 Hello and welcome to this program for NewsClick and The Wire. With me here I have an eminent political scientist, a person who is extremely knowledgeable about what's happening in the state of Karnataka. All eyes are on Karnataka and in a short while from now the outcome of the elections to the state legislative assembly will be known. Let me welcome Professor Sandeep Shastri. Thank you so much for giving us your time. You are the pro-vice-chancellor of JN University and the national convener of the Lokniti program which looks at election analysis for the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies. Professor Shastri, how significant are these elections at a national level, for both the Bharati Janta Party as well as for the Congress? Paranjay, given the type of attention that Karnataka has got both in the print and the electronic media space, it's very clear that Karnataka is being watched closely by the entire country. Now I would say for multiple reasons, the two principal contestants at the national level, the BJP and the Congress, are in what looks to be a direct face-off in Karnataka. And therefore for both these parties, Karnataka is so very critical. For the BJP, if it has to continue its winning streak after 2014, Karnataka is a critical element to, if you may, complete the circle. After all, Karnataka was the first and only state in southern India which has had a BJP government. Very true. Karnataka was their gateway to South India. And even today, Karnataka seems to be the only state among the five states where the BJP can hope to come to power on its own steam for some time. The fact that they have been in power in Karnataka earlier is both a challenge and an opportunity. There is also another point, Paranjay, which is that whenever the Congress and the BJP have been in a direct face-off since 2014 at the state level, the Congress has been consistently losing. I am going to come to this in greater detail because there is a third play. We cannot ignore the Janta Dal secular. In 2013, they got about a fifth of the vote. So, but when you just look at it from the perspective of the two national parties, the BJP and the Congress, and in the run-up to the next general elections which are scheduled to take place in April, May 2019, Karnataka becomes extremely important. Yes, because as you said, if BJP were to win Karnataka, it builds up the momentum for them in the three states where they have been in power for a long time, especially Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh and also Rajasthan. So, it builds up the momentum for the party in those three states and also for next year's Lok Sabha election. So, for the BJP, winning Karnataka is critical to maintain that momentum going forward and in preparation for next year's Lok Sabha election. And so, in that sense, it's a semi-final. And for the Congress, after having become weaker than it has ever been, India's grand old party in 2014, and Narendra Modi, Prime Minister Narendra Modi's claims that he wants a Congress-moved Bharat, Karnataka becomes so important. So, very true. This is the only big state they are in power, the other two-and-a-half states being Punjab, Mizoram and Puducherry. So, if the Congress were to lose Karnataka, the BJP dream of a Congress-moved Bharat no longer remains rhetoric but becomes much more of a reality. Also, Paranjaya, winning Karnataka for the Congress would put a stop to this continuous losing streak. It implies the Congress has not been able to win back or retain a state they were in power since 2014. And this, in a sense, reverses that process. And I think also, winning Karnataka is important for the Congress to claim that legitimacy of space to lead the anti-BJP coalition. Correct. So, if you lose Karnataka, you have no claim to that space and you will have to forfeit that space to somebody. Being the single biggest opposition party in the country. Now, what is truly unique about Karnataka? It is said that there are conflicting trends. Though in 2013, the Congress did get 122 out of 224 seats in the Vidhan Saudha, if you look at the last three decades, especially since 1983, no ruling party in Karnataka has won a majority in the state legislative assembly. At the same time, we also see that typically, Karnataka has voted in a manner which is against the so-called national trend. So, Karnataka has historically, at least in the recent past, the assembly has been led by a party which is not in power in New Delhi. So, in this sense, we see two apparently conflicting trends. You are perfectly right. Last 32 years, since 1985, a ruling party has not been voted back in Karnataka. There may be a debate about 2004 when no party got a majority and the BJP emerged as the single largest party. And the Congress formed the government in coalition with the JDS. But I would argue that 2004, Congress lost the election, though it formed the government with the JDS. So, every election, the ruling party has been voted out. And the second trend you talk about is equally interesting, which actually predates the first trend we talked about. The second trend has been in visible existence in Karnataka for the last 35 years. That is, Karnataka votes in a state assembly election very differently from a national election. Right from 83, you look at every state assembly election. 