which also split the UPA vote even more.  The sizable number and vote share of INC rebels are a sign that despite the sympathy wave for UPA, all is not all well within the INC as far as unity is concerned.  INC(J) had some strength in UP and Rajasthan but did not join LDF and only reached limited understanding there with LDF. Also in a warning sign of things to come, proto-BSP also got started in 1984 with limited impact but that will change over time.  The Jharkhand movement which consists of JMM and JKD weakened since 1984 became a nationalized election around the assassination of Indira Gandhi. 

Overall this election was called the greatest Indian election landslide mostly by looking at the vote share of INC which was close to 50% in 1984.  If you look at it from a front point of view, the UPA won less vote share in 1984 when compared to 1971.  From a seat share point of view the UPA of 1984 was slightly more but that is more of a function of an even more splintered opposition.  IN 1971 UPA had a tactical understanding with CF and as a result did not contest everywhere which makes the vote and seat share in 1971 that much more impressive relative to 1984.  Also UPA had the weight of a sympathy wave in 1984.  From my point of view what UPA accomplished in 1971 is still more impressive than 1984.  One thing that is interesting is that the greatest UPA victories to this date are still 1971 and 1984 when UPA either swung to the left (1971) or right (1984) and gobbled up the vote share of another front (LF in 1971 and NDA in 1984) while retaining its core vote.  The true independents and minor parties won less than 5% of the vote which makes it more polarized than the 1952-1967 period but is consistent with 1980. We are well into a period of solidified party and front system and little is left for anyone outside that system.  

[jaichind]

1989

Front        Votes              Vote Share    Candidates     Wins                  
UPA     125,154,417           41.61%            529             215
NDA      36,855,042            12.25%            254              91
LF         29,382,252             9.77%             132              49
NF        77,637,754            25.81%            360             154
BF          6,213,390              2.07%            245                3
JF           3,686,899              1.23%            272                0
PRF        3,087,470              1.03%              11                9
TNRF      1,734,320              0.58%              33                0
JRF         1,534,078              0.51%              22                3
RF          4,763,144              1.58%                                  5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          96.34%                               529  out of 529 seats

After the 1984 UPA landslide, like all things, good times came to an end for UPA.  Regional blowups in Assam and Punjab continued leading to the rise of radical regional elements and undermining the national unity plank of the UPA in 1984.  Rajiv Gandhi's regime had several corruption scandals and trying to hold on to the huge UPA coalition from 1984 was not feasible which merely led to everyone in the camp being unhappy and in turn leading to defections.  First Jan Morcha (JM) was formed by V. P. Singh and other anti-Rajiv Gandhi INC rebels.  Then JNP, LKD, and JM merged into Janata Dal (JD).  A faction of JNP refused this merger can continued as JNP which only had some influence in Karnataka Bihar and UP.  In an equally troubling development for UPA, BSP was formed as a Dalit Party with All India ambitions and had the potential of taking away a significant part of the UPA voting bloc.  When the 1989 elections came JD was the leader of the NF. Remembering the debacles of 1980 and 1984, especially in Northern India, the JD-led NF sought to minimize the diffusion of anti-UPA vote by creating tactically alliances with both BJP-led NDA and LF.  Other than AP where BJP and LF parties joined NF led by TDP, NDA and LF due to ideological disagreements did not have tactical alliances but with NF playing the pivot front the UPA faced stiff challenges, especially in Northern India.

1) If 1984 was bizzaro 1977 for UPA, then 1989 is bizzaro 1984 for UPA.  In other words, 1989 was a mini-1977 for UPA.   UPA was crushed by the NDA NF LF tactical alliances across the board in Northern India, especially in UP and Bihar.  It was not as bad as 1977 but the defeats were significant.  In places like Gujarat, MP, Orissa, and Rajasthan the UPA also faced significant setbacks.  In Maharashtra the NDA and NF failed to go into tactical alliances and UPA did reasonably well.   In WB, UPA lost ground from 1984 as NF and LF was able to have tactical alliances to defeat UPA. As NF regional governments in AP and Karnataka runs into problems, UPA was able to do over well in these two Southern States and also did well in TN and Kerela.  JKN rejoined UPA and as a result UPA had a clean sweep in J&K.  Overall the vote share for UPA of 41.61% is quite respectable and usually is enough for a significant victory. The UPA victory was spoiled by the NF NDA LF tactically alliances in Northern India.

2) NDA lost some of its voting based to UPA in 1984 but as the UPA stumbles the rightist votes came back.  Due to tactical alliances with NF, the NDA was able to claim a large number of seats in Northern India.  Shiv Sena(SHS) emerged as a national force in Maharashtra as a member of NDA along with a significant number of SHS supported independents.  NDA emerged as the main opposition to UPA in Maharashtra.  In Punjab after the splintering of the SAD, the rump SAD went with NDA but was a very minor force and came up with nothing.  

3) LF regained lost ground in WB due to good coordination with NF although it still did poorly in Kerela.  All in all, LF vote share increased slightly from 1984 but was able to win more seats.  As the UPA declined it seems that it is NDA and NF that is gaining ground while LF is standing still.  In that sense the election of 1989 is a warning signal to LF that it is not able to expand beyond its traditional bastions.  Even as CPI and CPM was able to win some votes in places like AP TN  Orissa, and Rajasthan, they only occurred as they joined NF in those states.

4) NF made the greatest gains in this election and was able to win a large number of seats given the number of votes it got.  It was defeated in Karnataka and AP by UPA despite the fact that TDP was able to reassemble the anti-UPA grand alliance of 1984.  In Karnataka the faction of JNP that refused to merged into JD did not help matters by running on its own.  In Northern India NF did make good gains and took a large number of seats as they benefited from the NF NDA LF tactical alliances.  In many states LF parties just joined NF which also helped.  In Punjab the impact of what took place in 1984 and the rise of radical insurgency splintered the SAD into many factions.  The moderate SAD(B) was part of NF but was completely crushed by the radical SAD(M).

5) BF which is the front led by BSP is a dalit based party.  It only took a bit more than 2% of the vote but did make a good showing in UP, Punjab and MP where there are significant number of dalits.  BF pretty much took its vote share from UPA which used to dominate the dalit vote in every election other than 1977.

6) JF or JNP Front is pretty much the rump factions of JNP and LD(B) that did not join JD which did not win any seats but took a good chunk of votes.  It did manage to eat into the vote share of NF in places like Karnataka as well as places like UP and Bihar.

7) PRF is Punjab regional front.  PRF is SAD(M)  which is an extremist splinter of SAD which advocates for the independence of Punjab and SAD(M) backed independents sweep Punjab and took 9 seats.  In Punjab, UPA, NDA, LF, NF, and BSP all put up candidates and split the anti-extremist vote and allowed the SAD(M) plus allies to sweep Punjab.  So here is a case where the splinter of the vote actually helped SAD(M) and not UPA.

8 ) TNRF is Tamil Nadu Regional Front which is really PMK.  It is mostly based on the Vanniyar caste and advocates the bifurcation of TN where Northern TN would be dominated by Vanniyars.  PMK gained a significant bloc of votes but no seats.  But it did have a major impact on TN elections.

9) JRF is Jharkhand Regional Front which is Jharkhand parties JMM and JKD which ran in the Jharkhand part of Bihar as well as tribal parts of WB and Orissa.  This is the continuation of the Jharkhand movement as well as the struggle for tribal rights.  JRF managed to win 3 seats.

10) RF in 1989 is first of IPF, which is a front for the Maoist Naxalites and should be seen as a proto-CPI(ML), won a seat.    Assam did not hold elections in 1989 as the AGP regime was still sorting out the voter lists.  All in all there are a lot less rebels running in 1989, especially for INC although there are still some as well as rebels of other types.

The 1989 election ended in a minority government led by NF which support of LF and NDA from the outside.  Going by the vote shares of the various fronts, the UPA should have won this election with margin to spare.  Good coordination between NF NDA and LF prevented this but the large UPA vote share also meant that deep down Rajiv Gandhi did not accept defeat and was working in the background to come back to power ASAP.  It is interesting that the sum of the 3 fronts (NDA LF and NF) added up to around 47.8% of the vote which is not that much bigger than UPA at 41.6%, yet with the vote share splintered 3 ways the UPA should have won especially with LF and NDA not having any coordination outside AP.  In retrospect this makes sense in the sense that places that LF has strength (WB, Kerela) or pockets of strength (Orissa, TN, Karnataka) the NDA is very weak and could do no damage and in places where NDA is strong (MP, Rajasthan, Delhi, Gujarat) the LF is very weak and could do no damage leaving the NDA and NF to work out tactical alliances.  Gujarat was a place where the NF NDA tactically understanding was especially efficient.  The real opportunity for UPA that was missed was in places like Bihar and UP where NDA and NF did manage good tactical understandings.  AP, like I said, did have pockets of NDA and LF strength but NF did a good job of bring them together.  The place where UPA was able to take advantage of the splintered vote was Maharashtra where NDA, LF and NF all put up candidates and as a result UPA was able to do very well.  The polarized nature of the election mean a somewhat smaller world for the minor parties and truly independent which took a bit less than 4% of the vote.

