Note Bandi Effect: Will it be Vote Bandi for BJP? 

“Have you seen a single rich man or a politician standing in Bank queues? It’s the poor who suffered due Demonetization”, is the common denominator of anti-demonetization remarks across Uttar Pradesh, coming not only from among the Muslims, Yadavs, and Jatavs-the support base of non-BJP parties- but also from many, non-Yadav OBCs and non-Jatav Dalits and others who are considered potential pro-BJP floating voters by the saffron party.

That demonetization would emerge as such a significant electoral issue in the state popularly perceived to be driven by caste and community centric fault lines defies common-sensical perception governing the electoral calculations of various political parties. The fact that there was hardly any popular agitation over the issue gave the impression that despite extremities of opinions, the same would not have any significant electoral bearing in the state, a fact visible in the complete silence over the issue among all the parties. However, the undercurrent against among the electorates in general and poor class in particular over demonetization would be the crucial factor determining the course of electoral outcome in UP.

“Notebandi pe log khamosh the kyunki logo ko ghar chalane ke liye pahle paise chahiye the. Wo bank aur ATM ki line me lagte ya virodh karte? Lekin logo me is baat pe gussa hai aur wo election me dikhega” (The people didn’t protest over demonetization as getting money to run the house was their priority. Were they to stand in Bank and ATM queues or came out in protest? But the people’s anger would reflect in their voting), opined an otherwise pro-BJP school teacher, a Bania by caste, at a village in Moradabad.

The narrative over demonetization is layered but clear. In general, there is a sense of anger and disillusionment among the people seen in terms of their occupational identities of being a farmer, daily-wage labourers, small and medium businessmen and people working in informal sector. However, the degree of angst and anger over the issue gets mediated by their caste and religious identities entrenched in the local power arithmetic, wherein, while the core voters of BJP, like upper castes and Bania along with a section of non-Yadav OBCs like Lodh and a section of Kushwaha, more often than not, sound apologists of demonetization, admitting subjective and tangible sufferings but defending the move, albeit half-heartedly, for abstract and distant benefit; the non-BJP voters like Dalits, Muslims, Yadavs as well as a significant bloc of other OBCs are aggressively vocal in their response over demonetization and the sufferings it caused to them for no reasonable justification.

This leads to a paradigm shift in the role of the ‘opinion-mobilizer’ caste groups who traditionally hailed from upper castes including Banias who despite their relative numerical weakness, have been dominating the local public deliberative spaces like village Chaupals, tea shops gatherings, market squares, thereby setting the argumentative resources with the aim to convince and confuse core voters of non-BJP parties in favour of BJP. Their dominance in popular articulations in multiple public spaces had a significant bearing upon the electorates popularly considered as ‘floating voters’ who tend to go by the wind based upon their subjective perceptions of winnability factor. With demonetization causing a general suffering across the occupational categories, the upper castes have lost the necessary confidence to act as ‘opinion-mobilizer’ at the best and have become the apologists at the worst. It is the voters of non-BJP parties, like Yadavs, Muslims and Dalits who are not only articulating the anti-demonetization narratives but also dominating the public deliberative spaces.

This role reversal was visible in a village at Sitapur where the pro-BSP Jatav respondents confidently and logically silenced some Thakur respondents over demonetization when the later tried to present a bright picture over the issue.

Seen in the backdrop of the spectacular success of BJP in 2014 Lok Sabha election in UP, when it succeeded in getting 42.3 percent of popular votes, again of 25 percent from 2009, the pro-BJP sway of ‘floating voters’, primarily hailing from non-Yadav OBC and non-Jatav Dalit castes emerged as the prime factor for its historical performance, besides the temporary desertion of core voters of BSP and SP, Jatav-Dalits and Yadavs respectively, in favour of the saffron party. However, a field work conducted across the state revealed that shift that has taken place from 2014, wherein, not only the core-voters of SP and BSP, the Yadavs and Jatav Dalits have returned to their respective parties, but also the floating voters are seen sharing the anti-demonetization sentiment dominating the public sphere in the election bound state. The sentiment was summarized in the response of a group of Brahmin, Nishad and Kurmi respondents at Mangari village falling under Gosaiganj Assembly constituency at Faizabad who remarked, “Notebandi ka Jawaab Votebandi” (Demonetization to be avengedby non-voting for BJP).

Another factor as to why the issue of demonetization would work significantly against BJP is their Modi-centric campaign strategy rather than projecting a CM face to lead the candidate. While 2014 Modi signified hope and aspiration for the lower castes, the Modi of 2017 in UP represents sufferings and hardships on account of demonetization. Tales after tales recounting the instances of day to day hardships of not getting money to treat an ailing family member, drastic decline in daily wages, struggles to procure fertilizer and seed for farming, day long bank queues to get their own money and depressing experiences and struggles to manage pre-fixed daughters’ marriages constitute the dominant narrative of impact of demonetization.

With Modi as the face of BJP campaign, electorates compare him to Akhilesh and Mayavati, making the negativities of demonetization superseding the positive claims of BJP. The Modi wave that swept the floating voters in 2014 are more likely to be swayed by the charm of Akhilesh Yadav who signify tangible, immediate and concrete welfare measures and Mayavati who still fares as the preferred choice for electorates privileging ‘law and order’ over other indicators.

Hence, it can be reasonable inferred that the defensive posture of pro-BJP voters in the state on account of demonetization would have a serious bearing upon the electoral performance of the party which seems failing in enthusing its core voters and swaying the floating one. The sentiment was well captured in Bundelkhand, the worst hit region of the state, when respondent remarked that as a Brahmin he is pro-BJP but as a farmer he is anti-BJP. The ‘Achhe-Din’ claim of demonetization seems to have boomeranged in the state as the resonating chorus happen to be ‘Kala din rather than Kala Dhan’, ‘Bure Din rather than Achhe Din’, ‘Barbadi rather than Khushhali’, making demonetization a demon for the people.