- Saturday, July 06, 2024
Unemployment and rising cost of living proved to be bigger issues in this year’s general election for the people of Ayodhya and Uttar Pradesh than the temple.
By: Shubham Ghosh
INDIAN prime minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) might have lost a number of seats in the recently held general elections, especially in the key northern state of Uttar Pradesh where its tally nosedived from 62 to 33, but none perhaps disappointed it more than the loss in Ayodhya which comes under the Faizabad parliamentary constituency.
It was only in January that Modi inaugurated the much-awaited Ram temple in the holy city, giving wings to a project that had remained a dream for millions of Indians. The temple’s inauguration was a kind of final touch to a long movement around the former Babri Masjid, a 500-year-old mosque set up by Mughal emperor Babur which was demolished by Hindu fanatics in December 1992, changing the course of the history of a secular country.
The name ‘Ayodhya’ meant a kind of revival for the Hindu nationalist party since the Ram temple movement gained force and losing an election there was perhaps the biggest low the party could have witnessed in its 44-year-old history.
Read: What could a reduced majority mean for Modi’s BJP?
The inauguration of the temple amid presence of the dignitaries from various fields, including politicians, businessmen, filmstars and those from the sporting arena, and a loaded media coverage gave an impression that it was only a matter of time that the BJP would repeat another massive sweep in Uttar Pradesh by mobilising the majoritarian sentiment. The opposition Indian National Congress’s decision of not attending the inaugural ceremony was also mocked by the ruling party which even said that out of “malice” towards the PM, the opposition party was even opposing God.
Read: Mocked for a decade, Rahul Gandhi slows Modi juggernaut
Modi also inaugurated a Hindu temple in the United Arab Emirates in February, which his supporters felt would have mobilised the majoritarian supporters even more.
But two-plus-two did not make four.
Despite all the projections, the BJP’s two-time MP from Faizabad, Lallu Singh, went on to lose against his opponent Awadhesh Prasad from the Samajwadi Party, which emerged as the best performer in Uttar Pradesh in this election.
As it turned out, the pro-Hindutva agenda was not enough to convince the voters. The claims about economic growth and free-food programmes were also dwarfed by concerns over unemployment, inflation and growing divide between the urban and rural economies.
“Everyone loves Lord Ram, but without work and income, what can one do?” Nankan Yadav, a 55-year old Hindu farmer, one of 18 people interviewed in Ayodhya by Reuters, told the outlet.
Yadav conceded that he switched to the Samajwadi Party after voting for the BJP in the last two elections.
He also said he was the sole earner in a family of five, with his three children either studying or with no jobs.
“Inflation and unemployment are the issues on which people have voted. We have voted to bring the focus back on unemployment,” he said, the Reuters report added, as earth-movers dredged the yard in front of his house to widen a public road, a common feature across the holy city as it grows to welcome and accommodate more visitors since the opening of the temple.
Mohammad Shahid, a 24-year-old man who makes income driving an electric rickshaw supports his parents, wife and two young children, said he too voted for the Samajwadi Party because he was struggling to pay high electricity bills, monthly instalments for the loan on his vehicle and bear other costs.
“Rates for everything keep rising,” he was quoted as saying by Reuters.
For the BJP, over-confidence perhaps was the reason behind the debacle after two mega wins.
“In a state like Uttar Pradesh, the temple is not the only deciding factor any more (unlike) development issues…and unemployment,” Surendra Kumar Dwivedi, a former head of the political science department at Lucknow University, was quoted as saying by Reuters.
Unemployment and inflation were the two biggest reasons nationally for people to go against Modi’s National Democratic Alliance, according to a survey of 20,000 voters by the CSDS-Lokniti polling agency for the Hindu newspaper.
Some 30 per cent of the voters were concerned over inflation, a jump from the 20 per cent prior to the election, while unemployment was a factor for 27 per cent.
The unemployment rate in India went up to 8.1 per cent in April from 7.4 per cent in March, according to the private think-tank Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy, compared with around six per cent before the COVID-19 pandemic.
While headline inflation hovering around five per cent is relatively low, food inflation of above eight per cent since November last year has hit the poor hard. Prices of vegetables and cereals have grown by double digits for most of the last year.
“You are not going to vote because you are swayed by the temple’s inauguration,” Ghanshyam Tiwari, spokesperson for the Samajwadi Party that pushed the BJP to the second position, was quoted as saying.
“You are going to vote because you are uncomfortable about your job situation, you are uncomfortable about the fact that there aren’t basic amenities in your house, you are uncomfortable that the government is not doing enough.”
Even as the BJP felt that the 2024 verdict was more of a caution, in Ayodhya, where large cut-outs of Lord Ram dot the roads and hundreds of people were swarming into the temple despite the scorching summer heat, residents had a different take.
“They spent crores (millions) of rupees for the temple’s inauguration,” Awadhesh Prasad told Reuters. “There is so much poverty in our country, this kind of showing off is not for a democracy like ours.”
Besides, there was also widespread disappointment among the local people that they were not being compensated after their lands were taken for development in Ayodhya, India Today reported.
It was being heard that while Ayodhya was seeing development as the temple’s construction went on, people from remote locations were being denied benefits.
Local people also alleged that businessmen from outside states were benefiting, while they were losing their lands to big projects.
