Internal Divisions & Over-Reliance On Bhupinder Singh Hooda & Isolation Of Dalit Leader Kumari Selja Lead To Congress’ Downfall In Haryana

It was self-goal by Congress which must blame its central leadership and over dependence on former chief minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda thereby completely humiliating and ignoring former state president Kumari Selja which gave an impression that Dalits may not be part of power sharing if Congress snatched power from BJP.

KS Tomar

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) secured its third consecutive victory in Haryana by leveraging a combination of caste-based strategies, effective leadership, a fractured opposition, and a well-oiled election machinery. Despite facing two time anti-incumbency, the party managed to maintain its dominance by appealing to diverse voter bases and capitalizing on local as well as national issues that resonated with the electorate.

It was self-goal by Congress which must blame its central leadership and over dependence on former chief minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda thereby completely humiliating and ignoring former state president Selja which gave an impression that Dalits may not be part of power sharing if Congress snatched power from BJP.

Interestingly, BJP and Congress got vote share of 39.9% and 39.1% respectively but due to principle of unfavourable “Vote-to-Seat Conversion” as the distribution of votes among various parties shifted hence strike rate of saffron party enhanced thereby winning 48 seats whereas congress was stuck at 37 in 2024. In comparison, BJP secured a majority with 33% of the vote share but fell below the majority mark in 2019 in assembly polls in Haryana, despite an increase in vote share to 36%. The INLD, which garnered 25% of votes in 2014, managed to win only 3% in the 2019 elections and now dipped to 4.14% in 2024. Similarly, Dushyant Chautala’s Jan Nayak Janata Party (JJP), a breakaway faction, has been decimated in the current assembly elections getting 0.9%, largely due to its partnership with the BJP, which led to voter backlash.

In a huge set back, Congress paid heavily owing to several factors including complacency, over dependence upon jat leaders, side-lining Dalit leader, Selja, Absence of a Positive Campaign Agenda, decision of AAP leadership to contest all seats, failure to exploit unemployment issue, skyrocketing prices etc. A catchy slogan of Congress party “Kisan, Jawan and Pehlwan” did not work with the electorates.

Future Implications

Though it is one and one victory count hence BJP and Congress may be in equal footing in eyeing Maharashtra and Jharkhand which will go to polls in near future.

Perception of BJP’s Strength:

Haryana Win: A victory in Haryana would reinforce the BJP’s image of strength in the northern Hindi heartland, especially since the state holds considerable influence due to its proximity to Delhi. It could boost the party’s morale and strengthen its grip over states like Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, which could have a ripple effect in Maharashtra and Jharkhand. The BJP would like to project this win as a sign of their continued dominance in North India.

Jammu and Kashmir Loss:

BJP loses Jammu and Kashmir would be seen as a setback, particularly in regions where security, national integration, and Kashmir’s unique status are hot topics. Maharashtra, with its large urban centres like Mumbai and Pune, is deeply engaged in national security discussions. A loss in J&K could affect the BJP’s narrative on strong leadership and national unity, potentially softening its appeal among voters in these areas.

2nd. Impact on Maharashtra:

Shiv Sena (Shinde) Alliance: The BJP is currently aligned with the breakaway faction of Shiv Sena led by Eknath Shinde. A win in Haryana could strengthen BJP’s negotiation power with allies like Shinde in Maharashtra, reinforcing the current government’s stability. However, a loss in Jammu and Kashmir may embolden Uddhav Thackeray’s Shiv Sena (UBT) faction, the Congress, and the NCP to intensify their attacks on BJP’s national policies, especially on issues like federalism and national security.

Urban and Rural Divide: Maharashtra’s voters are influenced by both urban concerns (economic, business policies) and rural issues (agriculture, jobs). The BJP’s win in Haryana is likely to help it retain its urban base, but a loss in Jammu and Kashmir may dent its appeal in rural or more sensitive regions, particularly on issues of nationalism and strong governance.

