India's best PM

My March '09 post on India's Top 5 Prime Ministers (click here) seems to have been quite a success - it now shows up at No. 5 on google if one searches 'Best PM of India'. This was at a time when Manmohan Singh was going into the 2009 elections, and was soon to be followed by his crowning jewel, the 2009 victory. 

It's been a long time, and I see two reasons to revisit the ranking - (1) the apparent failures of Singh during UPA-2 (2) my own increased knowledge of earlier Prime Ministers' tenures. There is another reason to re-look at it. I have been wondering how to judge a Prime Minister. In Indian democracy where the executive is clearly subservient to the legislature, how does one judge a Prime Minister independently of the legislature? For example, who can argue that if Singh could take his own decisions, he would not have allowed FDI (and hence sent a strong signal to investors) much earlier in his tenure? How would Vajpayee have been different had he not had to context with the TDP or JD(U)? I firmly believe that it is impossible to demarcate a Prime Minister from the legislature he heads, and hence I will not attempt to do that. The Prime Minister thus becomes symbolic of the administration and governance of his/her times. Therefore, here is a more recent (and hopefully more nuanced) list.

1. Atal Bihari Vajpayee

Vajpayee still tops my list. In my opinion, his three biggest contributions were as follows - (1) demonstrated that a multi-party coalition could work as well, if not better, than single-party rule (2) a clear understanding that infrastructure was India's achilles' heal, and an ambitious program to overcome it, for example through the Golden Quadrilateral program (3) an elevation in India's global profile by nuclear testing, Kargil and a more open engagement with the US. I had previously noted internal security and corruption as the weak points of his tenure - there is ample reason to reassess that now. Am I then saying that Vajpayee's tenure was perfect? Far from it. But modern India owes a lot to Vajpayee, and hence he is still on top of my list.

2. Jawaharlal Nehru

What perplexes me is the general disregard that we have for our first Prime Minister. We love to find faults in everything that Nehru did - and China and the economy are probably on top of that list. Here are my more recent thoughts. (1) I had listed foreign policy as a failure in Nehru's time. I believe I was wrong. Nehru placed India firmly as a thought and action leader among the newly independent countries of the world. I cannot think of anything after that which would have contributed to the general goodwill we seem to enjoy (2) I do not see the relevance of the Chinese defeat. How did it fundamentally change us? Even today, we are militarily far behind the Chinese, they will probably still defeat us in war. Why blame Nehru for something that is true even today (3) Nehru can barely be blamed for the 'Hindu rate of growth'. For a country to raise its per capita income growth from ~0% for close to 50 years, to even 1-2% p.a. is a great deal! Moreoever, Nehru's India was not the socialist pariah that we've come to hate. His regime was apparently far more tolerant of private industries. The reason I don't place him at No. 1 is that much more could have been done - (1) democracy was threatened several times - Kerala, Kashmir (2) education and healthcare could have been given a greater focus, especially given his own socialist leanings.

3. Manmohan Singh

Okay, let's put this on the table. I do not believe that Manmohan Singh's years have, in any way, been a failure. Economic growth has slowed, alright. With the world in recession, it was supposed to slow in any case; plus a savings-fueled growth engine will at some point run out of steam. Plus, at ~5%, it is still as much as India grew during Vajpayee's tenue. Second, corruption is rampant. I have no view on whether corruption at the lowest levels have increased or not - given that many household-level services have been privatised, I would like to believe that it has reduced. Certainly, corruption at the top echelons have increased, and this is also a natural progression of growth - economic opportunities have increased, new sectors are being opened and hence corruption will increase. I am not condoning it, just saying that it isn't right to blame just him. (3) Inflation is high. I agree. But do I see it as unusual in historical perspective? Except perhaps Vajpayee's reign (which I am told had low inflation), I don't see it as unusual. So, after defending Singh, I must explain why he's still at No. 3 on my list. We have to understand that Singh was at the helm of a new India. Growth for India is now a given. With the worst possible climate, we're still clocking >5% p.a. We've grown at 9% p.a. for several years, and there's only a bit faster that we can ever hope to grow. India needed new things, and Singh's Government has provided that. (1) Information. The Right to Information act is truly iconic. It gave a new dimension and new meaning to democracy. India is truly moving towards more participatory democracy, and the RTI is part of that. Would so many anti-establishment movements have been possible without the information that the RTI provides? Perhaps not (2) Rural economy. Rural wages had been stagnant during Vajpayee's tenure - growth had bypassed rural India (which is reflected in the fact that Vajpayee lost in 2004). Rural wages picked up during Singh's tenure through the NREGA. One might argue about its more deleterious effects, or call it a temporary life support; but one certainly can't deny the increasing prosperity it has brought (3) Several more such legislation or programs - the RTE, RSBY etc. Singh has laid the foundations for a more inclusive India, no matter how shaky that foundation is.