[jaichind]

1991

Front        Votes              Vote Share    Candidates     Wins                  
UPA     109,776,369           39.46%            534             260
NDA      58,053,031            20.87%            495             124
TF         78,185,992            28.10%            529             138
BF           5,015,347             1.80%             243                3
SF           9,785,337             3.52%             360                5
TNRF       1,283,065             0.46%               32                0
ARF         1,489,898             0.54%               14                1
RF           4,843,273             1.74%                                   3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          96.48%                               534  out of 534 seats

The NF government which had to balance the interests of its elements as well as the NDA and LF which supported it from the outside became too difficult as time went on.   Seeing that this arrangement could not last the various elements of this grand coalition acted in a way which made the fall of the NF government even sooner.  JD pushed the Mandal report recommendation which gave quotas for OBCs in order to consolidate the OBC vote for NF while the BJP pushed the Ram Temple movement to consolidate the Hindu vote for NDA.  A year into the NF government it fell due to NDA withdrawing support over the Ram temple issue.  Chandra Shekhar, who was the president of Janata Party before it merged into JNP in 1988, now split from JD to from Samajwadi Janata Party (SJP) and formed a government with outside support of UPA.  This arrangement did not last long as the long term goal of of UPA is to come back to power on its own.  As a result the 1991 elections was provoked.  NF and LF ran as a common front which I call Third Front (TF).  TF was not really named that way until 1996 but as I mentioned before I name fronts in a retroactive manner.  Part of the reason LF and NF merged is mostly a belief in LF parties that LF could never come to power on its own and that a merger with NF could produce such an front.  The fall of the Eastern Bloc was a factor in this thinking as well as the stagnation of LF since 1971.  SJP which also then merged with JNP which was the JNP faction that refused to merge with JD in 1988 ran a separate SJP front which I label as SF.  This is ironic as in 1988 it was Chandra Shekhar that led JNP to merge with JD which led to the split in the JNP with JNP becoming the faction that refused to merge.  Now Chandra Shekhar and SJP is merging with that same JNP which opposed Chandra Shekhar's move in 1988.   As the election started it seems that the momentum was with NDA as the UPA was shown up as power hungry by backing SF to from a government and then pulling the plug.  The TF as well as SF were shown to be not effective in holding together a government.  If the election when on without other factors NDA would have gained a slight advantage over UPA and a 1996 situation would have taken place.  But in the middle of the election Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated by Tamil extremists and the resulting sympathy wave pulled UPA to a mark close to majority and was able to form a government under Rao, himself a compromise candidate between the various INC factions.

1) Like 1989 UPA went with AIADMK in TN.  This was a chance for DMK which was part of TF due to a new leader in AIADMK, Jayalalitha, which is untested and led a divided AIADMK as the widow of AIADMK leader MGR led the other faction.  But this opening was lost due to the Rajiv Gandhi assassination factor and UPA was able to sweep TN.  UPA continued to lose ground in UP and Bihar as the OBC vote consolidated around TF, Dalits around BF, and upper caste vote consolidated around NDA.  Worse, since TF fell out with NDA over the Ram temple issue, even Muslims in places like UP and Bihar are looking to TF as its new home and away from UPA.  In old UPA strongholds of AP, Karnataka, and Maharashtra the UPA was able to translate the sympathy factor to UPA victories.  Likewise the UPA was able to do fairly well in places where NDA is usually strong and was expected to sweep like MP and Rajasthan.  In Gujarat JD splinter JD(G) joined UPA to stop NDA, but the upper caste OBC Hindu consolidation there in favor of NDA sweep UPA.  UPA was able to do well in Punjab mostly because SAD mostly boycotted the polls as the insurgency continued leaving UPA to sweep the Sikh districts.  J&K had an insurgency of its own and there were no polls in 1991 in J&K.  In Assam UPA did not win many votes but won the majority of seats due to the split between NDA, TF, AGP and AGP splinter NAGP.  Overall, despite continued decline in UP and Bihar the UPA was able to well enough in other places to come close to a majority.

2) NDA grew by leaps and bounds in this election in two different ways.  First, it was able to grab the upper caste vote from UPA in Northern India, especially in UP and Bihar.  This gave it credibility as an real alternative to UPA which in turn attracted other anti-UPA votes.  NDA would have won 1991 if it was not for the Rajiv Gandhi assassination.  The main problem with NDA was its inability to expand into Southern and Western India and as part of that, its inability to attract allies other than the Hindu radical SHS.  SAD historically as allied with BJS in regional Punjab elections but SAD was a non factor this year.

3) TF was able to hold its own in old LF strongholds like WB but was defeated by UPA in Kerela.  TF regained some ground in AP but was still beaten by UPA.  In Northern India, the split of SJP cost TF dearly in Upper caste heavy UP where NDA dominated although in Bihar where OBC are more dominate the TF did well to beat back NDA.  NDA has some strength in the Jharkhand part of Bihar but that was blunted by JMM joining TF and beating back NDA there.  In Haryana INC splinter HVP joined TF but could not stop the UPA as the NDA, TF, and SF split the anti-UPA vote.   Overall the TF clearly was hurt by the defection of SJP but was able to consolidate itself as the center-left alternative to UPA and NDA.

4) BF lost some ground as some of its Dalit base went over the NDA in the Hindu consolidation as part of the Ram temp movement in UP.   But in terms of seats it was able to hold the same 3 seats and in a worrying trend for UPA, the Dalit base overall is staying with BF and not going back to UPA.

5) SF won a good chuck of votes but not enough to translate into many seats as SJP took 5 seats.  SJP had some strength based on the the personalities that were in the party. Deve Gowda which would later become PM and then form JD(S) gave SJP a foothold in Karnataka even as SJP alliance with KRRP in Karnataka did not sop the defeat of both SF and TF due to the split in the original Janata vote bloc.   Chandra Shekhar gave SJP some support in pockets of UP, and Devi Lal, and old anti-UPA politician gave SJP a good base in Haryana although it was only enough to split the anti-UPA vote and hand the state to UPA.

6) TNRF is Tamil Nadu Regional Front which is PMK.  PMK lost ground since 1989 but still took a significant share of the TN vote without winning any seats.  The lesson learned is that PMK level of support is too evenly distributed to win a seat on its own.  This sort of profile makes it a perfect candidate to join another front in return for support from the rest of fronts in certain seats.  This is what took place in 1996 and every election after that.

7) ARF is Assam Regional front which is really AGP.  AGP since 1984 lost a lot of ground as well as suffering a split with the creation of NAGP.  ARF was soundly defeated by UPA in Assam even as it retained some level of support winning only one seat.  This defeat was something AGP did not recover from and going forward AGP would appear in other political fronts versus trying to take on UPA by itself.

8 )  For RF are mostly rebels and small regional parties of various types.   The Maoist IPF lost its only seat from 1989 even as it still retrained its vote base..  Various Northeast regional forces took the rest of the seats for RF.  INC rebels are a lot smaller than previous years.  Due to insurgency in J&K no elections where held there so JKN was not active.

In terms of vote share the UPA actually won a smaller vote share in 1991 when compared to 1989.  This shows the erosion of the UPA especially in places like UP and Bihar that even a sympathy wave lead to a smaller vote share.  The erosion is mainly due to the rise of NDA as a front for upper caste and Hindu identity politics, TF for OBCs and Muslims, and BF for Dalits.   Of course note that the UPA seat count improved from 1989 despite a smaller vote share due to the falling out of NDA, TF, and SF where there was no longer tactically alliances to stop UPA in 1989.  Only about 3.5% of the vote share are for the truly independent and minor parties and is  a further polarization from 1989 as the salient issue of Mandir (Temple) and Mandal become areas of political cleavage.   To some extent, all elections 1991 and after will follow the same pattern of UPA vs NDA vs TF and with the roughly the same social composition for these blocs.  1991 is the first election of the new party system in India.

[jaichind]

1996

Front        Votes              Vote Share    Candidates     Wins                  
UPA      99,823,125            29.81%            543             144
NDA      79,588,251            23.77%            523             185
TF         85,304,972            25.47%            488             137
BF         19,472,299             5.81%             262              19
CRF         6,712,630             2.00%             352                7
SF           2,784,087             0.83%             159                2
TNRF     15,124,176             4.52%              40               39
RF           9,469,211             2.83%                                 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          95.04%                               543  out of 543 seats

The UPA government lasted a lot longer than most had expected as Rao was merely a compromise candidate between the various INC factions who now has no one from the Nehru-Gandhi family to control them.  But somehow it lasted the destruction of the Barbi Masque in 1992 and other corruption scandals as time wore on an lasted the full term.  The economic record of the Rao government after economic reforms was mostly positive which kept UPA in the game.  But Rao lack of self-confidence actually drove a style of governance which was destructive for unity and as the election started it was clear 1996 was the year of INC rebels.  First an entire coalition of anti-Rao INC leaders split and from the AIIC(T) and created the CRF rebel front.  In Karnataka KCP split as a INC regional splinter.  MPVC in MP split from INC and INC had huge number of rebels running against official INC candidates.  It was very bad in Maharastra where many INC leaders raised the banner of revolt and fought as independents.  In Arunchal Pradesh, INC rebels had occupied the entire political space.   Then when Rao insisted on forming an alliance with the unpopular AIADMK in TN,  a TN INC splinter broke rank and split from INC and formed an alliance with DMK as separate front which I call Tamil Nadu Regional Front (TNRF.)  On the Third Front side SAP which was for lower OBCs split from JD in Bihar claiming that JD in Bihar was dominated by higher OBCs in 1994.  SP also split from SJP and became the dominate party in UP in the center-left space.  The much truncated SJP which still had some strength in Bihar, Harayana and UP then merged into SAP.  SAP, UPA, and NDA all ran separately in the 1995 Bihar Assembly and was defeated by JD.  SAP was so desperate to defeat JD in Bihar that it joined NDA even though until very recently SAP was one of the harshest critics of BJP.   Rest of SAP in other regions along with the rump SJP continued as SF from 1991.  TDP itself also split where NTRTDP was formed by TDP NTR Rao after he was overthrown by his son-in-law Naidu.  Rao son died and his widow carried on leading NTRTDP.  Overall, as the election started it seems like a three way tie between UPA NDA and TF but as the INC rebellions continued UPA's fortunes began to sink.

