From Surf Wiki (app.surf) — the open knowledge base
2004 Indian general election analysis
Indian lower house election
Indian lower house election

The 2004 general elections defied the predictions made by pre-poll predictions and exit polls and allowed the newly formed UPA alliance led by Sonia Gandhi, to come to power. This election also saw the rise of marginalized parties like the left, to join forces with the opposition, which led to a major realignment in social and political power.
Though pre-poll predictions were for an overwhelming majority for the BJP, the exit polls (immediately after the elections and before the counting began) predicted a hung parliament. However, even the exit polls could only indicate the general trend and nowhere close to the final figures. There is also the general perception that as soon as the BJP started realising that events might not proceed entirely in its favour, it changed the focus of its campaign from India Shining to issues of stability. The Congress, who was regarded as "old-fashioned" by the ruling BJP, was largely backed by poor, rural, lower-caste and minority voters that did not participate in the economic boom of previous years that created a large wealthy middle class, and thus it achieved its overwhelming victory. The reverses in the pre-poll predictions are ascribed to various reasons depending on the point of view.
- People were more concerned about issues of their immediate environment such as water scarcity, drought, etc., than national issues.
- The anti-incumbency factor was at work for the BJP allies.
State by State analysis
Andhra Pradesh
| Social Background | INC+ | TDP+ |
|---|---|---|
| **Gender** | ||
| Male | **47%** | 42% |
| Female | **54%** | 41% |
| **Social Class** | ||
| Poor | **49%** | 43% |
| Very Poor | **50%** | 41% |
| **OBCs** | ||
| Peasant OBCs | 45% | **48%** |
| Lower OBCs | **47%** | 45% |
| **Rural Classes** | ||
| Farmers | 41% | **49%** |
| Agricultural workers | **51%** | 41% |
| Young voters | **57%** | 38% |
Source: NES Election 2004 Analysis
Karnataka
| Category | INC | BJP+ | JD(S) | Others | Category | Deteriorated | Same as before | Improved | No opinion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Upper caste | 23% | **65%** | 7% | 5% | |||||
| Vokkaliga | 38% | 18% | **43%** | 1% | |||||
| Lingayat | 30% | **60%** | 5% | 5% | |||||
| OBCs | 35% | **36%** | 23% | 6% | |||||
| Dalit | **45%** | 32% | 8% | 16% | |||||
| Adivasi | 29% | **35%** | **35%** | 2% | |||||
| Muslims | **55%** | 19% | 21% | 5% | |||||
| Others | **39%** | 37% | 15% | 9% | |||||
| Corruption | **49%** | 26% | 11% | 13% | |||||
| Drinking water | **44%** | 26% | 24% | 5% | |||||
| Uninterrupted power supply | **39%** | 27% | 28% | 4% |
Source: NES Election 2004 Analysis
Kerala
| Category | LDF | UDF | BJP | Category | Deteriorated | Same as before | Improved | No opinion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hindu upper castes | **40%** | 37% | 18% | |||||
| Nairs | **41%** | 29% | 27% | |||||
| Ezhavas | **59%** | 22% | 18% | |||||
| OBCs | **49%** | 36% | 13% | |||||
| Dalits | **71%** | 15% | 10% | |||||
| Muslims | 39% | **58%** | 2% | |||||
| Christians | 28% | **64%** | 2% | |||||
| Drinking water | **49%** | 32% | 16% | 3% | ||||
| PDS | 38% | **42%** | 14% | 6% | ||||
| Public health | 27% | **43%** | 23% | 7% | ||||
| Education | 23% | 31% | **38%** | 7% | ||||
| Electricity | 31% | **44%** | 19% | 6% | ||||
| Employment | **50%** | 32% | 13% | 5% | ||||
| Agriculture | **59%** | 22% | 13% | 6% | ||||
| Industries | **40%** | 34% | 15% | 11% |
Source: NES Election 2004 Analysis
Tamil Nadu
| Category | DMK+ | AIADMK+ | Others | Rating | M. Karunanidhi | J. Jayalalithaa |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| **Gender** | ||||||
| Male | **54%** | 32% | 14% | |||
| Female | **49%** | 39% | 12% | |||
| **Locality** | ||||||
| Rural | **50%** | 35% | 15% | |||
| Urban | **57%** | 36% | 7% | |||
| **Social class** | ||||||
| Very poor | **44%** | 37% | 17% | |||
| Poor | **55%** | 31% | 14% | |||
| Lower middle | **57%** | 37% | 6% | |||
| Middle | **51%** | 39% | 10% | |||
| **Caste** | ||||||
| Upper caste | 33% | **54%** | 13% | |||
| Thevar | **50%** | 47% | 3% | |||
| Vanniyars | **61%** | 33% | 6% | |||
| Chettiyars | **47%** | 30% | 23% | |||
| Gounders | **57%** | 33% | 10% | |||
| Nadars | **57%** | 36% | 7% | |||
| Lower OBCs | **55%** | 33% | 12% | |||
| Chekkliyars, Pallars, etc. | **39%** | 38% | 23% | |||
| other Dalits | **40%** | 37% | 23% | |||
| Muslims | **78%** | 11% | 11% | |||
| **Tell me how good each of the leaders are for Tamil Nadu...** | ||||||
| Bad | 13% | **31%** | ||||
| Average | 31% | **33%** | ||||
| Good | **29%** | 17% | ||||
| Very good | **22%** | 14% | ||||
| Do not know | **5%** | **5%** |
Source: NES Election 2004 Analysis
References
References
- (May 20, 2004). "Arithmetic and anti-incumbency knocked Naidu out". [[The Hindu]].
- (2004-05-20). "A clear case of ticket-splitting in Karnataka". The Hindu.
- (2004-05-20). "Kerala bucks the national trend, once again". The Hindu.
- Thsks. (2004-05-20). "The Hindu : State by State : Alliance effect, swing factor propelled DPA victory".
This article was imported from Wikipedia and is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Content has been adapted to SurfDoc format. Original contributors can be found on the article history page.
Ask Mako anything about 2004 Indian general election analysis — get instant answers, deeper analysis, and related topics.
Research with MakoFree with your Surf account
Create a free account to save articles, ask Mako questions, and organize your research.
Sign up freeThis content may have been generated or modified by AI. CloudSurf Software LLC is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of AI-generated content. Always verify important information from primary sources.
Report