-----------------------------------

So the top 3 is still the same, then why the need for this post? Because I wanted to make the point that this list is now capped at 3. My opinion of Indira Gandhi has nosedived, and it is surprising to me that she tops every public poll of best PM. India's turn towards draconian pseudo-socialism started in her tenure. It is alleged that socialism was only a political instrument for her. After all, she was thrust at the top by a right-wing coterie, and hence turn to socialism was an attempt to out-manoeuvre them. Democracy was a major victim of her tenure. Not just the emergency, but the hints of communalism that have been alleged in her last tenure - also, the seeds of dynastic politics. Foreign policy, which I viewed as her strong point, was probably most felt only in India's immediate neighbourhood. I had earlier fallen prey to the nationalistic jingoism around the Bangladesh war and nuclear tests - but I don't see how that contributed to our development in the long run (though it certainly did benefit my Bengali brethren in Bangladesh). I do not see any major developments outside of the subcontinent. I will hopefully see the brighter side of her tenure someday; till then, that's all folks!

Hillary Clinton: a fan's journey

2008 was the year. Not because Barack Obama became the first black man to occupy the White House. It was a foregone conclusion once he wrested the nomination for the Democratic Party. I remember being glued to my television the morning after Super Tuesday, right before I left for school, looking desperately for signs that Hillary Clinton would have regained the lead over Barack Obama. She didn't - they split the votes and delegates almost evenly. She never did; despite her winning the last few rounds, Obama had already taken an insurmountable lead. She finally conceded the race, and Obama went to the White House.

To me, Clinton was the more popular candidate. She lost because Obama's campaign was far better - it was organised better, was more coherent, and was like a feel-good public relations machine. Clinton's campaign, instead, seemed like a wreckage train. It was full of flaws (among them, ignoring the caucuses, which need better organisation), and very often she needed something dramatic (like tears in New Hampshire) to get the campaign back to life. Ceteris paribus, I would say that Clinton would have won. If only.

It must be evident by now that I am a Hillary Clinton fan. Clinton is arguably one of the most popular politicians that America has ever seen. On the Gallup 'Most Admired' list, Clinton has been the Most Admired Woman almost uninterrupted since 1993. In a poll where even the most popular of Presidents fade out soon after leaving office, Clinton's continuing popularity is indeed stupendous. She has made it to the cover of TIME Magazine on numerous occasions. What makes her special is that she isn't seen as the 'soft power' behind a popular president - akin to Eleanor Roosevelt or Michelle Obama - but is, in fact, seen as the power center in American polity. Even while Bill Clinton was the President, it was her initiative - the health care plan - that caused one of the most divisive debates in American history. Even when she became the Senator from New York, most could see where she was heading. The number of lovers, haters, websites and magazine covers only grew with time.

However, what also cannot be argued is that she is also one of the most hated politicians in recent times. The number of I-hate-Hillary websites that cropped up in 2008 was amazing. Some Democrats were unwilling to vote for her even if she won the party's nomination. I believe that whether you liked Clinton or hated her (according to TIME Magazine, there was no middle ground) came down to your views on ambition.

It would be stupid to say that Barack Obama didn't have ambition. Anybody who aspires to be President of the United States probably does. However, somehow that ambition in Clinton was always criticised. She was very often characterised as the manipulative woman who used her association with a powerful man to climb the ladders of success. She was not what a 'regular' woman should be - warm, caring, sympathetic and congenial. She was seen as aloof, ambitious and arrogant. There has always been a debate on whether the vehement opposition to Clinton was sexist in nature. Would a man have been forgiven for the very same traits that she displayed? I believed he would have. Even for a society that has progressed so much, the 'regular woman' is still not emancipated. There still are stereotypes of what a woman should be like in public life. Being ambitious is probably not one of them. It is okay to be a fashion icon or the philanthropist, however. One has to wonder whether public life in India, with its celebration of self-professed ambitious women such as Mayawati, Mamata and Jayalalithaa, has not been more progressive in this context.

