Vol. 02, Issue 12,December 2017 Available Online: www.ajeee.co.in/index.php/AJEEE 1998 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS IN HARYANA
Tejvir Singh,
Asstt. Prof., Political Science,
D.A.V. College, Sadhaura, Yamuna Nagar, Hariyana This paper is a modest attempt to analyze
the 1998 Parliamentary elections in Haryana. These elections had assumed great importance in the electrical history of India. The 1998 Parliamentary elections had taken place because the United Front Governments that had been found after the 1996 parliamentary elections had failed to provide political stability to the Country.
Since no political party or an alliance had been able to get majority in Lok Sabha in those elections, H.D.
Devgowda led United Front Government was formed at the national level with the outside support from the Congress (I) which had emerged as the largest party in Lok Sabha in the 1996 elections. This Government survived till P.V. Narsima Rao remained President of the Congress (I).
After Sita Ram Kesri, succeeded him as the President of the Party, the Congress (I) withdrew support from the United Front Government because H.D.
Devgowda was not acceptable to him as the Prime Minister. The Fall of this government was followed by the formation of the second United Front Government in the centre under the leadership of I.K.
Gujral with the support of the Congress (I).
But the Congress (I) withdrew support even from this government because I.K. Gujral declined to drop the D.M.K ministers from his government on the demand of Sita Ram Kesri. Kesri had made this demand after Jain commission, which had been appointed to enquire into the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi made some observations against the D.M.K.
government of Tamil Nadu for its failure to take requisite measures and hinted at the links of the D.M.K. with the L.T.T.E.
Since no party or alliance was in a position to from an alternative government, the Lok Sabha was dissolved and the parliamentary elections were held in 1998. The B.J.P. and its allies were able to get majority and form government under the leadership of Atal Bihari Vajpayee as a result of these elections.
But the B.J.P. and its alliance partner, the H.V.P.
Were almost wiped out in these elections in Haryana. Therefore, it became necessary to find out the reasons of this divergence in Haryana from other states like U.P., Madhya Pradesh, Punjab and National Capital territory of Delhi. This exercise became all the more necessary because the Bansi Lal led H.V.P. B.J.P.
alliance had been voted to power of Haryana in the 1996 Haryana Assembly elections which were held along the 1996 parliamentary elections.
The alliance had also won 7 out of 10 parliamentary seats at that time. But in the 1998 parliamentary elections it could retain only two out of these. The main objective of this paper is to find out the reasons for the changes that had taken in the social basis of electoral support base of the three main contestants in these elections - the H.V.P.
- B.J.P. alliance, the H.L.D - B.S.P.
alliance and the congress (I) among the major social formations of Haryana that had demographic, linguistic, religious and caste basis.
For this purpose I compared the percentage of votes polled by the three major contestants in 1996 and 1998 parliamentary election. For calculating the Congress (I) votes, the votes of the congress (I) and the congress (T) have been clubbed before which had contested the 1996 parliamentary election separately now Congress (T) had been merged in the Congress (I) before the 1998 elections. Similarly, for calculating the votes of H.L.D.(R) and B.S.P, their votes have been combined for the 1998 elections.
The votes of S.J.P. (Now H.L.D.) and B.S.P have been combined for the 1996 elections. In case of the H.V.P- B.J.P. alliance, there was no need for such exercise as they had alliance in the 1996 as well as the 1998 elections. For mapping the changes in the electoral support base of the H.V.P. - B.J.P.
alliance, H.L.D. - B.S.P. alliance and the Congress (I), Parliamentary constituency
Vol. 02, Issue 12,December 2017 Available Online: www.ajeee.co.in/index.php/AJEEE level analysis has been done to find out
the role of the national and state level factors as well as the role of personality of candidates.
1. THE PERFORMANCE OF THE H.L.D.
R.-B.J.P. ALLIANCE
The first part of the paper makes an attempt find out the extent of continuity and change in the support base of the alliance in the 1998 parliamentary elections in comparison with the 1996 parliamentary elections.
As is evident from Table-1 there was a marginal decline in the electoral support for the alliance in Ambala, Karnal and Mehendergarh. The Parliamentary constituency wise analysis shows that the H.L.D.-B.S.P. alliance secured a higher percentage for votes in the 1998 Parliamentary elections than in the earlier elections.
Ambala can be explained by two factors. Firstly, the failure of the H.L.D. in
fully transferring its vote to B.S.P.
candidate due to the basic contradictions in the interests of peasant caste landowners and the landless Dalits and secondly to the decision of Akali Dal to support the B.J.P. candidate. The decline in Karnal was owing to the wrong choice of candidate.