1) UPA lost ground across the board due to a whole range of rebels and splinters impacting is vote bank.  UPA lost ground to NDA in Maharastra due to a large number of INC rebels.  UPA failed to regain ground in UP and Bihar, lost ground to the reunited AGP which is now in TF in Assam.  UPA did avoid major losses in AP as TDP split and made gains in Orissa as TF faltered there.  UPA was totally wiped out in TN and lost ground to LF in Kerela.  UPA was also defeated by NDA in Haryana and Delhi as well as SAD led BF in Punjab.  Overall the UPA vote share and seat share was seen as a significant defeat relative to what was expected before the election campaign started.

2) NDA's big breakthrough in 1991 paid dividends in 1996 in terms of attracting allies as NDA as seems as a long term viable force.  SAP's  Bihar, UP and AP wings allied with NDA to stop JD in Bihar.  Although the SAP Party in Haryana ran separately from NDA and later would split and become proto-INLD.   Instead NDA got HVP to join it from TF.  The BJP-HVP is especially cynical because HVP leader Bansi Lal was part of INC back in the 1970s and was the CM of Haryana during the 1975-1977 Emergency.  During that period he was a vanguard against BJS had a harsh crackdown on the RSS/BJS activists.  He was considered a top enemy by BJS.  Now they are in an alliance.  These alliances worked as NDA was able to sweep Bihar and Haryana.  NDA also did well in Maharastra with the BJP-SHS alliance and took advantage of the UPA rebellions there.  NDA also continued to do well in UP as the vote there is split between NDA, TF and BF even though its vote share in UP was not that large.  As a result NDA was the largest front in terms of seats but under-performed UPA and TF in terms of vote share.  This is because NDA won most of its seats in various multi-corned battle states.

3) TF which had signs of falling apart after 1991 managed to stabilize itself.  This is mostly due to getting SP to join TF as to avoid the split of the old JD vote base in UP which SP has now mostly inherited.  As a result TF was able to hold its 1991 ground in UP.  AGP joining TF also help it gain ground in Assam from UPA.  Going by the results of thte 1994 AP Assembly landslide for TF, TF had expected to make gains in AP. But TF failed to gain ground in AP due to the TDP split.  TF also made a wrong bet when JD refused to join forces with TMC and DMK in TN which led to the TMC and DMK running separately as TNRF in TN away from TF.  Instead TF consisted of JD, DMK splinter MDMK, and CPM in TN.  This split of the TF votes as DMK was in TF had the risk of handing victory to UPA.  It turns out that the anti-AIADMK was so bad in TN that this split did not prevent the TNRF from making a complete sweep in TN.  LF parties continue to dominate in WB and give TF a good slice of seats from WB.  Overall the TF results plus those of TNRF exceeded expectations and formed the basis to make a claim on power.

4) BF managed to rope in SAD in Punjab and the combined Dalit-Jat combination was able to sweep Punjab.  BSP managed to improve its seat count in UP but was clearly running third behind NDA and TF despite a sizable vote base.  BSP also had a breakthrough in MP and got a couple of seats there.  BF got JD and NTRTDP to join it in AP but ended up with zero seats contrary to the expectations of a sympathy wave for the recently deceased NTR Rao.  BF did managed to eat in TF votes in AP to hand a victory to UPA.

5) CRF is really mostly AIIC(T) which is a all India anti-Rao INC splinter.  It managed to rope in PMK in TN, KCP in Karnataka, MPVC in MP. Overall CRF did not win much seats (7) but managed to damage the UPA in many places like MP, TN, UP and several other states.  

6) SF is really SAP outside of Bihar and SJP which still had some strength in Haryana and UP.  This is the phase of SF before it fades out completely.  It did win 2 seats.  After 1996 the Orissa wing of SAP merged into INC, Haryana became HLD which later became INLD, and in UP it continued as SJP.

7) TNRF consisted of INC splinter TMC, DMK and CPI which choose to join TNRF in TN.  It managed to sweep TN in a 5 corned contest between UPA, NDA, TF, CRF and TNRF.  The swing against UPA was massive from 1991.  Whereas UPA got around 60% of the vote in TN due to the Rajiv Gandhi assassination factor, in 1991 UPA only got 25% of the vote.  Since he tradition in TN elections is that the INC runs a greater share of candidates in national elections relative to its regional partner and the reverse in assembly elections, this tradition continued in CRF (relative to AIIC(T) and PMK) as well as TNRF (relative to TMC and DMK).  This meant in many seats there were 3 INC candidates (one from INC, one from AIIC(T) and one from TMC) facing off against each other.  We should really see TNRF as an associated front of TF since DMK has close ties to TF and in the post-election scenario TNRF and TF will join hands.

8 ) RF is firstly consisted of INC rebels running as independents who won a large chunk of the vote and won 3 seats.  INC rebels where a powerful force across the boarding but especially in Maharastra where it sunk UPA and did similar damage across Northern India.   In Arunchal Pradesh INC rebels which was really proto-AC won another 2 seats.  Rest of seats are won by small regional players.  Parties like JMM also won a seat after breaking out of TF since 1991 even as the Jharkhand movement weakened from a JMM split where JMM(M) is created.  CPI(ML)(L) in Bihar which is the successor party of IPF as well as JNP in TN/Maharastra also had some strength in certain pockets.   J&K held elections which were boycotted by JKN but pro-JKN independents ran and were defeated by UPA mostly because of the JKN boycott. Various small regional parties and rebels took up the rest of RF.  

After the election which produce no front even close to majority (which is a first), the NDA was invited to form a government but lasted 13 days as UPA and TF parities refused to break ranks and support NDA.  One benefit of this 13 day government at least was that SAD broke from SF to join NDA by supporting the NDA government.  Atlas, it was not enough for a majority.  Then a TF-TNRF government was then formed with outside support from UPA.  1996 was really the story of how Rao made so many enemies within UPA that he lost an election he perhaps could have won given the economic record.  Rao's rule in INC was so negative that INC leaders were determined to get Sonia Gandhi into political life so a Nehru-Gandhi family member can bring order to UPA.  The vote share for the truly independent and minor players was a bit more than 5% which means there is lower polarization from 1991.  It seems the electorate was ambivalent the UPA government and did not have strong feelings about any of the alternatives.

[jaichind]

1998

Front        Votes              Vote Share    Candidates       Wins                  
UPA     101,103,769           27.45%            501             149
NDA     137,848,852           37.42%            541             257
TF          80,056,496           21.73%            477              98
BF         18,361,226             4.98%             273                9
JM         15,389,606             4.18%             184              19
JKRF           784,669             0.21%                6                 3
BRF         1,572,884             0.43%              35                 0
RF           5,871,388             1.59%                                   8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          97.99%                               543  out of 543 seats

The TF government that took over after the 1996 election was crisis ridden. Internal contradictions were a source of crisis as well as internal battles within UPA after Rao was forced out of INC leadership after the 1996 defeat.  The INC internal contradictions caused the UPA to threaten to pull support for TF government twice and the second time it lead to the fall of the TF government and early elections in 1998.  All this pretty much meant that both UPA and TF had lost credibility and was in complete meltdown as the elections started.  The NDA was on strong shape although BJP did suffer a split where RJP which is mainly based in Gujarat and Bihar split off.  SAP also suffered a split as SJP which had merged into SAP for the 1996 elections split back out again.  But this is nothing compared the splits in UPA and TF.  Angry at the UPA support for TF government which included the hated LF, the WB wing of INC split off to form AITC which then joined NDA.  INC in Bihar also split with BJC split being a regional splinter.   MSCP in Manipur and AC in Arunchal Pradesh also split off from INC.  A large number of INC politicians were also defected over to BJP.  BKKP which was led by Aijt Singh split from INC in UP.  BKKP is really proto-RLD and the successor party to Charan Singh's BLD.  Ajit Singh merged his supporters into INC back in the early 1990s and now split back out again dealing a blow to UPA in Western UP.  Also in the UP assembly INC tried to join forces with BSP and SP to topple the BJP government but that merely provoked the upper caste faction of INC to split off and form ABLTC in 1997 which in turn joined NDA.  Overall the UPA looked like it was headed for a complete meltdown.  This was halted by the reactivation of Sonia Gandhi into national politics since 1991 when her husband Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated.  Her joining INC and then campaigning for UPA turned the fortunes of UPA around.  Large number of rebels from 1996, especially in Maharashtra and those from AIIC(T) came back to rejoin INC.  On the TF side, Lalu Yadav in Bihar JD split off and formed RJD.  Then Lalu Yadav created the Jan Morcha (JM) front which pulled in RJD, RJP, JMM, SJP, BKKP, and JTP.  JM had the goal of forming an alliance with both UPA and BF to stop NDA, mostly in UP and Bihar.  In reality BSP in UP refused to cooperate with JM and parities like JMM and INC in UPA only had partial cooperation in UP and Bihar.  What was left of TF in Bihar tried to pull together an alliance including JD, CPI, CPM, SP and the Maoist CPI(ML)(L).  Even this limited alliance could not hold together as SP and CPI(ML)(L) split off to create their own Leftist Bihar Regional Front (BRF) in Bihar.  In Orissa, BJD split off from JD and joined NDA.  In Karnataka, LS split from JD and joined NDA.  Overall UPA and TF are in bad shape and NDA looking strong.