I was personally hoping that Clinton would be Obama's running mate. She wasn't. Now, I am glad she wasn't. As Vice President, her role and stature would have been severely diminished. Today, Clinton is, by far, one of the most successful Secretaries of State of all time. It has been a tumultuous time for the world, and Clinton has been globe-trotting this entire while.

She has indicated that this is the end of her public life, that she will not take up any position in the next Obama administration if he were to win. But as TIME Magazine put it - love her or hate her, you can't argue that she's a fighter. We might still see more of Clinton. As a baby-eyed fan, I hope we do.

The President's Kolkata

This is indeed an unusual time for Kolkata. For the first time, a lay visitor to the city would get a feeling that the Congress actually exists in the state. Pranab Mukherjee's posters are splashed all over the city - right from the airport to the inner city. Ironically, at several places, they are put up right beside Mamata di's posters. Yesterday, when the now-heralded 'son of the soil' finally landed in Kolkata, he received a rousing welcome from CPM and Congress legislators alike. For a brief coverage of his visit, click here. 

There are two distinct themes that I would like to explore in this post. Firstly, the irony of the Congress gaining some visibility at the time of departure of its tallest leader. Secondly, of the rationale behind CPM's rather enthusiastic support for his candidature.

Turning to the first theme. It is fairly well-known that Pranab Mukherjee isn't quite a mass leader. In fact, his victory from Jangipur in Murshidabad district in 2004 was the first time that he entered the Lok Sabha, despite having been a minister way back in 1973. Yet, as of today, he is the only recognizable face of the Congress in West Bengal, especially since Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi met an accident. The most prominent leaders, including Deepa Dasmunsi and Adhir Chowdhury, behave more like sub-regional chieftains than as Bengali leaders.

Pranab Mukherjee's departure probably would not make much of a difference to the cause of the Congress in West Bengal. The local strongholds of the party, such as Murshidabad, remain largely intact. However, what amazes me is that the potential to grow has been temporarily lost. The very same posters that have come up in Kolkata now could have come up earlier. Evidently, funding wasn't a constraint. The will was.

Now, with Mukherjee gone, I do not see any leader who could possibly have been the face that leads a resurgence for the Congress in West Bengal. Not to say that Mukherjee helped much. It would be reasonable to say that, were Congress to jettison itself from Mamata's Government, a major theme in the next Lok Sabha elections would be Mamata's rejection of the first Bengali President. Will that help the Congress in Bengal? Hard to say. What can be said with certainty is that an opportunity has been lost. 

Now turning to the second and more intriguing theme - why is the CPM supporting Pranab's candidature so enthusiastically? Senior party leaders have said that it is to create a divide between the Congress and the Trinamool. It is hard to digest this explanation at several levels - firstly, how does CPM supporting Pranab widen the divide? Possibly, by angering the mercurial Mamata that her ally has tied up with a foe. However, given that the CPM leaders have been shouting from rooftops that it is their intention to do so, does that not run counter-productive to their stated aim? Why would the CPM be so 'honest', given that this honesty would reduce the effectiveness of their goal? This is what I find hard to digest.

The reason, I believe, could be as simple as good networking on Pranab's part with leaders from the CPM, especially from its West Bengal unit. If the purpose is to mask the stated political differences, so many other reasons could be given. At present, the CPM just seems to be a directionless boat, looking for any semblance of strategy.

Some unnoticed trends from UP

Here's something that I had been suspecting all this while - the SP's victory was not as dominant as the BSP's in 2007. The first indicator was, of course, that BSP's vote share at nearly 28% in 2012, was higher than SP's 26% in 2007; this even though Mayawati's outfit won fewer seats than did SP in 2012.

Here is an article in the Economic Times that provides even more evidence. Among the regions of Uttar Pradesh, the BSP is still the leading party in West UP and Bundelkhand. The latter is fairly obvious, given the high concentration of lower castes in the barren region. Western UP probably voted for Mayawati given the high growth witnessed in these regions as compared to other parts of UP, or even the country for that matter. Thus, it was primarily in Central UP and Poorvanchal that the SP made a killing. So much for Mayawati's plan of dividing UP, which she would have hoped would read dividends in Poorvanchal. Is the vote really against this proposed division, or was this a non-issue for the electorate? That Poorvanchal was the most ill-governed of all regions under Mayawati's regime is well-known.