The support for the alliance candidate, Kailash Saini of HLD, increase by 7 percent in Kurukshetra parliamentary constituency due to tireless efforts of candidate who kept on visiting every village of constituency since her defeat in 1996 elections.
Besides HLD succeed in recovering in its support base among agriculturist caste due to failure of alliance government in providing adequate supply of electricity. Due to weak candidate in Karnal constituency party declined by 3.07 percent who as no match to the Congress (I) candidate, Bhajan lal.
Table-1 Constituency Wise percentage of votes polled by the H.L.D. (R) –B.J.P Alliance Parliamentary
Constituency
1996 1998 Sewing Ambala 37.58 36.97 -0 .61 Kurukshera 36.56 43.56 +7.00 Karnal 22.72 90.65 -3.07 Sonipat 25.99 41.93 +15.94
Hisar 23.20 35.89 12.69
Sirsa 31.66 42.32 +10.66 Rohtak 31.28 38.60 +7.32 Bhiwani 1.86 46.87 +45.01 Mehendergarh 25.55 23.74 -1.81
Faridabad 11.26 19.33 +8.07 Source:- Election Commission Haryana, Chandigarh.
The decrease in Mahendergarh was mainly due to the non-transfer of H.L.D.
votes owing to the annoyance of Chautala with the B.S.P. candidate. But in spite of it the alliance won Ambala, Kurukshetra, Hisar, Sonipat and Sirsa parliamentary seats. All of them had been lost by the H.L.D (then SJP)- B.S.P in the 1996 Parliamentary elections. This shows that on the whole, the alliance proved useful to both the partners.
The alliance could not make much impact on urban voters but proved effective in most of the rural segments. It also becomes evident that the H.L.D was able to considerably recover its traditional support base that it had lost to the H.V.P in the 1996 elections. The farmer’s
agitation against the abolition of slab system, the failure of the H.V.P.-B.J.P government to provide timely and adequate supply of electricity to the agricultural sector and the reaction against the policy of prohibition proved useful to the H.L.D in this context.
It was also benefited by the factionalism in the Congress (I). The analysis also reveals that the support for the alliance had increased among all the religious communities. But the gain was larger among the Muslims and the Sikhs.
Among various caste group, there was increased support of all the agriculturist castes except the Rajputs and the Ahirs.
The support from the non-agriculturist castes could not be obtained.
Vol. 02, Issue 12,December 2017 Available Online: www.ajeee.co.in/index.php/AJEEE The backward castes supported
the alliance only in the segments of parliamentary constituency where the H.L.D has fielded a backward class candidate. The alliance factor proved useful in getting increased support from the scheduled castes. But the basic contradiction in the interests of the agriculturist caste land owner and the Dalit landless labourers kept that support restricted in the non-reserved
parliamentary constituencies contested by the H.L.D.
The second part seeks to describe and analysis the changes in the electoral support base of Bansi Lal led ruling alliance of H.V.P. –B.J.P. from 1996 parliamentary elections to those held in the 1998. Besides parliamentary constituency level analysis has been made for this purpose.
2. CONSTITUENCY WISE PERCENTAGE OF VOTES POLLED BY THE H.V.P. – B.J.P ALLIANCE
Table-2 The Performance of the H.V.P.-B.J.P. Alliance Parliamentary
Constituency 1996 1998 Sewing
Ambala 31.76 36.58 +4.82
Kurukshera 36.45 23.75 -12.7
Karnal 42.20 34.60 -7.6
Sonipat 21.60 22.09 +.49 Hisar 42.32 24.79 -17.53
Sirsa 23.77 25.24 +1.47
Rohtak 25.34 19.85 -5.49
Bhiwani 55.65 48.16 -7.49 Mehendergarh 33.45 32.90 -0.55 Faridabad 35.75 33.80 -1.95 Source:- Election Commission Haryana, Chandigarh.
The analysis of the comparison of the performance of the H.V.P.- B.J.P. alliance in the 1998 and 1996 Parliamentary elections shows that the support for it declined in 7 out of the 10 parliamentary constituencies of the state because of the wide spread reaction in a section of the electorate against the policies and performance of the H.V.P.- B.J.P.
government in the state that had come to power in Haryana after the 1996 elections to Haryana Assembly which were held along with the parliamentary elections.
But the support for the alliance increased in Ambala, Sonipat and Sirsa parliamentary constituencies owing to various reasons while the personality factor worked in its favor in Ambala in spite of many adverse factors, the increase in Sonipat was owing to the sub caste factor and in Sirsa it was due to the decline of the hold of the congress (I) candidate which benefited it marginally.
