Why did Narendra Modi come back to power? Why did the NDA manage to secure a majority? Why did the BJP not face a more comprehensive defeat?
It is a mark of the power of false narratives that we have not started to ask these questions. Much of the post-election analysis in the media is still stuck in a mistaken and self-serving question: What explains this unexpected electoral setback for the BJP? The question is mistaken, for the surprise in this instance lies in the eyes of the beholder.
The commentariat has not started reflecting on the possibility that there is nothing surprising about a bad, non-responsive and arrogant government losing an election, that the shock was entirely the creation of the media. It is self-serving as it draws the discussion exactly to the kind of minutiae blame games that helps to cover up the real issues. But once the dust settles, we can hope for more attention to the real issues and ask the counterfactual question: How did the BJP scrape through in an election that it was going to lose badly?
A precedence from the past
A comparison with the election of 2004 is very instructive here. Recall that it was the conclusion of a ‘successful’ five-year term of the NDA government led by the charismatic Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Riding on the slogan of ‘India Shining’, he was ‘widely expected’ to come back to power in 2009. All the pre-election polls and indeed the exit polls forecast a clear majority for the ruling coalition. Yet, the results belied all expectations and left everyone bewildered. Just as it did this month.
Fortunately, we have a post-poll survey conducted by Lokniti-CSDS in 2004 that asked the same questions that have been asked by the Lokniti survey after this election, whose findings have been made public.
Modi’s popularity ratings in 2024 are not very different from those of Vajpayee in 2004. When people were asked to name their choice for the PM, 38 per cent named Vajpayee, as compared to 41 per cent for Modi this year. In 2004, the nearest rival was Sonia Gandhi at 26 per cent. This year it was Rahul Gandhi at 27 per cent. Peoples’ satisfaction with the Vajpayee government was a shade higher than that with the Modi government: net satisfaction (satisfied minus dissatisfied) was 29 per cent in 2004 compared to 23 per cent in 2024. The critical question about whether the incumbent government should be given another chance elicited similar responses: Vajpayee was favored 48 to 30 percent, similar to Modi’s 46 to 39.
The striking similarities between what happened in 2004 and 2024
|
2004 |
2024 |
|
| People’s choice for the next PM |
|
|
| Vajpayee/Modi |
38 |
41 |
| Sonia/ Rahul Gandhi |
26 |
27 |
| Satisfied with Central Govt? |
|
|
| Satisfied |
57 |
59 |
| Dissatisfied |
28 |
36 |
| Another chance for incumbent Govt? |
|
|
| Yes |
48 |
46 |
| No |
30 |
39 |
| Poll projections |
|
|
| Average for NDA in pre polls |
287 |
373 |
| Average for NDA in exit polls |
257 |
339 |
| Actual seats for NDA (BJP) |
181 |
292 |
Source for 2004 and 2024 survey data: Lokniti-CSDS National Election Study 2004 and 2024; Average for NDA in pre polls and exit polls are authors’ calculations.
Yet, Vajpayee lost the 2004 election badly. Exit polls had predicted anything between 230 and 275 seats for the NDA. The alliance ended up with 181. The BJP was unseated and the UPA government was formed.
Why did that not happen in 2024? One good answer could be that the NDA’s starting point in 2024 was much higher than it was in 2004. Back then, the NDA was a fledgling coalition of 23 parties held together by Vajpayee whose BJP had won only 182 seats in the 1999 elections. An electoral setback pushed the BJP down by 44 seats. This is not very different from what happened to Modi’s BJP, down from 303 to 240.
A counterfactual scenario
At the same time, the question remains: Could the outcome have been substantially different? Could the BJP have been ousted from power in 2024? Once we stop focusing on the wrong question and look at the election outcome with new spectacles, we can see that Modi saved his government by the skin of his teeth.
The scenarios presented in Table 2 and Table 3 present us with various possibilities. Let’s take the final outcome of this election as the starting point. If there was an additional 1 percentage point swing against the NDA (loss to NDA and proportionate gains to its principal opponent), it would have lost 18 seats. A national-wide swing of 1.5 pp would have brought the NDA tally down to 261, well below the majority mark. It would have also brought the ruling coalition slightly below its principal rival: 261 for NDA and 263 for INDIA. Another half a percent would have taken it down further to 246 and INDIA above the majority mark at 275.
Just 1.5 percentage point Uniform National Swing would have unseated the BJP
| Scenario/ Seats |
BJP |
Allies |
NDA |
Congress |
Allies |
INDIA |
Others |
| Actual outcome |
240 |
52 |
292 |
99 |
135 |
234 |
17 |
| If 1% swing against NDA |
224 |
50 |
274 |
105 |
146 |
251 |
18 |
| If 1.5% swing against NDA |
213 |
48 |
261 |
111 |
152 |
263 |
19 |
| If 2% swing against NDA |
201 |
45 |
246 |
118 |
157 |
275 |
22 |
Table 3 shows a more realistic scenario. Instead of assuming a uniform swing across all the states, it presents the likely outcome if a national-wide swing was distributed unevenly across different states, concentrated more in Hindi heartland states where there was a momentum against the BJP that could be pushed further. If we assume an additional swing of 2 percentage point each in Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Bihar, Rajasthan, and Haryana, the NDA would be down to just 260 seats, well below the majority mark. In that scenario, the BJP would be at 214, too far away from staking a claim to form the government. All these would add up to just one percentage point national swing against the BJP.