What significance do these trends hold? For one, they justify Mayawati's confidence that she will return to power in 2017. If the Samajwadi government under performs in its first two years, it will also allow Mayawati to increase her seat share in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, and emerge as a power center. With the Congress expected to do much worse than in 2009, and (as I have consistently believed) the BJP limited in its growth, will we see a rise in Mayawati's national profile? Mayawati has never been a direct part of a Central Government. Will we see that happen? If yes, will she demand the PM's post - her stated lifetime goal? Interesting times ahead for the Maya-watchers.

The State Election Results

There are certain comments about these election results that I'd like to share with the reader. Of course, I have absolutely no experience of being on the ground, and have no sources except for a media that often goes wrong. This is why I post my comments as questions rather than comments. Here they are:

(1) Are we moving towards bipolarity in every state?: I share the shock of every observer who thought that Mayawati's tally of 207 in the last polls was the peak. Evidently, the SP has come back with an ever larger tally of 220+. There are several other states that have gradually moved towards clear mandates rather than fractured houses - Goa, Karnataka and Orissa being cases. Has the Indian voter become disenchanted with fractured mandates? Does he/she seek political stability, so much that the past 'sins' of parties such as SP would be forgiven? Most importantly, what does this bipolarity suggest for Indian administration? Tamil Nadu being a case in point, sees massive fiscal drain due to poll promises. Do free bicycles, TVs and electricity justify their costs? Time will tell.

(2) Is the BJP past its peak?: My article three years back talked about a Congress resurgence denting the BJP. Of course, the Congress seems to be the party on the defense now. However, in states where the anti-Congress space is already occupied (Manipur, Kerala, AP, J&K), the BJP has consistently failed to make a mark. Then there are states where the Congress is a footnote (UP, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Sikkim) and in these states, the BJP too is irrelevant. Which now brings us to the question of whether the BJP will see any growth in future. Yes, it conquered Karnataka recently, but then it can be argued that the anti-Congress apparatus in Karnataka collapsed, and that is where the BJP grew. Two other growth stories for the BJP are Bihar and Punjab, but we are yet to see if these are Orissa-like bubbles fueled by a strong alliance partner. It is true that in states such as Rajasthan, Goa, Uttarakhand and Himachal - where there has been strong bipolarity - the BJP can strengthen its stranglehold and create a Chattisgarh-like situation of retaining power repeatedly. But realistically competing on such few seats, can the BJP ever hope to cross the magical 200-mark in the Lok Sabha?

(3) Is Development now REALLY the issue?: After the turbulence of the 1990s, we are increasingly seeing parties retain states repeatedly. Just in 2004, you would probably not even exhaust one hand counting the number of Chief Ministers serving their second consecutive term. But look at that number now. Firstly, there is an elite club of the two-plus timers: Pawan Chamling (Sikkim), Sheila Dixit (Delhi), Okram Ibobi Singh (Manipur), Naveen Patnaik (Orissa), Manik Sarkar (Tripura), Tarun Gogoi (Assam) and Narendra Modi (Gujarat). The list of two-timers is also equally large: Nitish Kumar (Bihar), Raman Singh (Chattisgarh), Bhupinder Hooda (Haryana), Shivraj Singh Chauhan (Madhya Pradesh) and most probably, Prakash Singh Badal (Punjab). Are our delivery mechanisms at the state level improving? Does the voter now attach value to continuity? Is this continuity not good for investment decisions? Given that these states are among the best-performing states in the country, isn't there a correlation between continuity and growth?

(4) Have state and national elections been dehyphenated?: This question first arose in 2009, when Andhra Pradesh, voting at the same time, gave the Congress a massive majority of seats in the Lok Sabha elections, while at the same time giving the party a slender majority in the assembly elections. Similarly, the Congress' impressive performance in UP in 2009, has not been reflected in these elections - the Congress could only win one-third the number of assembly segments in which it lead in 2009. While conceptually there is no reason for the two polls to correlate well, it has historically been seen that they do. It is only now that we see evidence of such strong divergence. There could be several possible reasons for this - (1) issues are different (2) constituencies are larger, and hence more uniform (3) campaigning differs. Is this healthy for democracy? I believe so. Given the bipolarity in states like UP, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal (where the two major national parties are fringe players), it is better for stability at the center if these states vote differently during national elections.