1) UPA was going to get completely crushed without Sonia Gandhi but with her arrival morale soared and as a result UPA got a respectable result relative to the complete meltdown scenario at the beginning of the 1998 elections.  UPA still was nowhere in UP and Bihar despite some tactical understanding with JM and BF which only benefited JM in Bihar and was ineffective in UP.  In Maharashtra the UPA soundly defeated NDA due to the return of INC rebels, unity of all INC factions and SP joining UPA in Maharashtra along with RPI.   A similar grand alliance in Punjab with CPI and BSP joining UPA there was soundly defeated by NDA which had a SAD-BJP alliance.   In the Hindu heartland outside UP and Bihar, the Sonia Gandhi factor did play out and UPA held its ground.  But Sonia Gandhi could not stop other routs for UPA.  In WB, the UPA was wiped out as AITC went over to NDA.  In TN a similar disaster where BJP lured AIADMK, PMK, MDMK, and JNP into NDA and a pro-AIADMK faction of INC joined AIADMK to protest the loss of the AIADMK as an ally.   The result was a complete wipe out for UPA as its pro-DMK faction formed TMC back in 1996 and went with TF along with DMK in 1998 and the pro-AIADMK faction is also lost as well.  In Assam, the AGP government was losing steam and UPA was able to sweep the state despite AGP joining TF.  Overall the UPA did not contest all seats due to tactical adjustments with JM even though it only yield a couple of seats in Bihar and none in UP.  Had UPA contested in all seats its vote share might have been around 29% which meant it kept its 1996 base intact once we took into account the desertion of AIADMK and AITC as well as the homecoming of various other INC rebels from 1996.

2) NDA went from strength to strength in 1998 and looked to get a majority on its own until Sonia Gandhi got into the act.  NDA did rope in parties like AITC in WB as well as AIADMK, PMK, MDMK, and JNP in TN.  In TN the massive victory of DMK-TMC provoked parties like MDMK and PMK to join forces with AIADMK and BJP in the NDA to beat back TF.   In WB NDA did well and ate into the LF vote and seat share.  In TN the NDA unexpectedly defeated TF led by DMK-TMC.  BJD in Orissa also joined NDA which was an area of NDA weakness and was able to sweep the state over UPA and TF.  LS in Karnataka joined NDA and was able to defeat both UPA and TF.  In Punjab, SAD went with NDA this time and was able to defeat the UPA alliance there.  In AP, NTRTDP joined NDA but was not to break into the voting blocs of UPA and TF who shared honors.  In Maharashtra the SHS-BJP government was becoming unpopular and as a result a grand UPA alliance defeated NDA.  The NDA continued is traditional of UP and Bihar and won the largest bloc of seats there. Overall the NDA came close to a majority on its own.

3) TF was hit by a series of splits and hurt it badly as an electoral force.  It was saved somewhat by SP gaining some ground in UP and LF parties still holding WB overall.  In AP and TN the TF parties lost ground but still won some seats.  Given the fact that from 1996 the TNRF merged into TF, the swing against TF is quite large.  Part of it of course are defections from TF like the creation of JM front, as well as defection of LS in Karnataka and BJD in Orissa.   Overall the TF government was seen as a fiasco and the election results reflected that.

4) BF started the election with a goal of creating intra-front alliances to gain ground.  Mayawati in UP was opposed to this so this was implemented only in a nominal way.  In Haryana, HLD which was the SJP in Haryana which split from SJP joined BF and was able to sweep the state.  In UP BF was defeated and lost ground in a state dominated by BJP and SP.  In Bihar, a tactical understanding in JM and UPA did not really help BF in any way.  In Karnataka INC splinter KVP joined BF but did not gain much in terms of votes or seats due to the polarization between UPA, NDA and TF there.  Overall, BF suffered a setback in 1998.

5) JM which was meant by Lalu Yadav as a secular-left alliance that will work with like minded UPA and BF to defeat NDA.  It also was meant to squeeze the political space of TF which RJD split from.  It never really accomplished the first goal but did damage the TF.  It did hold its own in Bihar.  But overall JM failed in its goal of displacing the TF as the center-left force in India.

6) JKRF is Jammu and Kashmir Regional Front which is JKN that has reemerged since stability returned to J&K and JKN called off the boycott of polls.  JKRF managed to win 3 seats which is usually the case when JKN contests on its own as it is fairly dominate in the Kashmir region of J&K.

7) BRF should be seen separate TF alliance in Bihar and like the TF faced a complete wipe-out.  BRF and TF should have hanged together or it will hang separately like it did.

8 ) RF are a series of regional parties or INC rebels or INC splinters which all won a seat here or there.  Many of these regional parties are really INC local splinters in the Northeast where they are pulling away from UPA now that the prospect of a dominate UPA government at the center seem less and less likely.

NDA formed the government with outside support of TDP which bolted from TF.  TDP did not want to back a UPA government given that its main rival in AP is the UPA.  1998 was a very polarizing election as only around 2% of vote are for small parities or true independents.  This is understandable given the large number of fronts with national ambitions in the running.  The political conflict associated with the mid-term elections also served to polarize the electorate.  1998 could have been an election like 2014 where UPA completely melted down.  But Sonia Gandhi factor saved UPA.

[jaichind]

1999

Front        Votes              Vote Share    Candidates       Wins                  
UPA     126,645,027           34.75%            539             140
NDA     149,587,446           41.05%            544             302
TF          49,155,437           13.49%            363              69
BF          15,770,997            4.33%             234              14
NF           9,593,808             2.63%             146              11
JKRF           454,481             0.12%                 6               4
RF           5,449,340             1.50%                                  3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          97.86%                               543  out of 543 seats

The NDA government fell within a year due to the the falling out of the AIADMK and the NDA.  The NDA failed the vote of confidence by one vote.   Sonia Gandhi tried to form an alternative government and failed which did hurt her credibility although SP also lost the trust of minorities when it refused to back her.  As a result new elections came.  There was a gap between the fall of NDA and the new elections which meant a prolonged period of political realignments.   First, NCP split out from INC when Sharad Pawar refused to support Sonia Gandhi for PM.  This split UPA down the middle in Maharashtra and created the NF (NCP led front).   JM mostly dissolved itself into UPA with RJD and RLD (new name of BKKP) joining UPA and RJP merging with INC.  SJP and JMM did go their own separate ways.  With the battle lines between UPA and NDA drawn and along with it polarization, the JD was split down the middle.  JD split between JD(U) and JD(S). JD(U) was formed and merged with LS in Karnataka and SAP in Bihar.  JD(S) which was anti-NDA but did not align with UPA had some strength in Karnataka where it remained in TF and in Maharashtra where it joined NF.  TF was gravely weakned by the loss of one of its pivot party.  The TDP which supported the 1998 NDA government from outside continued its support for NDA in AP.  AIADMK went over to UPA while other TN parties like PMK and MDMK stayed in NDA and was joined by the DMK. This was a landmark as DMK was always the bulwark against the Brahman and Hindu nationalist order.  Now it was able to become an ally of BJP and join the NDA just to counter the DMK rival AIADMK.  In Haryana there was a swapping of partners as HVP left NDA to join BF and was replaced by INLD after a falling out between HVP and BJP.  In HP a new INC splinter HVC split from INC and joined NDA.  Other INC splinters like ABLTC in UP, TRC in TN, and AC in Arunchal Pradesh all joined NDA as part of the polarization at the front level.  The NDA threat did stir some anti-NDA TF parties into action.  In Punjab and TN, CPI and CPM both joined UPA to stop NDA.

1)  UPA did poorly when compared to what their expectations were when the election campaign started and before the various pro-NDA political realignments took place.  While it lost some seats when compared to 1998 it did actually gained a good bloc of votes in terms of vote share.  This is mostly because of the revival of UPA in UP which was not enough to gain a lot of seats but enough to make UPA relevant again after various disastrous outings starting in 1991 in UP.  In Bihar, UPA also gained ground in terms of vote share if not in seats due to the RJD joining UPA.  In Maharashtra the formation of NF hurt badly and UPA lost a bunch of seats.  It was not as bad as it could have been due to the poor record of the NDA state government of Maharashtra.  UPA was trounced in AP by the NDA due to the joining of NDA by TDP.  In Karnataka UPA did make gains as the JD was now split between JD(U) and JD(S).  JD(U)-BJP which formed the NDA in Karnataka on paper was stronger but the JD(U) brought with it negativity of the JD state government.  As a result UPA made gains in Karnataka.  People also point of 1999 as a disastrous election for INC and as the low point of INC.  If one looks at it from a front point of view, UPA lost some seats but gain a lot from 1998 from a vote share point of view which is a healthy indicator of the future.  The only reason this vote share increase did not lead to more seats is mostly because NDA gained even more vote share due to a surge of allies in NDA as well as polarization of the vote toward UPA and NDA.  On the whole, the seeds of UPA resurgence was planted in 1999.

