.svg)
2004 Indian general election analysis
The 2004 general elections defied the predictions made by pre-poll predictions and exit polls and allowed the newly formed UPA alliance led by Sonia Gandhi, to come to power. This election also saw the rise of marginalized parties like the left, to join forces with the opposition, which led to a major realignment in social and political power.
Though pre-poll predictions were for an overwhelming majority for the BJP, the exit polls (immediately after the elections and before the counting began) predicted a hung parliament. However, even the exit polls could only indicate the general trend and nowhere close to the final figures. There is also the general perception that as soon as the BJP started realising that events might not proceed entirely in its favour, it changed the focus of its campaign from India Shining to issues of stability. The Congress, who was regarded as "old-fashioned" by the ruling BJP, was largely backed by poor, rural, lower-caste and minority voters that did not participate in the economic boom of previous years that created a large wealthy middle class and thus achieved its overwhelming victory.
The reverses in the pre-poll predictions are ascribed to various reasons depending on the point of view.
- People were more concerned about issues of their immediate environment such as water scarcity, drought, etc., than national issues.
- The anti-incumbency factor was at work for the BJP allies.
State by State analysis[edit]
Andhra Pradesh[edit]
| Social Background | INC+ | TDP+ |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Male | 47% | 42% |
| Female | 54% | 41% |
| Social Class | ||
| Poor | 49% | 43% |
| Very Poor | 50% | 41% |
| OBCs | ||
| Peasant OBCs | 45% | 48% |
| Lower OBCs | 47% | 45% |
| Rural Classes | ||
| Farmers | 41% | 49% |
| Agricultural workers | 51% | 41% |
| Young voters | 57% | 38% |
Source: NES Election 2004 Analysis[1]
Karnataka[edit]
| Category | INC | BJP+ | JD(S) | Others |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Upper caste | 23% | 65% | 7% | 5% |
| Vokkaliga | 38% | 18% | 43% | 1% |
| Lingayat | 30% | 60% | 5% | 5% |
| OBCs | 35% | 36% | 23% | 6% |
| Dalit | 45% | 32% | 8% | 16% |
| Adivasi | 29% | 35% | 35% | 2% |
| Muslims | 55% | 19% | 21% | 5% |
| Others | 39% | 37% | 15% | 9% |
| Category | Deteriorated | Same as before | Improved | No opinion |
| Corruption | 49% | 26% | 11% | 13% |
| Drinking water | 44% | 26% | 24% | 5% |
| Uninterrupted power supply | 39% | 27% | 28% | 4% |
Source: NES Election 2004 Analysis[2]
Kerala[edit]
| Category | LDF | UDF | BJP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hindu upper castes | 40% | 37% | 18% | |
| Nairs | 41% | 29% | 27% | |
| Ezhavas | 59% | 22% | 18% | |
| OBCs | 49% | 36% | 13% | |
| Dalits | 71% | 15% | 10% | |
| Muslims | 39% | 58% | 2% | |
| Christians | 28% | 64% | 2% | |
| Category | Deteriorated | Same as before | Improved | No opinion |
| Drinking water | 49% | 32% | 16% | 3% |
| PDS | 38% | 42% | 14% | 6% |
| Public health | 27% | 43% | 23% | 7% |
| Education | 23% | 31% | 38% | 7% |
| Electricity | 31% | 44% | 19% | 6% |
| Employment | 50% | 32% | 13% | 5% |
| Agriculture | 59% | 22% | 13% | 6% |
| Industries | 40% | 34% | 15% | 11% |
Source: NES Election 2004 Analysis[3]
Tamil Nadu[edit]
| Category | DMK+ | AIADMK+ | Others |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | |||
| Male | 54% | 32% | 14% |
| Female | 49% | 39% | 12% |
| Locality | |||
| Rural | 50% | 35% | 15% |
| Urban | 57% | 36% | 7% |
| Social class | |||
| Very poor | 44% | 37% | 17% |
| Poor | 55% | 31% | 14% |
| Lower middle | 57% | 37% | 6% |
| Middle | 51% | 39% | 10% |
| Caste | |||
| Upper caste | 33% | 54% | 13% |
| Thevar | 50% | 47% | 3% |
| Vanniyars | 61% | 33% | 6% |
| Chettiyars | 47% | 30% | 23% |
| Gounders | 57% | 33% | 10% |
| Nadars | 57% | 36% | 7% |
| Lower OBCs | 55% | 33% | 12% |
| Chekkliyars, Pallars, etc. | 39% | 38% | 23% |
| other Dalits | 40% | 37% | 23% |
| Muslims | 78% | 11% | 11% |
| Tell me how good each of the leaders are for Tamil Nadu... | |||
| Rating | M. Karunanidhi | J. Jayalalithaa | |
| Bad | 13% | 31% | |
| Average | 31% | 33% | |
| Good | 29% | 17% | |
| Very good | 22% | 14% | |
| Do not know | 5% | 5% | |
Source: NES Election 2004 Analysis[4]
References[edit]
- ↑ "A clear case of ticket-splitting in Karnataka". The Hindu. Chennai, India. 2004-05-20.
- ↑ "Kerala bucks the national trend, once again". The Hindu. Chennai, India. 2004-05-20.
- ↑ Thsks (2004-05-20). "The Hindu : State by State : Alliance effect, swing factor propelled DPA victory". Chennai, India. Archived from the original on 2009-07-23. Retrieved 2009-07-20.
External links[edit]
  |