3rd. Impact on Jharkhand:

Coalition Politics: In Jharkhand, the BJP is up against a strong regional alliance (JMM-Congress-RJD). A win in Haryana could boost BJP’s image as a party capable of defeating regional alliances, but a loss in Jammu and Kashmir might weaken its national narrative of being an unchallenged force. This could give confidence to the Hemant Soren-led government in Jharkhand, which has regional roots and appeals to tribal and local sentiments.

Tribal and Regional Sentiments: Jharkhand has a significant tribal population, which often resonates with regional autonomy and decentralization. A defeat in Jammu and Kashmir, where the BJP has been seen as centralizing power, could give an edge to the regional narrative of autonomy in Jharkhand. This might further solidify support for Soren’s coalition against the BJP’s centralizing tendencies.

4th. Effect on Future State Elections:

Momentum: Winning Haryana would give BJP momentum heading into upcoming state elections in Maharashtra and Jharkhand. On the other hand, losing Jammu and Kashmir would present an opportunity for opposition parties to capitalize on the BJP’s vulnerabilities, particularly in diverse and multi-faceted states like Maharashtra and Jharkhand.

Narrative on Kashmir: Losing Jammu and Kashmir might raise concerns about the BJP’s handling of sensitive regions, which opposition parties could exploit. Maharashtra’s opposition could make it an issue of national governance failure, while Jharkhand’s opposition might relate it to regional governance and autonomy concerns.

5th. Alliance Dynamics:

Maharashtra: The BJP-Shinde government may face stronger opposition from the Maha Vikas Aghadi (Shiv Sena-UBT, Congress, and NCP). The BJP loss in J&K, the opposition in Maharashtra might push the narrative that BJP’s national policies are failing, which could resonate with certain voter segments, especially in Mumbai and other urban centres.

Jharkhand: The defeat in Jammu and Kashmir could also embolden the opposition to strengthen their position in Jharkhand. The JMM-Congress alliance might use it to undermine BJP’s claim to being the guardian of national unity and security, which could work to the advantage of regional politics.

BJP Proved Its Killing Spirit Yet Again After Weakened Position In Lok Sabha Polls

The BJP’s decisive victory in Haryana can be attributed to a masterful blend of effective caste strategies, a strong development agenda, a strong Modi influence, and a fragmented opposition. This combination not only galvanized support but also paved the way for a resounding electoral mandate. Experts say that several factors were responsible for snatching victory from the jaws of Congress which can be understood through a mix of political, social, and strategic moves made by the party.

Caste Calculations and Social Engineering:

Non-Jat Consolidation: BJP’s success was built on its strategic focus on consolidating the non-Jat vote bank, which included communities like the Brahmins, Punjabis, Ahirs (Yadavs), and SC/STs. Since Jats were traditionally aligned with Congress and regional parties like the Indian National Lok Dal (INLD), BJP carved out a significant base among non-Jat communities, which make up around 70% of the population.

BJP Gamble Paid: BJP high command’s decision to replace Mohan lal Khattar and give command to Nayab Singh Saini, an OBC leader, yielded astonishing results. It helped in consolidation of Non jats which constitute 30 % of the population.

Appeal to Jat Youth: BJP worked hard to make inroads into the Jat community as well, especially focusing on youth voters. The party promised them better educational facilities and employment opportunities.

Weakness of the Opposition:

Fragmented Opposition: The opposition in Haryana was fragmented. The Indian National Congress (INC), under Bhupinder Singh Hooda, tried to make a comeback but couldn’t rally enough support. The INLD was weakened due to internal family disputes, and the newly-formed Jannayak Janata Party (JJP) failed to gather significant momentum.

Lack of a Unified Jat Leadership: Traditionally, Haryana politics has been dominated by Jat leaders like Bhupinder Singh Hooda and Om Prakash Chautala, but the lack of a unified Jat leadership within the opposition further benefited the BJP.

