A significant aspect of the Mahayuti's resurgence in the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly elections was its ability to reimagine its electoral approach, targeting specific demographics, especially women, through welfare populism.
One such initiative was the Majhi Ladki Bahin Yojana, a financial assistance scheme targeted at women, particularly in rural areas. Issues of inflation and unemployment, potential vulnerabilities for the ruling coalition, were reframed as challenges requiring the stability and proven leadership of the BJP.
This narrative resonated particularly well with urban and semi-urban voters, further expanding and retaining the coalition’s core support base.
A closer look at community voting patterns reveals deeper insights.
The Maratha community, a historically influential voter base, largely aligned with the Mahayuti due to assurances on the reservation issue and pledges to safeguard their regional identity. This shift significantly weakened the MVA, which had historically relied on Maratha support but faltered amid policy stagnation.In regions like Kolhapur and Satara, which are Maratha strongholds, the Mahayuti captured nearly 65 percent of seats.
Similarly, OBCs, whose apprehensions over Maratha inclusion in their reservation category were assuaged by the BJP’s promise to protect existing quotas, strengthened their allegiance to the Mahayuti.
Dalits and rural-based marginalised communities gravitated toward the BJP’s targeted welfare initiatives that included interest-free loans and educational assistance. Maharashtra is another election where entitlement-centred populism through direct benefit transfers (via cash) seems to aid the BJP, even though competitive and upward mobility-centred welfarism through better education and employment seems to be missing in its campaign and development agenda.
While the MVA retained influence in certain strongholds, it struggled to match the BJP’s localised outreach in marginalised areas. The BJP’s outreach to Muslim women—through welfare policies like housing and financial aid for education—made inroads, subtly altering dynamics in urban constituencies.
Farmers and agrarian workers, another critical voting bloc, were swayed by the BJP’s promises of practical solutions like loan waivers and financial support, overshadowing the MVA’s focus on farmer protests and increased MSPs.
In Jharkhand, on the other hand, tribal voters, comprising 26 percent of the population, played a decisive role in the INDIA bloc's win. Notably, tribal areas recorded a higher voter turnout of 70 percent, compared to 62 percent in urbanised non-tribal regions like Dhanbad and Ranchi.
The BJP failed to create a substantive mark in eroding the incumbent government's outreach and the developmental work put in by the JMM-Congress alliance, which has historically championed tribal concerns. In 2019, the alliance had tapped into tribal anger over land reforms and corporate encroachments, consolidating its voter base. However, delays in fulfilling these promises and internal discord weakened its position in 2024.
The BJP, sensing this as an opportunity, recalibrated its strategy by emphasising welfare schemes under the Tribal Sub-Plan and reaffirming protections under the Chotanagpur Tenancy (CNT) and Santhal Parganas Tenancy (SPT) Acts. This approach resonated in constituencies like Khunti and Dumka, where the BJP reduced the JMM's margins.
The OBC electorate, representing nearly 40 percent of Jharkhand’s population, also played a pivotal role. The BJP’s promise to preserve reservation quotas, alongside economic initiatives like the Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojana, appealed to OBC youth in urban and semi-urban constituencies such as Dhanbad and Giridih.
Meanwhile, the JMM-Congress' proposal to expand OBC reservations faced criticism for potentially diluting tribal quotas, leading to a polarised response. Muslim voters, about 15 percent of the electorate, largely supported the JMM-Congress alliance in constituencies like Ranchi and Jamshedpur West. However, the BJP’s targeted outreach to Muslim women focusing on housing and education welfare programs, led to notable shifts in urban areas, exemplified in constituencies like Godda.
Dalits, who constitute around 12 percent of the population, remained contested. The BJP leveraged programs like the PM Awas Yojana and scholarships, while the JMM-Congress alliance focused on caste discrimination and unemployment. Tight contests in constituencies like Lohardaga reflected this competition.
Rural voters in Jharkhand, influenced by infrastructure projects like roads and electrification, leaned toward the BJP, despite the Opposition's promises of debt relief and MSP hikes.
These elections, building up from Haryana, also showcase the BJP’s electoral brilliance in adapting its national vision to local realities, maintaining Hindutva’s ideological leaning while triumphing the vote on welfare populist measures, catering to the aspirations of the vulnerable and marginalised.
Maharashtra’s urban centers, including Mumbai, Pune, and Nagpur, served as strongholds for the BJP-led Mahayuti coalition. Urban voters gravitated toward promises of economic stability, infrastructure expansion, and reforms in governance. In contrast, rural regions like Marathwada and Vidarbha presented a more fragmented picture.
Agrarian distress, particularly in districts like Jalna and Beed, and high unemployment drove a significant share of rural voters toward short-term promises of relief. The Mahayuti captured 60 percent of urban constituencies but faced closer contests in rural areas, where it secured just over 50 percent of seats.
The election campaigns in both states revealed a tension between short-term populist pledges and policies geared toward systemic reform. In Maharashtra, the MVA centreed its strategy on farmer protests, assurances of higher MSPs, and promises to resolve the Maratha quota issue. While this approach appealed to segments of rural voters, the BJP’s focus on immediate solutions like loan waivers, financial aid, and education scholarships struck a chord in constituencies grappling with distress, such as Latur and Osmanabad.
Similarly, Jharkhand saw competing narratives. The JMM-Congress alliance emphasised expanded debt relief and job creation for tribals, resonating in pockets like Simdega and West Singhbhum. However, the BJP’s infrastructure projects, such as rural electrification and road networks, alongside economic initiatives like the Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojana, swayed younger and aspirational voters in urban and semi-urban constituencies, including Jamshedpur West and Giridih.
The role of the Election Commission (EC) came under scrutiny amidst these polarised elections. Critics pointed to the EC’s largely passive stance, failing to proactively address concerns like campaign violations, hate speech, and voter misinformation. This “business as usual” approach in a deeply divided electoral climate risked undermining institutional credibility. As elections grow increasingly contentious, the EC must adopt a more vigilant and proactive role, ensuring fair practices and addressing violations swiftly to maintain democratic integrity.
The 2024 elections underscored the necessity for both political adaptability and institutional accountability. While the BJP capitalised on regional and demographic disparities to consolidate its position, the EC’s silence in the face of growing polarisation highlighted an urgent need for reforms in electoral oversight.
Still, overall, each of the electoral results highlight a clear trend in favour of welfare populism driven by entitlement-centred (not empowerment) targeted-benefits yielding electoral gains, despite the Hindutva fuelled emotive sloganeering and communal rhetoric, which remains core to the BJP-RSS’s political agenda.
(Deepanshu Mohan is a Professor of Economics, Dean, IDEAS, Office of Inter-Disciplinary Studies, and Director of Centre for New Economics Studies (CNES), OP Jindal Global University. He is a Visiting Professor at the London School of Economics, and a 2024 Fall Academic Visitor to the Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, University of Oxford. Ankur Singh is a Research Assistant with the Centre for New Economics Studies, OP Jindal Global University and a team member of its InfoSphere initiative. This is an opinion article and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)