The support for the alliance had declined in both urban as well as rural segments.
However, there were variations in the magnitude of decline owing to the role of local level factors. The support from the agriculturist castes particularly the Jat
declined as in most of the segment as the voters of these castes who had been the traditional supporters of the H.L.D.
(earlier S.J.P.) had switched over to the H.V.P.- B.J.P. alliance in 1996 in the hope that Bansi Lal led alliance would give them a government which would ensure timely and adequate electric supply that had been denied to them by Bhajan Lal Government of the Congress (I).
The fall out of the farmers agitation against the abolition of the slab system also worked against the alliance in these elections in rural areas. The failure to abolish octroi and increase in sales tax worked against it in urban areas. The failure of the policy of prohibition and the harassment cause in its implementation affected the support for the alliance in both urban and rural areas. The failure of its government to bring expected economic development also adversely affected its electoral support.
3. PERFORMANCE OF THE CONGRESS (I)
The Congress (I) was able to improve upon its electoral performance in the 1998 parliamentary elections in 7 out of 10
Vol. 02, Issue 12,December 2017 Available Online: www.ajeee.co.in/index.php/AJEEE constituencies by taking advantage of the
alienation of a section of voters from the H.V.P.-B.J.P. alliance due to their unhappiness over the performance of its government in the state which had come to power after the 1991 elections to
Haryana Assembly owing to the reasons which have been stated in part-I and II. It however, reduced support in Hisar, Bhiwani and Sirsa parliamentary constituencies.
Table-3 Constituency Wise percentage of votes polled by the Congress (I) Parliamentary
Constituency
1996 1998 Sewing Ambala 20.84 30.51 +9.67 Kurukshera 17.75 25.07 +7.32 Karnal 18.24 41.13 +22.89 Sonipat 8.22 11.88 +3.66
Hisar 14.91 10.10 -4.81 Sirsa 33.50 29.47 -4.03 Rohtak 31.70 38.66 +6.96 Bhiwani 24.82 3.70 -21.12 Mehendergarh 27.39 41.49 +14.1
Faridabad 28.23 32.10 +3.87 Source:- Election Commission Haryana, Chandigarh.
The overview of the parliamentary constituency wise votes obtained by the Congress (I) in the 1996 and the 1998 Parliamentary elections leads us to the following conclusions:-
1. The electoral support increased in Ambala, Kurukshetra, Karnal, Sonepat, Mahendergarh, Rohtak and Faridabad, but declined in Hisar , Bhiwani and Sirsa,
2. The Party obtained increased support among the Hindus and Muslims but failed to increase its support among the Sikhs. The anti- B.J.P. feelings overshadowed the anti- Congress feelings of the Muslims. They seem to have forgiven the Congress (I) for its failure to protect Babri Masjid from demolition. But the Sikhs
continue to have anti- congress (I) feelings due to Operation Blue Star and Operation Wood rose.
3. The support for the Congress (I) increased among the urban as well as rural voters. The Party seems to have party succeeded in winning back its traditional supporters among the upper castes, backward classes, scheduled castes and the Punjabis.
4. The Congress ( I ) could not make full use of the anti- ruling alliance feelings due to intense factionalism in the state unit of the party.
5. The poor choice of candidates in Ambala, Kurukshetra, Sonepat, Hissar and Bhiwani restricted increase in its electoral support.
4. PERFORMANCE OF POLITICAL PARTIES
Table-4 Performance of Political Parties in Terms of Seats Contested, Seats won and Percentage of Votes polled by Parties
1996 1998 1996 1998
Seats Contested
Seats won
Seats Contested
Seats won
Percentage of Votes
Percentage of Votes
Percentage of Swing
H.V.P. 4 3 4 1 15.19 11.66 -3.53
B.J.P. 6 4 6 1 19.74 18.59 -1.15
Congress(I) 10 2 10 3 22.64 26.20 +3.56
H.L.D. 10 0 7 4 19.02 25.90 +6.88
B.S.P 3 0 3 1 6.69 7.68 +0.99
Source:- Election Commission Haryana, Chandigarh.
Vol. 02, Issue 12,December 2017 Available Online: www.ajeee.co.in/index.php/AJEEE As it evident Table IV there was small
changes in the electoral support base of various contenders brought about dramatic changes in the number of seats won or lost by them in these elections.