Modi Factor:

National Leadership: Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s popularity remained a crucial factor. His image as a strong, decisive leader resonated with the voters, particularly in rural areas. The nationalistic narrative and revocation of Article 370 in Jammu & Kashmir also appealed to the Haryanvi electorate, boosting BJP’s prospects.

National Security and Farmers’ Issues: The BJP successfully addressed national security concerns in Haryana, a state with a large number of military personnel and families. Moreover, schemes for farmers like PM-Kisan Samman Nidhi gave some relief to the agricultural sector.

Smart Coalition Politics:

Alliance with JJP: In 2019, despite falling short of a full majority, the BJP formed a coalition government with Dushyant Chautala’s JJP, ensuring the support of a significant chunk of Jat voters. This coalition strategy was crucial in stabilizing the government and providing the JJP with influence in governance.

Managing Smaller Parties: The BJP was able to maintain cordial relations with smaller parties like the Haryana Lokhit Party, ensuring that there was no division of votes in the BJP strongholds.

Effective Election Machinery

Strong Cadre Base and Organizational Structure: The BJP’s cadre, supported by Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), played a key role in mobilizing voters at the grassroots level. The party effectively used its robust election machinery to engage voters across rural and urban areas.

Booth-Level Management: The party focused on strong booth-level management and carried out targeted campaigns in areas where its presence was weaker. Through door-to-door campaigns and digital outreach, they maximized voter turnout in favourable areas.

Polarization and Hindutva Appeal:

Subtle Polarization: BJP’s campaign strategy in some areas involved subtle forms of religious polarization. The party used nationalistic narratives, emphasizing issues like illegal immigration and national security, which resonated with a section of the voters.

Appeal to Hindutva Sentiment: While Haryana isn’t as communally polarized as some other northern states, BJP’s subtle appeal to Hindutva sentiments did play a role in swaying conservative and middle-class voters, especially post-Pulwama and Balakot airstrikes.

Youth and Women Voters

Targeting Youth and Women: BJP focused on youth and women voters by promoting policies related to job creation, skill development, and safety measures for women. Women voters, in particular, responded positively to schemes like Ujjwala Yojana, which provided LPG cylinders, reducing their daily hardships.

In summary, BJP’s victory in Haryana for the third time was a combination of smart caste politics, strong leadership under Khattar, Modi’s national popularity, a fragmented opposition, and strategic alliances. Additionally, the party’s robust election management and subtle polarization tactics helped consolidate its voter base across the state.

Downfall Of Congress

Despite the significant two time anti-incumbency factor that should have played in favour of the Congress in Haryana, several critical factors led to its defeat in the state, even after two consecutive BJP terms. These reasons highlight both internal weaknesses within the Congress and external factors that favoured the BJP.

Fragmented Leadership within Congress:

Factionalism and Infighting: The Congress in Haryana has long suffered from internal factionalism. The rift between different factions, particularly between Bhupinder Singh Hooda, the former state CM and Kumari Selja, the state Congress president, led to a lack of unified leadership. These factions failed to present a cohesive front to the electorate, making it difficult for the party to mount a strong challenge against the BJP.

Leadership Struggles: The absence of a clear leader who could rally all sections of the party together hurt the Congress. Although Hooda had a strong Jat base, the infighting made it difficult for the party to appeal to non-Jat voters or to expand its voter base. Congress’s inability to project a strong, united leadership diminished its appeal.

Weak Organizational Structure:

Deteriorating Grassroots Presence: Over the years, the Congress had allowed its grassroots organizational structure to weaken in Haryana. This was in stark contrast to the BJP, which had built a vigorous and well-oiled cadre at the booth level, backed by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Congress’s inability to mobilize voters and manage election logistics at the grassroots level contributed to its downfall.