Are the National Parties in Decline?

One of the pitfalls of a multi-party, multi-cultural democracy is the lack of stability in the Government. Very often, the electorate shows such results that political parties coagulate together to form almost unholy post-poll alliances. The “concerned voter” has to witness accusations of horse-trading, intimidation, unlawful disqualifications and more. In cases such as in Germany, the polity enters a perennial cycle of decisive fragmentation such that no party ever gets the majority in Parliament.

In the Indian context, states are moving towards more consolidated results, a few glowing examples being:

· Uttar Pradesh: After about 15 years, the Uttar Pradesh Assembly saw a majority for the ruling party, i.e. the BSP.

· Karnataka: After a long spell of unruly alliances, Karnataka gave an almost-majority to the BJP

However, there are only 9 states in which the BJP and the INC are in direct confrontation, namely Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, Goa, Arunachal Pradesh and Chattisgarh.

In all other states, the two national parties are dependent on their regional allies.

The consequences of such a scenario are:

1. Going by the 2004 results:

· The INC needed to win 65% of the seats it contested to get a majority of its own

· The BJP needed to win 3 in 4 seats it contested to get a majority of its own

These are both highly unlikely situations that resulted in the two major national parties winning only 283 seats put together.

2. The national parties have no way to grow since their alliance partners hold them to ransom. For example, the INC’s alliance with the BSP in the mid-1996s virtually ended the INC’s seriousness as a player in Uttar Pradesh.

VOTE SHARES OF THE MAJOR NATIONAL PARTIES

SINCE 1984

As one can see, the combined vote share of the INC and the BJP has remained fairly constant at around 50% of all votes cast. The INC has consistently got more votes than the BJP but as we shall see in the next section, the BJP has often got more seats because the INC’s votes are scattered all over the country while the BJP’s is concentrated in pockets. This point will become clearer when one observes the map at the end of this segment. The BJP’s seats are completely concentrated in and around central India, whereas the Congress is present almost all over India.

Since the combined vote share of the national parties has remained fairly constant, it would be far-fetched to say that they are in a state of combined decline. However, the BJP of late has seen a decline in its vote-share because of, as I suppose, the revival of the INC.

SEATS WON BY THE MAJOR NATIONAL PARTIES

SINCE 1984

Unlike the vote share, the number of seats won by the INC and BJP combined has gone down almost consistently since 1984. Moreover, the golden age of the BJP in the electoral battlefield seems to be coming to an end. On the basis of three back-to-back humiliations, the INC was written off. But the INC is making a determined comeback of sorts. The BJP can no longer bank on the INC’s decline – it must carve out a separate anti-Congress identity for itself to avoid its disappearance.

The single most important reason is that the BJP has been unable to sustain the gains it made out of the INC’s decline, especially in the Hindi heartland (since that is the major area of decline for the INC). For example, the BJP has yielded the gains it made in Uttar Pradesh to the SP and BSP. If you include these 80 seats to the combined tally of the BJP and INC, the number of seats won remains constant. This points to a disturbing truth about the importance of UP and Bihar in the overall electoral arithmetic.

Another possible reason for this trend may be the fact that the INC and BJP are, on an average, contesting less number of seats than they used to do earlier. If you contest less seats, you obviously need to have a better rate of success to get the same number of seats. This point is illustrated by the following table:

Seats Contested	1984	1989	1991	1996	1998	1999	2004
INC	224	225	468	471	388	339	364
BJP	491	510	487	529	477	453	417

Number of Seats Contested by INC and BJP

THE REASON FOR THE RISE AND FALL

OF THE BJP

I heard a very valid point on TV about the difference between the late 1990s and today. In the 1990s, the INC was seen to be in a state of terminal decline. The BJP propped up solely in place on the declining INC. In UP, Bihar, Gujarat, MP and other states where the Congress was the single major power, the BJP took up the anti-Congress space. But in states like Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal and Jammu and Kashmir, where the anti-Congress space already had strong parties, the BJP has till date been unable to make a mark for itself.

Today, with the Congress steady, if not in revival, the BJP’s very raison-d’ètre is no longer present. How is this going to affect the BJP in the future decades? Will the BJP wither and die out? Or will the political scenario stagnate as it is today, with the BJP and INC present in the 130-180 seats range?

