The landscape of Indian politics is ever-evolving. The narrative surrounding the elections is extensively complex for the citizens to decipher. Thus, sharp and knowledgeable electoral analysts are essential for the world of media. However, sometimes, the hate and apathy of the analysts make it challenging to give a fair reasoning for the outcome of the elections.
One such analysis of Madhya Pradesh Assembly Elections has been done by “infamous” journalist-turned-YouTuber Ravish Kumar. While he tried to provide a “unique perspective” of the MP election results, a critical examination of his 20-minute-long rant revealed certain aspects that merit questioning.
Firstly, Ravish Kumar selectively emphasised particular aspects of the elections, such as posters and social media posts. He constructed a narrative of Shivraj Singh Chouhan being sidelined within the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), based on selected social media posts and posters.
However, they are only a tiny fragment of a larger, sophisticated political mosaic. It is a well-known fact that ground reporting is the cornerstone of credible journalism. However, Ravish Kumar’s analysis lacked ground reporting as he admitted not going to Madhya Pradesh to sniff out the ground narrative and realities that often shape the election outcomes.
Ravish Kumar assumed that the media reports were based on the “inside knowledge” of the party that some journalists have. It became another point of contention in his analysis. He implied an intentional sidelining of Chouhan for sympathy, a claim based on pure speculation. This kind of assumption risks oversimplifying the multifaceted nature of the political decisions that the party takes within the organisation. Ravish Kumar also ignored the dynamic interplay of the various factors, including the work done by the state government and how the central government played a role in implementing different schemes.
His analysis also underestimated the genuine influence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the psyche of the voters, especially in a state like Madhya Pradesh, where BJP has ruled for over 19 years. In a way, Kumar criticised the BJP for relying heavily on Modi’s face in the election campaigning. However, he forgot that every national political party, whether BJP, Congress, or even AAP, brings their top leaders into the play during campaigning.
PM Modi’s appeal transcends regional boundaries. It has been pivotal in multiple electoral victories, including Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat and other states. His presence in the political landscape during campaigning cannot be ignored and dismissed. Furthermore, Lok Sabha elections 2024 are approaching fast, and the five-state assembly elections are seen as precursor for the General Elections. It was essential for the BJP to understand how ‘Modi Magic’ is playing its role in the hearts of the voters. The results of the Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Chhattisgarh elections made it clearer how the BJP should play its cards for the General Elections.
Ravish Kumar completely ignored the strategic decisions made by the political parties. He acknowledged that knowing everything inside the party office is impossible but continued to form a perspective around op-eds and social media posts. How can a seasoned “journalist” like Ravish Kumar forget that the media is biased? They publish op-eds and reports based on their political leaning. How can someone like Ravish Kumar forget that the media ran similar reports of differences between UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and PM Narendra Modi just before the UP Assembly Elections?
BJP’s decision not to project a local face for the Chief Minister’s position was a calculated move. It reflects a deeper understanding of the political terrain and the party’s electoral strategy. Elections are complex battles. Every action has to be precise, as a wrong placement of a pawn can finish the game in seconds. Ravish’s analysis lacked the understanding of the nature of the game-play that the BJP had for the MP election.
Ravish asserted that Shivraj Singh Chouhan‘s local initiatives played a vital role in the election’s outcome. However, he failed to recognise that the voters of the states under the BJP are not limited to state issues. They know the importance of having the same party at the center and in the state assembly. Various factions, including national-level governance and leadership credibility, often influence the voters’ decisions.
In a diverse and dynamic country like India, forming a narrative based on social media posts and a few op-eds is impossible. The ground-level approach is a must to understand the background so that one can create the right direction in reaching a conclusion about the results. Ravish’s analysis lacked that critical aspect and showed how distanced he was from reality. Most of the voters are not on social media.
4,34,23,475 (Four Crores, thirty-Four Lakhs, Twenty-Three Thousand, Four Hundred and Seventy-Five) votes were cast in the MP elections. Only a fraction of them are influenced by the social media posts on X and Facebook, which were the basis of Ravish’s analysis that Chouhan was “sidelined”. The ground reality in most of the cases is different.
Ravish Kumar serves the Hindi-speaking viewers. While his followers navigate the shadows of political narratives based on his videos, it is imperative to understand the importance of a holistic and nuanced understanding of the complex narrative dance of the Indian elections. Ravish Kumar failed in it, and he failed his viewers in that motion.