2) NDA got a majority on its own unlike 1998.  The surge of allies that NDA managed to rope in was the main reason for this victory.  This was evident in places like Bihar where JD(U) joining NDA help beat back the NDA which now has RJD in it.  In AP it was a landslide for NDA as TDP joined NDA.  In TN, the swapping of DMK for AIADMK enlarged the NDA advantage there.  Only place NDA lost ground was in Punjab where the UPA which now includes CPI and CPM managed to sweep the polls there as a SAD splinter split the NDA vote there and UP where infighting between Upper Caste and OBC factions in the BJP plus the INC resurgence served to reduce the NDA strength.   Overall the nationwide mood was for the NDA to have a chance to implement its program from 1998 ergo NDA was reelected with a majority on its own.

3) TF lost ground due to the polarization of the vote between UPA and NDA.  JD(U) took what was left of TF strength in Bihar with it when it joined NDA.  Same for TDP in AP where TF was joined by ATDP which was a TDP splinter but was not able to capture any significant share of the vote.  It is almost as bad in Karnataka where a reduced JD(S) became the face of TF and was pushed to third place by UPA and NDA.   In WB, the LF parities lost ground to AITC-BJP as UPA was marginalized.  UP was a somewhat bright spot for TF.  In UP, despite losing some Muslim votes to INC, SP gained some OBC votes from BJP due to the infighting there and managed to make gains.  Overall the decline of TF continues.  It is clear that in the future TF will have to pick sides between UPA and NDA or else member parities will pick on its own and leave TF for dead.

4) BF continued its policy of limited alliances but not doing so for critical states like UP.  BF gained ground in UP as NDA weakens.  HVP joined BF in Haryana and SHSAD which is a SAD splinter joined BF in Punjab.  In neither case did these limited alliances lead to any seats.  

5) NF which is mostly NCP clearly took a lot of votes from UPA and to some extent TF, especially in Maharashtra.  NF did have some tactical alliances with TF in some states but overall did more harm than good to TF.  NF did not manage to win that many seats but did hurt UPA in the order of 20-30 seats by its formation.

6) JKRF is Jammu and Kashmir Regional Front which is JKN.  JKN won 4 seats as the anti-JKN vote which usually goes to UPA when JKN is not allied with INC this time was splintered between UPA and NDA.

7) RF is mostly JMM which took a bunch of votes in the Jkharhand part of Bihar and Orissa but did not win any seats.  The Jharkhand movement is stalled in 1999 mostly because the splintering of the Jharkhand vote between JMM, JMM(U), JKP an JKP(N).  Rest are various rebels of small regional parties.   In terms of seat and vote share the RF decline continues as the vote gets polarized toward UPA and NDA.  

The NDA form the government with a comfortable majority.  The alliance building of the NDA in 1999 is unrivaled in Indian election history with the NDA begin able to hold together so many regional and ideological differences in one alliance and got the vote share to add up to victory in such a FPTP system.  The stature of Vajpayee of the BJP was a critical element for this achievement.  Someone who is seen as more radical or controversial would not been able to hold NDA together.  The vote share of minor parities and true independents is, just like 1998, barely over 2% as the polarization between the UPA and NDA pulled in votes from all other sources.  While 1999 was seen as a significant defeat for UPA and victory for NDA, the seeds of the UPA revival was clearly established.   The revival of UPA and relative decline of NDA in UP bode well for UPA in the future.  Also since on the long run the anti-BJP vote is still larger than the pro-BJP vote, polarization of the vote could only help the UPA.  It was a matter of merging those anti-BJP votes together.  

[jaichind]

2004

Front        Votes              Vote Share    Candidates        Wins                  
UPA     143,594,562           36.84%            544              228
NDA     139,861,392           35.88%            543             189
TF          58,539,454           15.02%            411             100
BF          20,765,229            5.33%             435              19
SF            1,550,720            0.40%               40                0
JKRF            493,067            0.13%                6                 2
RF            8,385,432            2.15%                                   5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          95.74%                               543  out of 543 seats

The NDA government of 1999 to 2004 was seen as a success and was very popular overall when compared with other governments.  As a result NDA did very well in the 2003 assembly elections and called the 2004 election early.  The ECI stopped an earlier schedule that NDA was pushing for and the election ended being held just 6 months earlier than normal.  NDA was seen as popular and had expected to win election in a landslide.  There were chinks in the NDA armor such as the defection of LJP which split from JD(U) but stayed in NDA initially and then left NDA. Also in Haryana INLD and BJP relations were going badly and it was expected that INLD will leave NDA.  In UP the BJP did not seem to have recovered from its decline from 1998 to 1999.  But overall given how popular NDA was these were seen minor issues and there was little roadblock to an easy re-election of the NDA.  As the campaign started, various events that started 1999-2003 began to work against NDA.  First in 2003 TMC in TN merged into INC.  This changed the election equations of the DMK now that INC was reunited in TN.  An alliance with INC in TN was seen as more valuable than an alliance with BJP in this case.  Also the scale of the NDA victory in 1999 scared the LF parties to join forces with UPA where it can benefit to stop NDA.  As a result DMK-PMK-MDMK left NDA a monster DMK-INC-PMK-MDMK-CPI-CPM alliance was formed as the UPA alliance in TN.  BJP had no choice but to ally with AIADMK which was alone in TN.  In Bihar, LJP joined UPA and a RJD-INC-LJP-CPM alliance was formed.  In Jhkarhand  JMM joined UPA.  In Kashmir PDP joined UPA.  In Haryana as expected INLD left NDA to join TF.  In WB, there were signs that UPA and TF were working out tactical alliances to stop the AITC led NDA as a part of LF strategy of working in different ways in different states to work with UPA to stop NDA after the split of the anti-NDA vote allowed NDA to win in 1999.  In AP, TRS split from TDP and joined UPA along with CPI and CPM to stop the UPA.  Overall the alliance game which was working so well in 1999 for the NDA was now working against the NDA.  Still even as the election went into full gear, while the NDA advantage was seen as eroding, they were still expect to win a perhaps slim majority and at least plurality.   UPA did not expect to win but to put a credible performance to win the next election.

1) UPA did well in places like TN and AP where the right alliance math helped UPA sweep these two states.  In Bihar and Jharkhand NDA was defeated due to an enlarged UPA plus alliance disunity within NDA with BJP and JD(U).  UPA actually was stagnant in UP relative to 2009 but due to the fall of the NDA vote gained a few seats.  UPA also managed to improve in places like Gujarat and Delhi despite NDA popularity in the Hindi belt.  And UPA was soundly defeated in places like Rajasthan, MP and Chattisgrah.  In WB UPA gained a couple seats thanks to their tactical alliances with LF parties of TF.  In Maharashtra, NCP rejoined UPA but actually lost ground in terms of votes share to NDA from 1999.  It was only the united nature of INC and NCP that kept them tied with NDA in Maharashtra in terms of seats.   It was just the scale of the UPA victory in AP and TN plus significant wins in Bihar and Jhharhand managed to just pull them over NDA in terms of seats and vote share by a small margin.  In terms of votes share and once we take changes in allies into account the UPA really performed the same as 1999.  What defeated NDA was really the right alliances and cooperation between TF parties and UPA please erosion of NDA vote from 1999 that led to the UPA plurality victory.  

2) NDA actually did do well in the Hindi belt but lost ground in place where there was enlarged UPA alliances and/or anti-NDA tactical voting.  NDA also gained ground in Karnataka and held its large advantage in Orissa.  In WB, AP, and TN NDA was wiped out due to enlarged UPA or UPA-TF tactical understanding.  In Bihar and Jhkarhand, NDA lost a lot of ground to an enlarged UPA even as JD(U) left NDA in Jharkhand and the relations between BJP and JD(U) in Bihar became strained.  In Haryana the BJP and INLD split gave a complete sweep to UPA.  NDA lost some votes on top of that but due to its popularity the size of that loss was small and in terms of vote share NDA was only slightly behind UPA.  What really pushed down NDA was anti-NDA alliances and voting in various states had a disproportional impact on NDA seat share and lost out to UPA.  

3) This time TF after the lessons of 1999 and the loss of its pro-NDA parties to NDA in 1999 focused on beating NDA even at the expense of working with UPA.  In many states TF parities either joined UPA or had some tactical understanding with UPA.  In UP SP made a lot of gains against NDA which also helped BSP and UPA.  In WB and Kerela TF were able to sweep the polls.  

4) BF this time ran in almost all seats with the Mayawati strategy of running BSP candidates everywhere and staying away from alliances.  BF did well in UP mainly due to the decline of NDA but did not really make a large impact elsewhere, even in places like MP where BSP used to have some strength.  

5) SF is SAP front.  SAP is with NDA in several key states but in states like TN and Jharkhand SAP ran separately.  While SF did not gain any seats, SF damaged NDA in places like TN and Jharkhand as well as Gujarat and Rajasthan.  In TN several parties (PT, MTD and INL) ran under the JD(U) symbol known as the People’s Front which took a bunch of votes and ate into the NDA vote share.