My guess is that the BJP will stagnate and become dependent on its allies as the INC is on the RJD and DMK. As for the INC, Sonia Gandhi had pulled off a huge victory by halting the INC’s slide. My guess is that the INC should not slip much further. At least its diverse vote-share should not.

BSP : The Emerging Third Front?

The 2004 Lok Sabha elections threw up another interesting statistic. After the INC and BJP, the BSP is the third largest party in India by vote-share is the Bahujan Samaj Party (this is excluding the extraordinary performance of the CPM in the 2004 polls).

This came despite the fact that the 2004 elections in Uttar Pradesh were won decisively by the Samajwadi Party (SP). In a year that the BSP was on the wrong side of the electorate, it picked up 5.33% of the national vote count. This time, when the BSP is seen to be going strong and steady in UP, one can only infer that the BSP would most likely cross the 6% vote share mark.

The BSP gained the status of a ‘National Party’ in 1998. Its vote-share is quite geographically spread-out. For example, its vote share in the states that went to polls in Nov-Dec 2008 was, on an average, around 8%. This time, the BSP has launched its campaign from Kerala. This shows the ambition of Ms.Mayawati to take the BSP to the position of a viable alternative to the INC and the BJP.

The reasons for the rise of the BSP can be enumerated as follows:

· Most prominent Dalit icon: It goes almost without saying that Ms.Mayawati is the only national Dalit icon in Indian polity. Most political commentators concur that she has a very large transferable votebank in the form of the oppressed sections of society

· The Large size of UP: Since UP has 80 Lok Sabha seats (which is close to 15% of seats all over India), it is only an obvious conclusion that the party that holds UP would have the key to the centre. The SP won 37 seats in 2004 and hence, could protect the UPA Government at the centre.

· Political Amibition: Ms.Mayawati has cleverly projected herself as the de-facto leader of the Third Front. Due to this, smaller parties will tend to coagulate around her with time and is likely to aid in the growth of the BSP.

· Large Immigrant Population of UP: The reason ascribed to the BSP success in Delhi was the large number of immigrants from UP. This factor, combined with the Dalit card, is likely to attract the Hindi and Dalit votes to her, making her a formidable ally in many parts of the country.

VOTE SHARES OF THE BSP SINCE 1989

The BSP’s vote share in UP (and consequently, all over India) jumped in 1996. The primary reason for this was that the BJP, which had filled in Congress’ shoes in 1991, was in a decline now and the BSP took up half of that vacant space (the other half went to the SP).

Besides UP, the BSP’s presence is strong in Punjab (7.67%), Uttarakhand (6.77%), Haryana (4.98%) Madhya Pradesh (4.75%) and Chattisgarh (4.54%). The BSP gets a significant share of the votes in and around the Hindi heartland. However, as we shall see in the next section, these votes do not transform into seats.

SEATS WON BY THE BSP SINCE 1989

The BSP faces a paradoxical situation, much like the Congress. While its vote-share in states outside of UP has increased, the number of seats it wins outside UP has declined to zero in the last two elections. This had caused its tally to dip to 5 seats in 1998. But its strong showing in UP in 1999 and 2004 took its seats share to 19 in 2004.

The primary reason for this paradox is that the states in which BSP had previously won seats, i.e. Madhya Pradesh (INC-BJP), PunjabHaryana (INC-INLD) moved towards bipolarity and consolidation of votes. Hence, a significant amount of votes could not translate into any seats.

Moreover, the BSP attracts almost uniform number of votes in a large number of constituencies and lacks strong pockets in any of the above-mentioned states. Since the votes are not consolidated, the BSP is unable to win seats outside of UP and is thus unlikely to win a significant amount of seats outside of UP, despite contesting on more seats than even the BJP.

1989	1991	1996	1998	1999	2004
231	245	210	251	225	435

Number of Seats Contested by the BSP

IN CONCLUSION

The BSP is aggressively trying to show a pan-India footprint. However, its voter base outside of UP is too diffused to be of any significant consequence.

The best bet for the BSP would be to induct local leaders of the major parties in that state (like it did in Delhi). This would at least open its tally in states outside of UP and help to project it as a viable alternative to the INC and the BJP.

But having seen an almost steady increase in its seat share in UP, the BSP is likely to emerge a very strong player in the national scene. The news channels project BSP to get at least 25 seats or at most 50. This could make it the fourth largest party or even third largest party in Parliament and help it to play a decisive role in any future Government.