PRAN Nath Haksar, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s Principal Secretary, told me soon after assuming office that he would see to it that the state election was held separately from that of the Lok Sabha. Till then, both were held simultaneously. A voter was given one ballot paper for the Lok Sabha poll and the other for the particular state at the same polling booth.

Haksar’s reasoning was that the Lok Sabha election, reflecting the country’s thinking, should be fought on national issues and the one in the states on local issues. He succeeded in separating the two elections and they were held at different periods. But he failed to keep the issues separate. National, regional and local issues continued to be intermingled.

The political parties in the opposition would use in state elections the acts of omission and commission of the ruling party at the centre. There was no delineation as Haksar wanted. All of a sudden, things have changed. Elections in five states—Delhi, Chattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Mizoram and Rajasthan—have been fought on local issues. Had Haksar been alive, he would have seen that his dream had come true.

The terrorist attack on Mumbai was a national issue. The television channels showed operation for 69 hours without even a commercial break. People were horrified all over the country and felt let down by the central government led by the Congress.

Yet the Congress government was returned to power in Delhi. The polling was on the day when the attack by terrorists was going on. The Congress won 42 against the BJP’s 23. In the same way, the Congress also wrested Rajasthan from the BJP although the state went to polls after the Mumbai attack. In fact, the Congress increased its seats to 96 from 56.

It is true that the BJP politicized the terrorist attack and suggested that the Manmohan Singh government was not competitive enough to face terrorism. Chief Minister Narendra Modi of Gujarat fame was brought to Delhi and Rajasthan to mix terrorism with parochialism, a set line of his party, the BJP. Still the voters did not flinch from the resolve to return the Congress.

No doubt, the party’s casual attitude towards the demand for national unity went against it. L.K. Advani, the party’s top leader, did not attend the all-party meeting convened by the Prime Minister to consider the steps to confront the situation that the Mumbai carnage had created. Instead, Advani went to Rajasthan for election campaign. People may have found him inducting politics at a time that required national unity. There is no evidence that the Mumbai attack weighed with the voter.

In all the five states, local issues were in the forefront and they made all the difference. The voter assessed whether the party in power had built schools, roads or health centres. The BJP had a landslide victory in Madhya Pradesh—142 seats in the 230-member house—because state chief minister Shivraj Singh Chauhan stuck to the development agenda. True, the Congress stalwarts fought among themselves and saw to it that the candidates of their rivals within the party were not returned. Yet, the state’s progress counted with the electorate.

In the same way, the BJP retained power in Chattisgarh because party chief minister Raman Singh worked to ameliorate the conditions of the lower half. He sold rice at Rs 3 a kilo and earned the title of chaval baba. The Congress expected to do well but, again, the infighting was its undoing. Still the party could have done better but it looked too pompous against the simple Raman Singh. He retained the same number, 50, which the party won in the last election.

Four out of five states have falsified the old notion that incumbency factor works against the party in power. The voter has told through the ballot that it is the economic betterment that matters, not the slogan or rhetoric. It is heartening for India that the voter has become mature over the years. He or she knows that the election is the time to show admiration or indignation. With every election, the roots of democracy are getting deeper and stronger.

Caste and religion, ineluctable factors in Indian elections, have swayed people but this time far less than before. The Hindutva card played by the BJP did not yield results, the state’s economic development did. Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) headed by Mayawati did not make much of a showing by consolidating the Dalits at the lowest rung of the society. Does it mean the nation has come to retrieve its ethos of pluralism? Yes, to some extent. But progress is still pitched in favour of the upper half. The minorities too are beginning to benefit.

Are the polls in five states a semi-final? It may not be but they reflect the voter thinking. The state elections project a sample survey. Some 15 per cent of the country’s electorate went to polls, covering 79 Lok Sabha seats in a house of 545. This sample survey, four to five months ahead of the Lok Sabha elections, has set political parties into thinking.

The communists have won three seats in Rajasthan but are worried why they are not making any inroad in the Hindi-speaking states. The Samajwadi Party (SP), headed by Mulayam Singh Yadav, is disappointed that the Muslims have not cast vote en bloc in its favour. SP’s main strength has been the Muslims who, after getting disillusioned with the Congress, went to Mulayam Singh. However, leaving the Congress and the BJP apart, the other parties have polled 15 per cent of votes.

The real stock-taking has to be done by the Congress and the BJP. The success or failure of both has been 50-50. Their complaint of intrigues from within is nothing new. They will face the same situation in the Lok Sabha election. Where they can make up is in disseminating new thoughts and putting up new faces. Both parties are, however, struck in the same mould and refuse to pass on the baton to the younger generation. The Congress does not gather mass through projecting a dynastic chain. The party won hands down in Mizoram—32 seats in the house of 40— because it fielded new candidates.

Meanwhile, relations between India and Pakistan are worsening day by day and they are going to affect the political scenario of tomorrow. President Asif Ali Zardari’s statement that India could interrogate the persons detained in Pakistan gives an opening. This is more than any previous government has conceded. Can’t we begin from that? It is something for breaking the ice and averting the threats of hostilities. A democratic government, however weak, is always a better bet.