6) JKRF is Jammu and Kashmir Regional Front which is JKN.  JKN only managed to win only 2 seats this time mostly because of PDP joining UPA.  

7) RF was mostly a series of regional parities.  In 2004 one thing that is different is that some of these regional parties are actually BJP rebel splinters in various states like Haryana and Karnataka that did hurt the NDA on the edges.  While they are not as large as RJP in 1998, all of them together in RF hurts the NDA overall.

The UPA formed the government with outside support of BSP, SP, and LF parties.  The UPA victory was totally unexpected although as the election went on it was clear that UPA was gaining and NDA losing ground.  But it was very unexpected that UPA would win more seats than the NDA.  What took place was that the NDA was very popular but not popular enough to overcome changes in alliances in favor of UPA, anti-NDA tactical voting, and the natural dissipation of the polarized atmosphere of 1999.  The true independent or non-serious vote rose to 5%.  It seems some of the NDA vote went there wich combined with these other factors was just enough to take them below UPA in terms of vote share and seats.  The UPA won in spite of a popular incumbent which was just not popular enough to overcome these factor.  2004 is in fact very similar to 1999 in terms of vote share once alliances are taken into account.  All that took place was that NDA lost some votes to TF and BF while UPA held flat after taken alliances into account.  NDA lost out also because of the uniform nature of swings in places like AP and TN where a small swing away from NDA plus an enlarged UPA led to massive loss in seats.  In UP the same sort of small swing from NDA to TF and BF lead to a large loss in seats as well.

[jaichind]

2009

Front        Votes              Vote Share    Candidates      Wins                  
UPA      153,153,933          36.82%            540             262
NDA     101,393,904           24.38%            526             159
TF          70,313,548           16.91%            325               62
BF          25,728,920            6.19%             500              21
FF          27,888,779            6.71%             277              28
MRF         1,503,863            0.36%               11                0
TNRF       3,126,117             0.75%               40                0
RF         12,202,178             2.93%                                 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          95.08%                               543  out of 543 seats

In the aftermath of the unexpected UPA victory in 2004, BJP's Vajpayee faded into the background and Sonia Gandhi's renunciation of the PM role in favor of Singh made Sonia Gandhi the tallest leader leader of the land.  So whereas in the 1996-2004 period the NDA had an advantage over the UPA in terms of perception of leadership now the UPA held this advantage.  As a part of this the growth of the NDA in terms of number of members especially in the 1996-1999 period reversed in full force.  TDP and AIADMK both left NDA for TF.  AITC also left NDA although being that LF was part of TF and TF supported UPA stayed equidistant from both NDA and UPA.  Succession struggles in SHS mean that this key NDA member split with NMS being formed as a rival to BJP-SHS in Maharashtra on the right.  HVP in Haryana merged back into INC. The next great realignment took place in 2008 when the UPA government wanted to push forward the Indo-US nuclear deal which was opposed by both NDA and TF.  This lead to a break between UPA and TF and to a vote of no confidence that could have brought down the UPA government.  The TF split with SP coming out in support of UPA which in turn triggered BSP to come out against UPA.  Now that TF and especially the LF parties within it turned against UPA, AITC jumped on the UPA bandwagon and joined UPA to oppose LF which was its main rival in WB.  The vote of no confidence was won narrowly UPA most due to the help SP provided and set the stage for the upcoming election with SP being for UPA and rest of TF as well as BF coming out against even as AITC joined UPA.  As the 2009 election season started, SP created the Forth Front (FF) with RJD LJP and PRP (a new AP regional party) as a pro-UPA front that sought to get a better deal from INC in seat sharing arrangements.  UPA refused to play ball the FF ran separately.  DMDK in TN also emerged as new regional force and despite wooing by NDA decided to run on a separate Tamil Nadu Regional Front (TNRF.)  In a blow for NDA, BJD in Orissia at this stage left NDA to join TF.  With AIADMK in TF, other smaller TN regional parties like PMK and MDMK grew tired of DMK and also left UPA to join TF.  In Jharhand, JVM split from BJP and also joined  TF.  TRS also had a falling out with UPA and joined TF.  In Haryana, HJC split from INC and joined TF.  TF at this stage is without its old pivot party SP which is now leading the FF, TF was really led by the LF parties are its pivot.  As BSP led BF is opposed to SP, BF had a tactical understanding with TF where TF supported BF in UP and that BF and TF will collaborate post election.  FF had a similar understanding with UPA that while FF and UPA would fight it out in places like UP and Bihar, post election UPA and FF would cooperate.  NDA lost a large number of allies from 2004 but did manage to rope in RLD in UP, AGP in Assam, and INLD in Haryana to join NDA.  In no way did this make up for the loss of TDP, AIADMK, AITC, and BJD.  

1) UPA vote share did not increase from 2004 but gained a significantly larger bloc of seats.  Once one takes the shift in alliances into account (departure of RJD and LJP as well as PMK and MDMK, and loss of TRS but gaining AITC) which was really a wash, the UPA did not really gain or lose vote support overall.   The gain in seats were really UPA taking advantage of the decline in NDA support which in turn gave more UPA first place finishes, especially in UP and Rajasthan.  Also AITC joining UPA and adding the INC vote share in WB to AITC created a large swing in terms of seats away from LF in WB toward the UPA.  It was in Bihar and Jharhand that UPA was hurt by the loss of RJD and LJP to FF which split the anti-NDA vote benefited the NDA greatly.  In Jharhand the UPA had a lot of infigiting between JMM and INC which meant they could not take advantage of the split of JVM from BJP.  The UPA did do well in Kerela against TF and held it own quite well in TN against a well organized TF bloc led by AIADMK.  In AP, the PRP which was part of FF actually helped UPA by splitting the anti-UPA vote from TF parties like TDP and TRS.  Same in Maharashtra where UPA held its own mainly because the SHS splinter MHS split the anti-UPA vote.  So other than Bihar and Jharkhand, everything came up trumps for UPA and led it to come close to a majority on its own despite not real gain in support.

2) NDA lost a series of allies from 2004 and on top of that lost some support especially in the Hindi heartland which led to the loss of a significant number of seats.  In UP RLD did well in Western UP but BJP did poorly in the rest of UP losing more vote share and mostly to the benefit of UPA.  NDA lost ground to UPA across the board in the Hindi heartland although some of this was made up by the great performance of NDA in Bihar and Jharkhand.  In Assam and Haryana new allies such as AGP and INLD did nothing to prevent a near wipe out of NDA in these two places.  In Maharashtra, NDA was posed to at least hold its own if not gain seats but due to the split of the anti-UPA vote share from MNS, NDA lost in urban areas to UPA even as UPA did not gain vote share support.  Losing AIADMK, BJD, and AITC meant that NDA was nowhere in TM, Orissa, and WB in addition to Kerela. Still, NDA still managed a vote share of 24% and 159 seats which under the circumstances is quite respectable.  It could have been a lot worse from a seats points of view had the NDA support been distributed in a less advantageous way.  

3) TF in 2009 unlike 2004 is now running against UPA.  CPM and CPI ended up being the pivot parties with the loss of SP.  TF gained a large number of regional parties which performed from very well (like BJD in Orissa) to disappointing (AIADMK/PMK/MDMK in TN) to poorly (JVM in Jharkhand and HJC in Haryana).  The LF took a large hit in WB and Kerela from UPA so even as the TF gain more parities and as a result vote share relative to 2004, in terms of seats the TF's performance was well below their hopes.

4)  BF focused in UP with the tacit support of TF although it did run candidates across India.  Other than UP BSP only had significant support in pockets of MP and Haryana.  In Haryana this actually hurt TF as TF's HJC support was undercut by BF.  In UP BF had expected to do very well but due to the above par performance of UPA the result was disappointing even as BSP emerged as the largest party in UP.

5) FF was mostly active in UP Bihar and Jharkhand.  In Bihar and Jharhkand the FF split with UP clearly hurt FF and gave the NDA a clear victory.  In UP, FF held its own but clearly lost Muslim vote share to UPA and as a result lost a bunch of seats from 2004.  FF ran in other states but did not have a real impact.  Overall FF failed in its mission to get a better deal from UPA pre-election and failed to win enough seats to make a post-election impact mainly because of the clear victory of the UPA.

6) MRF is Maharashtra Regional Front which is really SHS splinter MNS.  MNS captured a large chunk of the vote in urban Maharashtra but won no seats even as it hurt NDA badly.

7) TNRF is really just DMDK in TN.  While DMDK captured a good share of the vote it did not win any seats.  It most likely did damage the TF as it took away from anti-UPA/DMK vote that would have otherwise gone to TF.

8 ) RF is first of all various BJP and JD(U) rebels won a large size of votes and 4 seats overall.  The rest of RF are various small regional parties and the most of the seats are rebels of all other types including INC rebels.  The amount of votes these various rebels and splinters are quite large in 2009.

2009 pitted UPA against a divided opposition of NDA on one side and TF/BF on the other.  FF did damage UPA in Bihar and Jharkhand but seems to helped UPA in terms of tactical voting in other states like UP.  Various splinter fronts helped UPA by splitting anti-UPA vote and as a result UPA won a near majority.  UPA won the leadership image battle where the Sonia Gandhi-Singh combo was seen as an effective team.  This will quickly turn around by the time 2014 comes around.  The UPA also got lucky by TNRF hurting TF in TN, MRF hurting NDA in Maharashtra, and FF hurting TF in AP.  Only in Bihar did the split of the FF and UPA give NDA an undeserved advantage.   The level of polarization is lower in 2009 with around 5% of the vote going to true independents and small players.  That the NDA was not seen as an effective alternative due to its leadership vacuum as well as the fact that NDA was nowhere in many states created a non-polarizing environment which overall helped UPA.