The national level issues like those of stability, secularism, Hindutava and performance of the United Front governments headed by H.D. Devgowda and I.K. Gujral made little impact on the electorate in Haryana.
Likewise the personality of the National level leaders like Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Sonia Gandhi did not make much impact on the voters of Haryana.
Instead the Performance of Bansi Lal led H.V.P. - B.J.P. Government, state level issues like prohibition, supply of electricity, etc, and the personality of the state level leaders like Bansi Lal, Devi Lal, and Bhajan Lal Played a far more important role in determining the choice of the voters.
The personality of the candidates, local- Panjabi durole and caste factor too were important. Religion played an important role only in Faridabad parliamentary constituency where the Muslim Meows are in sizeable strength. It remained unimportant in the remaining parliamentary constituencies. Alliance factor also played crucial role where the partners were sincere but did not work in those parliamentary constituencies where they did not support their partners.
The case of Mahendergarh in the Congress (I) played an important role in all the Parliamentary constituencies. The allegedly clandestine agreement between Bhajan Lal and O.P. Chautala proved very significant in Karnal and Bhiwani parliamentary constituencies.
The Electoral support base of the H.V.P.-B.J.P. declined among the urban as well as rural, the locals as well as Punjabis, the Jats as well as non –Jats and all the religious communities – the Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims, due to the failure of Bansi Lal led H.V.P.- B.J.P government to fulfill its promises on the one hand and the annoyance of a section of voters with the style of its administration on the other hand.
That is why the H.V.P. and the B.J.P. could retain only 02 (one seat each) out of 7 seats that they had won in the 1996 elections. Even these seats could be saved by small margins. The H.L.D. -
B.S.P alliance was able to win 5 out of 10 seats in 1998 while they had won none in the 1996 elections. The H.L.D.R. won 4 seats and the B.S.P. was able to win one Lok Sabha seat from Haryana for the first time. The alliance was able to get increased support from all the social formations.
The H.L.D.R. got support from the Dalits due to the alliance with the B.S.P.
On the other hand, the B.S.P. was able to get the votes of the Jats and other peasant castes due to the support of the H.L.D. The H.L.D was benefited not only by the anti- establishment feelings among a section of the voters but also succeeded in retaining its support base among the agriculturist castes due to the pro- rural and the pro-agriculturist image of the governments headed by Devi Lal O.P.
Chautala and his nominees from 1987 to 1991.
But the anti-urban and the anti – trader image of the party continued to be a barrier. However, the alliance with the B.S.P. was able to dilute its anti- Dalit image. The Congress (I) was able to retrieve, to some extent, its traditional support base among the urban voters, Punjabis, the high castes, the backward classes and the scheduled castes that had been eroded in 1996 due to the poor performance of its government in Haryana from 1991 to 1996.
The gain that it made was cause by the disenchantment of its traditional supporters with the style and performance of Bansi Lal led H.V.P.- B.J.P government. Its strategy of fielding a Muslim candidate in Faridabad helped it in recovering its lost support base among the Muslims.
But its failure to field a Sikh candidate in Kurukshetra reduced its support base in that constituency. The Congress had not been faction ridden and it had not fielded weak candidates in Kurukshetra, Hisar, Bhiwani and Ambala, It would have been more successful in supporting its electoral support base.
Sonia factor seems to have provided only limited help in recovering its traditional support base.
REFERENCES
1. Arora Dinesh, Coalition Politics in India: An Analysis, in Ranpal Singh And Tejvir Singh (ed.), Dynamics of Party System And
Vol. 02, Issue 12,December 2017 Available Online: www.ajeee.co.in/index.php/AJEEE Coalition Governments In India, Alfa
Publications, New Delhi, 2012.
2. Election Commission, Haryana, Chandigarh.
3. Singh Ranbir, The 1998 Parliamentary Elections In Haryana, Politics India, Vol. II, No.11, May, 1998.
4. Singh Ranbir, Haryana Main 1998 key Loksabha Chunaon Ke Nirdharak Tatva’, Hari Bhoomi (Rohtak), February 23, 1998.
5. Chaudhary D.R., Haryana Government’s Graph-Illusion and Realty,’ The Tribune, April 2, 1998.
6. Singh Tejvir, The Patterns Of Coalition Governments in Haryana, in Ranpal Singh And Tejvir Singh (ed.), Dynamics of Party System And Coalition Governments In India, Alfa Publications, New Delhi, 2012.
7. Singh Tejvir, The 1996 And 1998 Parliamentary Elections in Haryana-A comparative Study,’ M. Phil. Dissertation (unpublished), Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, October, 1998.
