Now that the dust has settled on Elections 2004, the spin doctors, psephologists, analysts, and virtually anybody who had any say in the matter had to work doubly hard to justify why things happened the way they did. The verdict was as much a surprise to the winners as to the vanquished. What is being said, however, is that the elections have changed the tone and tenor of the manner in which elections have been fought in India, by bringing issues of governance to the centre stage. This article looks into the merits of this argument.

· Rejection of communal politics  The defeat of the Modi government proved beyond doubt that emotive issues like caste and communal considerations cannot be conjured up all the time to win elections. While these issues inflame passions and might prove effective mobilizing tools in the short run, any long term success requires governing regimes to ensure the security and well-being of all sections of society. The Gujarat verdict came as a welcome relief to the vast majority of secular minded-Indians, who had earlier felt distressed at the blatant use of religion to achieve political ends. Narendra Modi’s hate harvest that had earlier brought him to power following one of the worst communal riots that India has witnessed, failed this time and reaffirmed the secular ethos of the nation and the centrality of human security in democratic dispensations.

· Ouster of an autocratic ruler  The "CEO" of Andhra Pradesh, Chandrababu Naidu, had to step down following his crushing defeat by the Congress under the leadership of YS Rajashekhar Reddy. All his techno-savviness and international goodwill failed to rescue him from the morass he had fallen into by ignoring the plight of hapless farmers ending their life in desperation or educated non-IT people struggling to find employment. Naidu's defeat reiterated the fact that basic issues like agriculture, rural well-being, and employment cannot be ignored. Good governance has and will continue to be an issue for the masses. It cannot be confined to the privileged classes. In Tamil Nadu, 'Amma' J Jayalalitha's AIADMK sank without a trace. It was completely routed by her arch rival Karunanidhi's DMK. Amma's autocratic style of governance cost her dearly and won her foes by the dozen.

· Unseating sitting MPs  Another notable trend that emerged in this election has been the defeat of many sitting MPs. Nearly 2/3rd of the sitting MPs lost their seats, some of them possessing ministerial berths. As many as 25 ministers in the Vajpayee government had to face defeat, including prominent ones like Murli Manohar Joshi, Yashwant Sinha, Ram Naik, Jagmohan, and Sahib Singh Verma. The Congress had its share of reverses with veterans like PM Saeed, Balram Jakhar and the present Home Minister, Shivraj Patil, losing their seats. On the whole, 310 new MPs made their way into a House comprising of 539 members. Only 229 of the 543 MPs from the 13th Lok Sabha got re-elected. The moral of the story is that one must never take the electorate for granted.

· Status not Statistics  The elections have proved yet again that what influences the electorate is not impressive statistics of economic growth, but hard facts about the manner in which those gains have been distributed. India failed to 'shine' for the vast majority of the poor who struggle for their bare subsistence. India was definitely not shining for the 260 million people below the poverty line and the 75 million jobless. According to some reports, rural India is worse off than it was five years ago. The mandate is a manifestation of that resentment. One of the Herculean tasks before any government is the manner in which they distribute the fruits of development among the various sections of society. Chandrababu Naidu concentrated on the urban elite at the cost of the agrarian rural masses. Ashok Gehlot showcased the cause of the rural poor at the expense of the burgeoning middle classes. None of these strategies were prudent. A balance needs to be struck.

        Call it an anti-incumbency wave or misgovernance syndrome, but the people of India chose to remove poorly performing or non-performing governments. The demand for change focused on governance-related issues, like equitable distribution of developmental benefits, adequate job opportunities, demand for better education and health facilities or religious freedom and press autonomy. Except for UP and Bihar, where caste and community considerations outweigh everything else, the rest of India showed a definite tilt towards governance as a yardstick for casting their vote. This trend was stronger in the rural, underdeveloped regions of the country, where people find the voting process as their only opportunity to play the final arbiter.