[jaichind]

2014

Front        Votes              Vote Share    Candidates       Wins                  
UPA     127,784,853           23.12%            541               60
NDA     212,543,319           38.45%            542             336
TF          99,327,411           17.97%            418               91
BF          22,937,891            4.15%             503                0
AF          11,325,635            2.05%             432                4
TCF        21,475,288            3.89%             132              34
TNRF      10,947,927            1.98%              40                 0
TRF          6,715,967            1.22%              17               11
ARF          2,237,612            0.40%              10                 3
JKRF           732,644             0.14%               5                  3
RF            9,900,480            1.79%                                   2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          95.15%                               543  out of 543 seats

UPA-II performed in a much worse economic political environment than UPA-I where a lot of scams and political scandals that was built up over 8-10 years of incumbency came to light.  The frustrations of middle class electorate manifested itself in the creation of the AAP which ran in 2014 as a separate AAP front (AF.)  Internal conflicts within the UPA lead to the departure of the DMK in TN which formed the Tamil Nadu Regional front (TNRF) as the DMK saw the INC as a liability.  Same could be said for AITC in WB which also split with UPA and formed the Trinamool  Congress Front (TCF).  The death of the INC leader of AP, YSR, lead to the split of the YSRCP in AP from the UPA which in turn joined TF.  There was an attempt to reconcile YSRCP and INC in AP but the decision of the INC to push for the creation of the Telengana state made this impossible.  The INC had hoped that the creation of Telengana would attract TRS to join UPA or a least allow UPA to capture the TRS vote.  On the first count this seems to have failed as TRS decided to contest on its own outside of UPA.  The UPA did managed to rope in RJD from FF in Bihar and RLD from NDA in UP.  On the NDA side, the emergence of Gujarat CM Modi, which was seen as a hardliner on the communal question, as the leader of BJP for sure created a surge of support for NDA even as traditional allies of NDA balked.  JD(U) which has been in NDA since 1994 (in the form of SAP) left NDA.  AGP also decided to depart from NDA in Assam.  With Modi at the helm, NDA made up for these losses by roping in AD in UP, TDP in AP, LJP in Bihar, HJC in Harayana, and a Grand Alliance of DMDK, PMK, and MDMK in TN.  All these parties joined NDA to try to cash in on a perception that Modi was very popular and would fetch the votes that will benefit them even as all of them paid lip service of being secular.  At the time, the TDP alliance was seen as the one which would most likely be the most profitable.   The pro-NDA faction of NCP also split from NCP to form NPP and joined NDA as well.  The TF at this stage was becoming much less effective and effective as a pre-election front.  Most of them paid lip service to pre-election cooperation and it was not clear they would stay together after the election.  This meant that as UPA was very unpopular, tactical the anti-UPA vote, depending on if there was a viable TF party running, would go to NDA.  In Jharkhand, a INC-JMM-RJD alliance could not save it from being beaten by NDA, such is the anti-UPA wave that took place.

1) The UPA suffered the worst defeat ever in its history.  Its vote share hit rock bottom and its seat share was a complete disaster even taking the strong anti-UPA swing into account.  This can only be explained by tactical anti-UPA voting by the electorate.  The high turnout seems to indicate that this was what was going on.  The UPA was wiped out across Northern India.  In Assam where UPA was expected to do well, UPA was also crushed by the split of the anti-NDA vote between INC and AUDF.  The UPA failed to do well in Telengana despite its work to create Telengana, and in AP the YSRCP became the real "INC" as the UPA received vote shares in the single digits.  In Karnataka it was expected that the UPA will do well and it did improve a bit on its 2009 performance, but tactical anti-UPA voting by JD(S) votes seems to have sunk UPA there too.  The splitting of of TCF and TNRF from UPA meant the UPA was nowhere in WB and TN.  At least in WB, the UPA won a few seats in its old strongholds.  In TN the UPA was in the low single digits in terms of vote share.  Even in places like Punjab where the NDA did seem to be in trouble, the AAP split the anti-NDA vote there and stole the show from UPA.

2) The NDA won a massive victory in terms of seats.  It completely swept the Hindi belt and its performance in UP and Bihar was most impressive in terms of seats as it broke out of the splintered mandates in UP and won a large majority of seats in Bihar despite JD(U) leaving NDA.  In Maharashtra, its seems the tactical voting by MNS voters ensured that NDA swept the state.  NDA did not do well in WB, TN, and Orissa in terms of seats but was able to establish itself in those three states as the main rival to the ruling regional party there.  In terms of vote share what the NDA got was not as impressive.  Its vote share pretty much is the same as what the NDA got in 1998 and what UPA got in 2009.  Its vote share was below what NDA got in 1999.  What won the NDA the day in terms of seats was the splintered anti-NDA vote in UP as well anti-UPA tactical voting which most benefited NDA.

3) TF had an uneven performance and was mostly a function of which state one looks at.  AIADMK in TN, and BJD in Orissa did very well but that was not the result of good coordination with other TF parties but instead had causes in the nature of the regional government there and that both cases the TF benefited from anti-UPA voting as opposed to NDA.  In places like UP, Bihar, Jharkand, and WB, the TF parities did poorly.  In Kerela and AP, the LF parties and YSRCP did manage to get an barely acceptable result.  AGP was completely crushed in Assam as the Hindu anti-UPA vote clearly consolidated behind BJP.

4) BF got completely wiped out in its core state of UP.  The NDA surge ate into the BSP Dalit vote base as a result BSP won no seats despite a vote share that is not horrible.

5) AF which is really just AAP overestimated its support and ran a large number of candidates.  Most the them did poorly although AAP did do well in Punjab where it was able to capture the anti-NDA vote from UPA.  AAP did not do well in Delhi where it had the most success earlier.

6) TCF which is really just AITC showed its national ambitions in this election.  AITC won a massive share of the WB seats as the anti-AITC vote was split by LF, BJP and INC.  TCF also had credible performances in other states like Jharkhand, Tripura and other Northeastern states.  JBSP in Jhkarhand also ran with AITC.

7) TNRF which is really DMK and its allies ran separately from UPA hoping not to be infected with the anti-UPA wave.  It was to no avail as it ended up winning no seats.  In retrospect, the NDA split the anti-AIADMK vote in a way which made it impossible for TNRF to have a chance against AIADMK.

8 ) TRF is Telangana Regioanl Front which is TRS.  TRS played a clever political game to getting UPA to back the creation of Telangana with promises of joining UPA.  In the end TRS drove a hard bargin and the UPA merger talks failed even though TRF was much more friendly toward UPA than NDA.  As it is TRF swept Telangana over UPA NDA and TF.  
 
9) ARF is Assam Regional Front which is AUDF which won 3 seats  in Assam as the Muslim anti-UPA tactical voting went to AUDF and at the same time helped NDA in several other seats in Assam.

10) JKRF is Jammu & Kashmir Regional Front which is PDP which swept the Muslim areas of J&K winning 3 seats over UPA. 

11) RF is first of all BJP rebels which were active in Rajasthan but did not dent the BJP landslide there.    MNS did poorly in Maharashtra due to anti-UPA tactical voting.  CPI(ML)(L) still have some pockets of influence on Bihar and Jharkhand.  Rest of RF are various rebels of all stripes, various regional players which did not get any in terms of seats.

The scale of the NDA victory was the greatest since 1984 with the BJP winning a majority on its on.  Inspecting the vote share of the front shows it might be premature to contend that this election represented a major realignment of the electorate.  The scale of the NDA victory was mostly built on the anti-UPA vote and the Modi personality brand.  Both are expected to dissipate to a large degree in the next election.  The challenge of the UPA is really if it can reconstruct the UPA of 2009 by bring back AITC, YSRCP, and DMK.  In UP, the UPA will have to find a way to align with SP or BSP, and in Bihar UPA will somehow have to include a large anti-NDA alliance of RJD, JD(U) and perhaps some LF parities.  The same is true in Jharkhand where the UPA should try to build an anti-NDA grand alliance of JMM, JVM, RJD, and INC.  The UPA also needs to somehow woo back liberal middle class AAP supporters which used to vote INC.   If the UPA manages to do some combination of these things then it can and will come back to power again.  If not, then we might be seeing the first election of a new party system where NDA becomes the pivot front.  While many see this election is a very polarizing election, it seems to have polarized between established fronts as the vote share of the true independents and very minor parties which is around 5% is about the same as 2004 and 2009.  

[jaichind]

Subhas Chandra Bose.

He founded the Left Front aligned All India Forward Bloc, it looks like most of his descendants are all members of the All India Trinamool Congress, which is the the de facto anti-Left Front party in West Bengal.

How did that happen?

Firstly, AIFB was a nationalist left wing splinter of INC with an emphasis on nationalist.  Remember.  Bose went to Germany and then Japan where he joined the Axis powers to defeat UK rule in India.  Also in many ways AITC is actually more left wing, at least more populist, than the WB Left Front which includes AIFB.  During its years in power in 1977-2011, the Left Front in WB became quite reformist.