Lack of Aggressive Campaigning: The Congress campaign lacked the energy and aggression seen in BJP’s strategy. BJP had a superior outreach program, deploying digital campaigning, door-to-door canvassing, and targeted social media outreach, which the Congress couldn’t match in terms of scale or strategy.

Failure to Broaden Voter Base

Over-Reliance on Jat Vote Bank: Congress has traditionally relied heavily on the Jat vote bank, particularly under Hooda’s leadership. However, the BJP’s success in consolidating the non-Jat voters, including the Brahmins, Punjabis, Ahirs, Dalits, and other backward communities, meant that the Congress couldn’t break through beyond its traditional Jat strongholds.

Inability to Woo Non-Jat Voters: The Congress’s failure to connect with non-Jat voters was particularly damaging because the Jat population only constitutes around 30% of the state’s electorate. In contrast, BJP’s focus on building a non-Jat alliance ensured it retained majority support, while the Congress appeared stuck in its Jat-centric approach.

Lack of a Strong Narrative:

Absence of a Positive Campaign Agenda: While the Congress focused on criticizing the BJP government for its failures, such as unemployment, agrarian distress, and handling of the farmers’ protests, it failed to offer a compelling alternative vision. The Congress lacked a strong, forward-looking agenda that could inspire confidence among voters.

Weak Position on Nationalism and Security Issues: In a state like Haryana, which has a significant number of army personnel and families with military ties, national security and patriotism are powerful narratives. Congress was unable to counter the BJP’s strong nationalistic narrative, especially in the aftermath of Pulwama and the Balakot airstrikes, which boosted BJP’s standing in the state.

Failure to Capitalize on Farmers’ Protest:

Lack of Aggressive Outreach to Farmers: Despite Haryana being one of the states most affected by the farmers’ protests against the three controversial farm laws, Congress failed to adequately harness this discontent into votes. Although many farmers, especially from the Jat community, were opposed to the BJP, the Congress did not aggressively pursue their cause or mobilize them effectively.

Divided Farmer Leadership: The farmer protests saw the rise of several regional leaders and movements, which, instead of aligning with the Congress, either remained neutral or formed their own political groups. This diffused the potential anti-BJP vote that Congress could have leveraged.

Overdependence on Hooda

Limited Appeal Beyond Jat Belt: Bhupinder Singh Hooda is a powerful Jat leader, but his appeal is largely restricted to the Jat heartland. Congress’s dependence on Hooda to lead the campaign meant it couldn’t expand its base beyond Jat-dominated constituencies. While Hooda is strong in rural areas, Congress struggled to attract urban voters, particularly the Punjabi and non-Jat middle class, who leaned towards BJP.

Inability to Present New Leadership: While the BJP and regional parties have tried to bring forward new, younger leadership, Congress appeared stagnant with the same old faces. There was little effort to project new leaders or develop a future roadmap that might appeal to younger voters.

Inability to Counter BJP’s Welfare Schemes:

BJP’s Welfare Schemes and Development Focus: The BJP, under Manohar Lal Khattar, managed to deliver a number of development and welfare programs, including Ayushman Bharat, PM Awas Yojana, Ujjwala Yojana, and road infrastructure projects. Congress struggled to counter these popular schemes, and its promise of development appeared hollow in comparison to the tangible benefits many voters had received under BJP rule.

No Counter to Modi’s Popularity: Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s popularity continued to play a significant role in Haryana, especially among rural voters and the middle class. The Congress could not present a charismatic national leader to match Modi’s appeal.

Coalition Dynamics in the State:

Congress’ Failure to Forge Alliances: Unlike the BJP, which had successfully partnered with Dushyant Chautala’s Jannayak Janata Party (JJP) and other smaller groups in the past, the Congress failed to form meaningful alliances. This left the Congress isolated, especially in areas where smaller regional parties could have helped attract additional votes.

Lack of Coordination with Regional Parties: The absence of coordination between Congress and smaller regional parties hurt the party in key constituencies where anti-BJP forces were divided, thus benefitting the BJP.