Just 2 percentage point swing focused in select states, amounting to just over 1 pp (-1.1pp) national swing would have unseated BJP
| SCENARIO: 2 pp SWING AWAY FROM NDA | ||
| State Name | Change in NDA seats | Change in BJP seats |
| UP |
-15 |
-13 |
| Maharashtra |
-5 |
-2 |
| West Bengal |
-4 |
-4 |
| Bihar |
-3 |
-2 |
| Rajasthan |
-3 |
-3 |
| Haryana |
-2 |
-2 |
| All India total |
-32 |
-26 |
Remember this: Modi’s BJP was about 1 percentage point away from a comprehensive defeat that would have forced it to sit in the opposition.
Now the question for us and future historians to ponder is: what could have made a difference of 1 percentage point national vote? What may have helped the BJP avert this disaster? Did the BJP leaders know something that all of us did not know, or were prevented from knowing?
One obvious answer is alliances. It is now evident why the BJP had struck a strange alliance with Nitish Kumar (JDU) and Jayant Chaudhary (RLD), why it did a U-turn to join hands with Chandrababu Naidu (TDP) and why it pursued every ally in Bihar and Maharashtra. The allies not only shored up the numbers for the NDA, they also helped the BJP pick at least 10 additional seats in Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh. In retrospect, we can also see the cost of TMC-Congress rift in West Bengal (3 seats) and the damage done by the VBA of Prakash Ambedkar (4) and AIMIM of Asaduddin Owaisi (1).
Consider another answer. Just imagine that the mainstream media had covered this election a shade less unfairly than it did. Lokniti-CSDS post-poll survey tells us that 83 percent of the voters had a TV at home, 66 percent watched news channels every day or sometimes (compared to 47 percent who received information from social media), all but a fraction named one or the other Godi media channel as the source of their information on elections. Just imagine what would have happened if TV news had presented a balanced picture of the performance of the Modi government? Let alone speak truth to power, if only they had not run blatant propaganda for the ruling party and the cringe-worthy interviews of the Supreme Leader? Imagine if they had simply reported that the 2024 election was not a one-way race, that it might be a close contest?
Remember, if just 1 out of the 66 people watching the sarkari propaganda had changed their mind, the Supreme Leader would have been the Leader of Opposition today.




Hindu nationalism in India also has a linguistic dimension. Hindus are more likely than other Indians to associate national identity with the Hindi language. While India has dozens of major languages, a majority of Hindus (59%) feel that being able to speak Hindi is very important to being truly Indian. Hindus who link their religion with national identity tend also to link the Hindi language with being authentically Indian.
Hardeep Singh Puri, India’s Federal Minister for Housing & Urban Affairs, Minister for Petroleum and Natural Gas praised the book as an important contribution to the literature documenting India’s rising global health influence. He highlighted the book’s extensive exploration of India’s commendable vaccination drive and vaccine diplomacy, highlighting the nation’s vital role on the world stage during the unprecedented times characterized by the Pandemic.
Amitabh Kant, IAS, G20 Sherpa and Former CEO of NITI Aayog, lauded the book as a proactive “call to action,” commending India’s leadership during its G20 presidency and the strategic health policy initiatives such as the New Delhi Declaration. He expressed his pleasure in writing a Preface for the book and emphasized its significance in, among other matters, documenting India’s effective vaccination campaign and vaccine diplomacy. The G20 Sherpa highlighted India’s crucial role during the pandemic and acknowledged the resilience of healthcare workers and the innovations in healthcare technology that emerged during this period.
Prof. Dr. Ruby Pawankar, Executive Director and Former President of APAAACI and Former President of the World Allergy Organization, joined the launch event from Tokyo and described the book as an essential read for those committed to shaping a sustainable healthcare landscape, emphasizing its comprehensive approach and strategic use of technology during the pandemic.
Lieutenant General Dr. UK Sharma, Former commandant of the Indian Army’s flagship Referral and Research Hospital, described the book as a seamless narrative that expertly portrayed India’s robust response to the pandemic. He praised the book’s portrayal of healthcare workers’ resilience and innovative solutions that emerged during the crisis, describing it as a vital resource for understanding global health challenges and India’s potential leadership in global healthcare.
Prof. M.D. Nalapat discussed the importance of understanding the comprehensive strategies and healthcare reforms that India had implemented, which could serve as a model for other nations. He noted the comments made about the in-depth analysis provided by the co-authors and their view that the book is a critical resource for anyone involved in healthcare policy and administration, as it offered a blueprint for future global health initiatives.
Ambassador Pradeep Kapur noted the book’s potential to guide other nations in strengthening their healthcare infrastructures and policies. He highlighted the authors’ collaborative efforts in bringing together diverse perspectives and insights, which enrich the book’s content and relevance. Ambassador Kapur also discussed the book’s broader implications for rural community empowerment and national digital financial infrastructure, underscoring its significance in advocating for systemic changes that can lead to improved global healthcare governance.











India’s Consul General in New York Binaya S. Pradhan, speaking at March 7, 2024 event at Consulate. PHOTO: X @IndiainNewYork
only 2% in terms of tourist spending, which is around $20 billion.
How did colonialism affect South Asia in particular? South Asia was predominantly a feudal society, ruled by the landlord-kings legitimized by the clergy. The British succeeded in colonizing most parts of South Asia, the Indian subcontinent in particular. Their primary focus was on plundering its wealth and creating markets for the goods being produced in England. It had to lay the structure of a colonial state in which transport, education and foundations of modern administration were laid down. Incidentally, they also supported the eradication of some of the ghastly practices like sati. For other reforms, the likes of Jotirao Phule, Savitribai Phule, B R Ambedkar and Mahatma Gandhi moved the mountains to bring in reforms and cultural changes.
In short, excessive phone usage is going to do you and your children harm. And what you may be passing off as a lifestyle aberration, may be the symptom of a larger disorder taking shape for e.g. eye strain and lack of concentration may be the trigger point for ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) aggravated by years of mobile phone usage.