[jaichind]

One of the research topics I have always been interested in is the 1991 election where INC leader and former PM Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated in the middle of the election.  I have always identified the 1991 election as a re-aligning election where the party system of 1952-1989 with INC domination ended ushering a new party system of 1991-2014? with a competitive multi-front system with a slight advantage for UPA.  The main point of the election was that even with the sympathy factor for INC due to Rajiv Gandhi's assassination and a unstable NF government which fell apart, the UPA was not able to replicate the 1980 election result by winning a solid majority with a 45%-46% of the vote. Instead it won 39% of the vote slightly less than a majority.

The question I was always wanted to answer was: What if Rajiv Gandhi was not assassinated how would UPA have performed.  Clearly it would have performed worse but how much worse.  One thing in favor of my analysis is the fact that the election took place in many phases and Rajiv Gandhi's assassination took place in the middle of these phases.  

First, we can look at the UPA vote and seat share for seats before and seats after the Rajiv Gandhi's assassination.  We have
                                  
                               Before Assassination              After Assassination  
Vote share                             32.2%                              43.5%
Seats available                      180                                  354
UPA Seats                              39                                   221              

So UPA won 39 out of 180 seats in the early phases of the election and won 221 out of 354 seats in the later phases.  This seems to indicate that the UPA got a greater than 10% swing due to the Rajiv Gandhi assassination. Most media literature during the 1991 election mostly left the analysis level and stated the the UPA was headed for a big defeat but Rajiv Gandhi's assassination turned a landslide defeat into a near victory.

I was not satisfied with this.  My problem is that the seats in the early phases and later phases were not assigned by random but based on a geographical logic.  Some states went earlier than later.  It is totally possible that the seats that were in the earlier phases were in areas where UPA were weaker and would have done badly with or without the Rajiv Gandhi assassination.  What we can do to measure this is to look at the UPA performance in these seat blocs in the 1989 LS election and compare them to 1991 to see what vote swings took place within each bloc of seats.  This gave us this chart.

                                        Before Assassination              After Assassination  
1989 UPA vote share                        39.2%                            42.9%
1989 seats available                      180                                   349
1989 UPA seats                               45                                   170
1991 UPA Vote share                       32.2%                             43.5%
1991 Seats available                      180                                  354
1991 UPA seats                              39                                   221

The reason why seat available was not the same between 1989 and 1991 mainly because Assam did not vote in 1989 due to the AGP government cleanup of election rolls.  Anyhow, here we do see that the bloc of seats that voted earlier in the election were from areas where UPA was weaker both in terms of votes but also vote-to-seat conversion.  In the phases before the assassination the UPA lost 7% of the vote but only lost a few seats.  This is mainly because the 1989 anti-UPA tactical voting between NDA and NF did not take place in 1991.   In fact the lower vote share for UPA between 1989 and 1991 in the earlier phases were more about NDA and TF running candidates in pretty much all seats versus some tactical understanding and seat adjustments of 1989.  The small drops in seat count for UPA attest to that.  In the later phases for sure UPA gained 0.6% of the vote and gained a bunch of seats.  Assuming that this pattern holds everywhere this tells us that even if the Rajiv Gandhi assassination took place right before the 1991 elections the UPA would have won around 42% of the vote versus 41% in 1989 and will not replicate the 1980 UPA comeback.  It also tells us that the Rajiv Gandhi assassination did help UPA but not to the tune of 10+%.

I decided to take it one step further since even this level of analysis was not satisfactory.  In many LS elections many states swing in different and in fact opposite directions depending on local conditions and which party is in power at the state level.  It could be that the earlier phases seats were in states where the UPA was going to experience a negative swing and vice versa in the later phases.  One way to test for this is to look at states where there were seats in both groups of phases.  The states that fit this criteria were AP, Rajasthan, Bihar and UP.

AP
                                        Before Assassination              After Assassination  
1989 UPA vote share                       52.7%                             49.4%
1989 seats available                        20                                    22
1989 UPA seats                               19                                   20
1991 UPA Vote share                       46.1%                             45.0%
1991 Seats available                        20                                   22
1991 UPA seats                                8                                    17

Here in AP, the swing against UPA went from 6.6% in the early phases to 4.4%, a benefit of 2.2% only.  But that small benefit was able to save a bunch UPA seats in a bi-polar state where UPA and TDP lead TF were neck-to-neck.


Rajasthan
                                        Before Assassination              After Assassination  
1989 UPA vote share                       37.2%                             36.7%
1989 seats available                        16                                     9
1989 UPA seats                                 0                                     0
1991 UPA Vote share                       38.6%                             53.1%
1991 Seats available                        16                                     9
1991 UPA seats                                 5                                     8

Here the UPA positive swing went from 1.4% before the assassination to 16.4%.  It seems that the UPA was destined to gain seats given the breakdown of the anti-UPA tactical alliances between NDA and NF where UPA went from 0 to 5 seats out of 16 on a 1.4% swing.  Rajasthan is an elastic state and we can see that here with the massive swing toward the UPA after the assassination and pretty much helped UPA sweep the state in the post-assassination seats.  Here we can conclude that if the assassination did not take place the UPA would still have gained in the later phases but not as much.


Bihar
                                        Before Assassination              After Assassination  
1989 UPA vote share                       26.8%                             29.9%
1989 seats available                        34                                    20
1989 UPA seats                                 3                                     1
1991 UPA Vote share                       21.1%                             29.1%
1991 Seats available                        34                                   20
1991 UPA seats                                 0                                     1
    
Here in the early phases the UPA experienced a negative swing of 6.7% which became a negative swing of 0.8% in the post assassination phases.  Even as the breakdown of the anti-UPA tactical voting in 1989 broke down, the vote share of the UPA became so low in Bihar in 1989 and 1991 it pretty much made no difference.  Even as UPA retained its vote base in the later phases it was not enough to gain any seats.  Even if the vote share benefits from the assassination was significant.  It seems that UPA was doomed in Biahr one way or another.

UP
                                        Before Assassination              After Assassination  
1989 UPA vote share                       32.5%                             31.6%
1989 seats available                        41                                    44
1989 UPA seats                                 7                                     8
1991 UPA Vote share                       17.3%                             20.0%
1991 Seats available                        41                                   43  
1991 UPA seats                                 2                                     3

Here the UPA negative swing went from 15.2% to 11.6% from the early phases to later phases.  The relative benefits of the assassination did make a small difference in terms of vote share but did not save UPA in terms of seats.  It seems that in UP the UPA was doomed one way or another.

A couple of more data point include the state of Haryana which held its election entirely before the assassination. The UPA vote share fell from 46.1% of the vote in 1989 to 37.2% in 1991 but UPA seats went from 4 to 9 out of 10 due to the breakdown of the NDA and TF anti-UPA tactical alliance.   In HP which was before the assassination UPA actually had a positive swing in terms of votes going from 42% in 1989 to 46.2% with UPA going from 1 seat out of 4 to 2 seats out of 4.  In WB UPA went from 42.8% in 1989 to 36.9% in 1991 but since UPA strength is concentrated in WB  as well as NDA growth eating into the vote share of both UPA and LF, it won 5 seats both in 1989 and 1991.

What one gets from all this data is that while in terms of vote share there was some benefit to UPA gained some votes from the Rajiv Gandhi assassination the seat gains were most likely as large as many make it out to be.  The affect of the breakdown of the NDA NF anti-UPA tactical alliance was more critical to the UPA seat count.  I feel that overall had there not been the Rajiv Gandhi assassination the UPA would have most likely won around 36% of the vote and around 220 seats, still the largest front with the NDA being the second most powerful front.

[jaichind]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-protests-idUSKCN0VU07W

Fun times in New Delhi: Half the water supply to the city has been cut off after days of caste rioting. Jats are rioting over opportunities for government jobs and education, and have attacked canals and pumping stations, houses of regional ministers, railway stations, and staged sit-ins on railroads.


9,000 soldiers have been deployed by the federal government. 12 people have died and 150 injured so far.

Jats in Haryana are rioting for them to be labeled as OBC in Haryana.   This means they will get reservations in education and government jobs.  It seems the Haryana government has backed down and will pass bills over the next few days to give Jats OBC status.  Of course this will provoke other groups to do the same in other stats as well as counter-protests by other OBC groups in Haryana.







This entire protest movement, just like the Patels in Gujarat, is totally bogus.  Both Jats in Haryana and Patels in Gujarat are fairly wealth communities so demanding being part of OBC is not justified.  Of course this entire system of quotas is bogus and what is taking place is the logical consequence of the politics of quotas.

BTW, since all ground transport in and out of Delhi has been cut off, the airlines are making a killing.  The price of a airfare ticket from Delhi to cities just outside Delhi like Chandigarh have surged from around $80 to amounts up to $1500.

[jaichind]

The Jat anger in Haryana also has roots in the current BJP administration elected in late 2014.  Historically, it has been INC and INLD that took turns wooing the dominate Jats in Haryana for power.  The BJP decided to capture power on its own in 2014 by forming an alliance of all non-Jat communities (excluding Muslims of course).  So the current BJP administration has the least amount of Jat influence and representation ever.    The reason BJP is backing down now is that Jats form a critical part of the BJP coalition in Rajasthan, Punjab and Western UP so it fears that Jats in those states will also rise up against BJP if this crisis is prolonged.