Why women vote matters, not mandir-masjid

THE landslide nature of the victory of the BJP-led NDA in the 2019 Lok Sabha polls captured so much attention that pundits virtually forgot a historical milestone. For the first time ever since the Lok Sabha elections were held in 1952, the female voter turnout surpassed the male turnout. So focused was everyone on the ‘Balakot’ effect that not much attention was paid to tens of millions of women who thanked the then ruling party for toilets, gas cylinders, pucca houses, electricity connections, Jan Dhan accounts and Mudra loans by voting in droves for the BJP. How do you think the BJP vote share jumped from about 31 per cent in 2014 to almost 38 per cent in 2019?

Interestingly, the gap between male and female voter turnout dropped from 4.5 per cent in 2009 to 1.5 per cent in 2014. And the BJP became the first party in 30 years to win a Lok Sabha majority. Even more interesting: the female voter turnout dropped significantly in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections as compared to 2019. And the BJP lost its majority. The message is stark: even misogynist politicians can no longer afford to underestimate the power of the female voter to make a decisive difference in elections.

Mandal and mandir are considered to be turning points in the Indian electoral history, having irreversibly changed politics and elections in India. The growing role and power of the female voter, too, can be described as a historical turning point in Indian politics. Gradually, yet irreversibly, the female voter is no longer willing to follow the diktats of a panchayat or a patriarch on whom and which party to vote for. She may not be as noisily aggressive as the female voter in the United States, but is still quietly enjoying her own agency.

For decades, savvy marketing professionals have realised that it is the woman who can make her family choose your brand. Savvy politicians, too, are now realising and recognising this reality. Caste, ethnic and religious identity do matter even today. But the female voter is demolishing these silos. A CSDS (Centre for the Study of Developing Societies) survey of the Maharashtra Assembly elections found that close to a quarter of Muslim women have voted for the Mahayuti. Another CVoter post-poll survey of Jharkhand has revealed that a large proportion of the upper-caste women have voted for the “tribal” party, the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM).

It is not just the Lok Sabha elections whose outcomes now depend on what women think and how they decide to vote. They, perhaps, play an even bigger role in determining the outcome of the Assembly elections in the states. And they do snub and reject the BJP if they are convinced that there is a better alternative. When the Assembly elections were held in Haryana in October, Congress candidate and champion wrestler Vinesh Phogat became a symbol of the resurgence of the Congress in the state. The outcome seemed a foregone conclusion, with almost everyone expecting a Congress sweep.

Unfortunately for the Congress, the ‘silent’ female voter had other ideas. She seemed to have prioritised her satisfaction with the incumbent on important issues than get swayed by the Jat machismo. In the end, the BJP won 48 seats while the Congress had to be content with just 37 in a House of 90.

But the real impact and power of the female voter reverberated when the Assembly elections were held in Jharkhand and Maharashtra. In both states, analysts talked about strong anti-incumbency and anger at food inflation that eroded household budgets. Other analysts argued that the ruling incumbents in both states had played a trump card by implementing direct cash transfer schemes for women. It was the Ladki Bahin scheme in Maharashtra and the Maiya Samman Yojana in Jharkhand. In the end, these female welfare and empowerment-oriented cash transfer schemes played a decisive role.

What many analysts forget is that ‘bribing’ voters has been a factor in Indian elections since long. These were mostly confined to cash and liquor to males who would then ‘decide’ which way the family voted. Bypassing males and directly helping females is a relatively new phenomenon and is clearly paying rich dividends.

There is another factor that is being missed by most analysts while arguing about the growing power of the female vote. Almost all of it seems confined to just the impact of direct cash transfers. It is almost as if the female voter is concerned only with the cash in her bank account when she decides whom to vote for. That she is not concerned about other issues that would engage a male voter. At best, such an analysis is deeply patriarchal. Women have agency. They think independently. And while they do prioritise money in the bank (who doesn’t), they also think about other issues.

Once again, Jharkhand and Maharashtra provided telling examples. CVoter surveys in Jharkhand had been repeatedly showing that the arrest of Chief Minister Hemant Soren by the ED had backfired politically. Many local voters considered it to be an assault on their identity and pride. This added a multiplier effect to the Maiya Samman Yojana and the JMM-led alliance romped home.

Add to this the Kalpana Soren factor. Kalpana went out of her way to campaign for her husband Hemant Soren when he was in jail. A simple housewife, when asked to fill the vacuum of leadership in her party not only rose to that occasion but also became the most potent and lethal campaigner in the moment of crisis.

Yes, India remains a patriarchal society. The representation of women in the Lok Sabha and Assemblies is still abysmal. But while they are still to get elected in large numbers, they now decide who gets elected.

Ten years back, they became one of the deciding factors of the election mandates. After the current round of elections, they have arrived as the dictating factor of the mandate. Now just wait for the 33 per cent reservation to become reality, and the politics of India will be forced to go beyond the realms of Mandal and kamandal. It is not a question of ‘if’ anymore but just a question of ‘when’ that will happen. Well, that ‘when’ actually happened yesterday.