The most remarkable feature of the April 2011 elections to three Indian states and one Union Territory was the record number of people who showed up to cast their votes. Scams, corruption at high places and corroded institutions of state had clearly not managed to destroy the Indian electorate’s faith in the democratic process.

What emerges is that the average voter across the country still believes that her vote matters, that she can compel the powerful to ultimately bend to her will just as the rustic Anna Hazare could force the government to relent on the Lokpal panel issue. This conviction has major implications for the future of Indian politics.
This time many more millions voted than the last time and many of them were first-time voters without whose participation the voting figures could not have reached such heights. The most remarkable was the voter turnout in Tamil Nadu where 35.7 million people voted this time as compared to 32.8 million in the 2006 state elections. The voter turnout figure was a record 77.8 per cent. It was a similar story everywhere.
Even in the remote frontier villages of Kashmir, voters had turned up in huge numbers to vote in the local panchayat elections. On April 13, the very day that voters in South India went to polls, in Kashmir, too, the crowds were thronging polling booths despite a boycott by the separatist groups. A record 78 per cent of Kashmiris are reported to have participated in the first phase of their local elections.
Something clearly is afoot throughout the length and breadth of this country. The issue cannot just be corruption, bad governance, or group rivalries. It has to be something more fundamental, a shift that needs to be acknowledged and understood.
The high voter turnout reflects a heightened awareness of local issues and rivalries. It also displays the boundless optimism younger voters have for the electoral process. It is this youthful section of our polity that is already having the greatest impact on political dynamics. While much of this phenomenon has not been fully understood, some broad features are already discernible.
Recent surveys and studies suggest that the younger generation in this country tends to be more pragmatic than ideological, less prone to deification, and not at all awed by the past. Theirs’ is a practical generation for whom voting is a way to make a statement or change things. Their cause may be a collective sentiment, a sectional goal or a purely local issue, but their voting decision is not dictated by partisan, historical, or traditional concerns.
If the young voter feels that something other than group objectives are at stake, then she is far more prone to shift her vote to another party or leader, whereas older, more conservative voters in a similar situation would still tend to vote for the party or leader they have always voted for.
This dynamic was perhaps most evident in Bihar where the vote for good governance overrode caste and sectional sentiments. It is quite likely that a similar paradigm has developed in other states.
The new trend is not necessarily solely pro-development, or anti-incumbent, or anti-corruption. It is because voting behaviour today is more flexible and issue-related than ever before.
One consequence is a gradual decline of votebank politics, a shrinking of the pool of votes dedicated to one party or leader, and a concomitant increase in the volume of the shifting vote. The easy arithmetic of caste or sectoral voting behaviour has become vastly more complicated. The electorate cannot be expected to vote solely along caste or group lines.
Yet, if in a particular situation group rivalry is the main issue, then opposing groups will vote along sectional lines to ensure victory for their group. This dynamic was evident in the Assam elections where the heaviest turnouts were recorded in Bodo and minority-dominated districts. These groups are determined to have a major say in the next state government. The Assamese majority, which is helplessly watching a decline in its political power, voted in far lesser numbers.
Kerala seems to be an exception where voting continues to be channelled towards either of the two major alliances: the Communist Party of India (Marxist)-led Left Democratic Front or the Congress-led United Democratic Front. A closer analysis, however, does suggest that even here political volatility is increasing, one measure of which is the growing spread in votes polled over the years by the two fronts.
These elections also confirmed another, not so salubrious trend: the continued decline in urban voting levels. The lowest voting in Tamil Nadu was recorded in Chennai south; in Assam, in the capital Guwahati; in Kerala, the urban constituencies scored much less than the rural ones; and in tiny Puducherry, too, there was a significant difference between rural and urban voting levels.
The apathetic urban voter is becoming a stereotype. The worst affected by this distressing trend is the national capital New Delhi where voter turnouts are typically less than 50 per cent. Young urbanites are increasingly lighting candles for a cause. Perhaps, it is time they learnt from their rural counterparts that great change can be brought about through the ballot as well.

Indranil Banerjie is a defence and security analyst based in New Delhi