BJP’s Strategic Focus on Non-Jat Voters

BJP’s Non-Jat Strategy Paid Off: BJP’s focus on consolidating non-Jat votes across various communities, including Brahmins, Dalits, OBCs, and Punjabis, paid rich dividends. Congress, due to its over-reliance on the Jat vote and inability to appeal to non-Jat communities, was unable to counter this strategy.

The Congress’s defeat in Haryana, despite the anti-incumbency factor, can be attributed to a combination of internal factionalism, a weak organizational structure, an over-reliance on Bhupinder Singh Hooda and the Jat vote, and its failure to build a broad-based coalition or articulate a compelling alternative vision. The BJP’s efficient election machinery, caste calculus, strong welfare schemes, and Prime Minister Modi’s popularity outmanoeuvred Congress in almost every aspect.

AAP Acted As Vote Cutter

In Haryana, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) did indeed play the role of a vote cutter to some extent in recent elections. While it did not win a significant number of seats, it affected the electoral dynamics by splitting votes, especially among anti-BJP voters. Here’s how AAP’s presence impacted the results:

Dividing the Opposition Vote:

Targeting Congress’ Voter Base: AAP’s entry into Haryana politics attracted voters who were disillusioned with both the BJP and the Congress. Traditionally, these voters might have aligned with Congress or regional parties like the Indian National Lok Dal (INLD) or Jannayak Janata Party (JJP). However, by offering itself as an alternative, AAP diluted the anti-BJP vote.

Urban and Youth Appeal: AAP’s urban-centric, anti-corruption narrative, and its focus on education, health, and governance reforms appealed to youth and urban middle-class voters. Many of these voters could have otherwise chosen Congress as a natural opposition to the BJP.

Impact on Jat and Non-Jat Votes: AAP’s presence split the opposition votes across Jat and non-Jat communities, particularly in urban areas and regions where voters were not fully aligned with the BJP. While it didn’t have a strong hold over the rural Jat voters, its urban presence weakened the Congress’s ability to consolidate non-Jat voters against the BJP.

Failure to Win Significant Seats: Despite impacting vote shares in certain areas, AAP did not translate its presence into actual seat victories. It acted more as a spoiler for the Congress and other regional parties by taking a slice of the electorate, making it difficult for any single opposition party to emerge as a dominant challenger to the BJP.

AAP acted as vote cutter: AAP strategically focused on replicating its Delhi model of governance, which highlighted improvements in education, healthcare, and corruption-free governance. However, in Haryana, these issues did not resonate as strongly with the rural electorate, which was more concerned with agriculture, Jat representation, and regional issues. Yet, AAP’s narrative did manage to attract urban and middle-class voters who might have leaned towards Congress or regional parties.

Impact on Regional Parties: AAP also affected smaller regional parties like INLD and JJP by presenting itself as a new political force in the state. This fragmented the opposition vote further, reducing the chance for these parties to consolidate support and form

AAP’s presence in Haryana, while not electorally decisive in terms of winning seats, acted as a spolier, particularly for Congress and regional opposition parties like the JJP and INLD. By fragmenting the anti-BJP vote, AAP indirectly benefited the BJP, making it easier for the ruling party to maintain its electoral advantage.

The BJP’s victory in Haryana can be attributed to its successful caste calculations, leadership under Khattar, Modi’s national appeal, and a weakened opposition. Meanwhile, the Congress suffered from internal factionalism, over-reliance on the Jat vote, and failure to offer a compelling alternative. AAP’s role as a vote cutter also contributed to fragmenting the anti-BJP vote, further ensuring BJP’s dominance in the state.

(Writer is political analyst and strategic affairs Columnist based in Shimla)

Courtesy : TFPJ

Note: This news is originally published in thefreepressjournal.com and was used solely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes exclusively for Human Rights