Political analysts and TV news anchors could take a sigh of relief after it became clear that the Congress was winning the Karnataka assembly elections with a decisive majority.

When the election results were coming in, for some time it seemed that the seats of the Congress may remain somewhere around 113. What would happen if it remained like this was the question which was being asked again and again. Leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), who boasted of mastery in stealing the public mandate, calling it Chanakyaneeti or Krishnaneeti, unashamedly said that they have a plan B ready for such an eventuality.

That means buying elected representatives or breaking them away using the agencies as it was done in Karnataka earlier, and in Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Manipur in the past.

Not many days have passed since the Supreme Court held that the BJP's ploy to topple the Maharashtra government, by using this 'Plan B', was 'illegal'. But what is the meaning of this lashing out of the Supreme Court for the party which glorifies manipulation as Chanakyaneeti and draws applause from the pundits for its audacity!

Vote percentage

When the results were out and the Congress party won 135 seats, it was said that it was not the defeat of the BJP, but the victory of the Congress. If one analyses the percentage of votes, and not the number of seats, the BJP secured 36% votes, which is the same as in the previous elections. Then how can it be called a comprehensive defeat?

The stability of the BJP's vote percentage is definitely a matter of concern. It means that there is a section of voters who have forgotten their daily troubles due to the intoxication of Hindutva. But there is also a large section which earlier voted for the BJP and has now chosen to vote for the Congress.

If the voters of Janata Dal (Secular) have changed their preferences, then that is also an important factor worth analysing. That is, for them defeating the BJP seemed like a more urgent need. It is clear from the results that this is a decisive defeat of the saffron party. The results also show how every section of Karnataka rejected it. To downplay the importance of this defeat is a kind of dishonesty.

Similarly, it'd be dishonest to belittle the role of the central leadership in the victory of the Congress party.

The role of Congress's leadership

The Congress fought the elections on local issues. True! The electoral struggle was led by local leaders. Also true! Surely it is their hard work which is responsible for the party's victory. The rivalry between the factions of two big local leaders in the Congress has been a matter of discussion for a very long time. Some worried and many hoped that this factionalism would lead to Congress losing the game. However, that did not happen.

D.K. Shivakumar and Siddaramaiah fought the elections together as a team. They did not let their ambitions come in the way of achieving the larger goal. They put aside their differences, and did not insist that the leadership issue should be resolved first. It was certainly their decision, but didn't the Congress leadership  play a role in getting them together, forming this team and taking it forward?

Ultimately, it was the central leadership that made Shivakumar the chief of the state Congress. When the BJP government had put Shivakumar in jail, the then Congress president Sonia Gandhi had gone to meet him in jail and reposed faith in him. It was a bold public gesture.

The national leadership of the Congress did not distance itself from him fearing that the media would leave no stone unturned to tarnish its public image, calling it an accomplice in his ‘corruption’. Then, in a way, Congress's national leadership campaigned under the direction of the state leadership. Does all this have no contribution and should not be mentioned? Is it sycophancy to acknowledge the contribution of the central leadership?

Also read: Ten Factors to Remember Amidst the Congress’s Win and BJP’s Defeat in Karnataka

The impact of the Bharat Jodo Yatra

Also, to say that the impact of the Bharat Jodo Yatra under the leadership of Rahul Gandhi was negligible in this election is intellectual dishonesty. Did Congress not benefit at the local level by participating in the yatra? Didn't this yatra garner public support for the party?

At the time when this yatra was taking place, Karnataka elections were far away. The aim or goal of the yatra was not to mobilise voters for the elections.

At the time, some analysts were making fun of the yatra, claiming that it was not the work of any politician to do it. They added that Rahul Gandhi should prove his leadership only by winning elections. The yatra was looked at by these pundits with cynicism and they are still not ready to accept its attempt to propose a new language of social engagement, in which politicians should also participate.

The yatra had quietly intervened in the poisoned atmosphere of Karnataka. Would it not have had any effect on the mind of the public? To those who were unimpressed by it, it has been pointed out that the yatra passed through 21 assembly constituencies, out of which 16 voted for the Congress candidates. Last time, it was able to win only five of these constituencies.

The support of the Congress increased in the surrounding areas as well, according to the numbers. The way the two leaders of Karnataka organised the yatra enthused and energised the Congress workers. At the time of the yatra itself, people noted that this enthusiasm and organisation would certainly impact elections positively.

We all know that such campaigns have an indirect impact on society, which is not always measurable in quantitative terms. Did the constructive programme of Mahatma Gandhi have a direct impact on the anti-colonial movement? Even if there was no direct relationship between the two, was it important or not? Then why is it being said that the yatra was almost irrelevant to the Karnataka election results?

Rahul Gandhi did not campaign for the elections during the yatra. This was criticised. Instead of praising his single-mindedness, it was said that he would be taken seriously only if he wins the election.

This time Rahul Gandhi campaigned intensively for the elections. But even now there is hesitation to accept his contribution in this victory.

Also read: Has the Bharat Jodo Yatra Achieved What It Set Out to Do?

Sonia Gandhi's political wisdom

It is difficult for many intellectuals to believe that in the Congress, there is mutual understanding between party president Mallikarjun Kharge, Rahul Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi-Vadra and Sonia Gandhi, and that the members of the Gandhi family are playing their assigned roles.

The Congress has accepted Kharge as its president and he is also behaving like one but a section of our intellectual community still considers it to be a show. They consider respect towards Sonia Gandhi as 'flattery', but not something she deserves. This is an understanding about the woman who breathed life into the dying Congress and who created a huge political mobilisation around the party and who could and still can make differing political parties sit together at the same table. Our intellectuals are not ready to accept her political wisdom.

These are the same people who were calling Congress's announcement of banning Bajrang Dal an act of foolishness on the part of Rahul Gandhi's team. They were afraid that it would harm the Congress. Finally, it turned out that the repeated use of the slogan 'Bajrang Bali Ki Jai' by Prime Minister Narendra Modi actually pushed the BJP further down. But the intellectuals did not have the moral courage to hail the political courage of the Congress in announcing the ban on Bajrang Dal.

It was also said that the Congress was clever to do it as it won over the Muslims. However, instead it could also be said that the party has shown sensitivity towards the insecurities of Muslims and Christians. It also expressed its confidence in the conscience of the Hindus by declaring that they themselves would disapprove of this violent and criminal organisation.

Simultaneously, the Karnataka Congress proposed a ban on PFI. But by doing so the Congress also made it clear that violence against minorities should not be accepted in any manner.

Secular politics means protection of the rights of the minority communities so that they can live with dignity.

Will this massive victory of the Congress in Karnataka have an impact on the 2024 general elections? This is an important question, but the significance of this mandate cannot be tarnished by an apprehension of the invincibility of the politics of hate and division.

Will the importance of Karnataka's mandate diminish if the message of this mandate is not communicated to the people in the north?

The people of Karnataka have created an opportunity to live their lives with harmony. It is their right. They have also declared and protected the sovereignty of their state. Irrespective of whether it serves any national interest or not, it is an end in itself and should be respected.

Apoorvanand teaches at Delhi University.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.