83, 85, 89, 94, 99, 10000. Correct me if I am wrong, even earlier. I mean, for instance, the emergency, after the emergency in 77, when the Congress party got voted out of most parts of India, the southern part of India including Karnataka. So, some would argue that one of these two trends are likely to be sidetracked with this election. If the BJP were to do well and get a majority, this trend about not aligning with the party in power at the national level would get defeated. If the Congress were to retain power, the fact that a ruling party comes back to power, one of these two are likely to be negated is what a lot of people argue. This is the big question and, you know, the EVM machines have been sealed. We've had the biggest ever voter turnout about 72% or a little more than 72%. So, this is really the question, which of these two trends are likely to prevail? So, as a political scientist, what is your hunch? I mean, you would be either proved right or wrong very soon. I have, at this point of time, I would go against what a lot of people are saying that Karnataka will have an assembly without a majority for any one party. I would believe that's not likely to happen and I'll tell you why. I would believe that either the Congress or the BJP would either be close to the majority mark plus 5 minus 5. I'm convinced that either the BJP or the Congress would score a century. So, I mean, the halfway mark is 112. 112 is the half mark now. Because the two seats are countermandered. So, plus 5 minus 5 is what I'm looking at. Why do I say that the state is not likely to have a house with no clear majority? We have had such a situation twice in the past, 1983 and 2004. And both these elections, I would argue, were elections of transition. 1983, we were transitioning from a one-party dominant system to a competitive party system. Congress had been continuously in power. So, in 1983, people voted out the Congress but did not vote in somebody. They gave Janta Party the largest number of seats. But it required one more election for that competition to be Congress versus Janta Party. 2004 was the second transition where the two main parties in the competition changed. It was Congress versus Janta Dal till then. And then it became the BJP. Congress versus BJP. So, that was the second transition. So, I'm not too sure that we have any third transition happening this time. What one minute there? I'll interrupt you here. The Janta Dal secular led by former Prime Minister H.G. Debigauda and his son, the former Chief Minister H.G. Kumar Swamy, in 2013 got a little over one-fifth of the vote, 20.2%, roughly 40 seats in the assembly. There is a view, a widely prevalent view, that Kumar Swamy and Mr. Debigauda would be the king-maker. That if it's a close contest, then the seats that would be obtained by the JDS would make the difference to either party. And the next part of that analysis, or the speculation if you like, is that since the BJP is in power, has been in power for the last four years, and it seems to be better endowed at present than the Congress, the chances are advantage, BJP. Now, undoubtedly the Janta Dal sees itself as a king-maker. Of course, officially they say we are not the king-maker, but we are the king. But realistically, I think more of a king-maker, and their hope is no party gets a majority on its own, and it is inevitable that one of the two approach them to be able to form the government. And now, I would look at both scenarios. If the Congress emerges as the single largest party, the BJP would be very keen to tie up with the Janta Dal simply to prevent the Congress from coming to power. Allah, Meghalaya, Goa, Manipur, very much similar to that situation. Where a similar situation, and in the last moment, the BJP swung. Manages to ensure that the Congress, because the larger battle is between the Congress and the BJP. If the BJP were to emerge as the single largest party, I think they would be happy to discuss the coalition with the Janta Dal. The only thing is they will be on a stronger wicket and not concede the chief ministership to the Janta Dal. That's an important point, because either way, assuming, if we say hypothetically if this is the situation, either if the Congress is the single largest party or the BJP is the single largest party, the two chief ministerial candidates, Mr. Siddharamai on one side and Mr. Yadu Rappan on the other side, would perhaps tend to get marginalised because in the deal making, in the bargaining, Mr. Kumaraswamy would at least claim the post of chief minister. You are perfectly right that if either the BJP or the Congress do not touch a century and either of them are bidding to come to power, their current chief ministerial candidates will have to be put on the back burner beyond a shadow of doubt. For a slightly different reason than what you say. If it were to be the BJP, the relationship between Mr. Yadu Rappan and the Janta Dal has been off late, very, very tense partly because of the past experience. So if there were to be a tie up between the BJP and Janta Dal, I think one of the conditions Janta Dal would put is Mr. Yadu Rappan is not among the options to lead the government. But you can equally argue that since Mr. Siddharamai once upon a time was a member of the JDS, I mean he, Mr. Kumaraswamy would say his ditched means are ready. If we are talking of a Congress JDS alliance, the first issue on the table would be Mr. Siddharamai not be considered and some would argue that the statement that the chief minister made yesterday, that I am quite okay with the party choosing a Dalit candidate as chief minister, is linked to this possible development because as you rightly said if you are talking of a Congress JDS alliance, the JDS would have nothing to do with Mr. Siddharamai given his past association with the party. And in that situation we are talking of a Dalit leader, people are talking of Malikarjun Kharge, people are talking of Parameshwar, both of whom have reasonably good equations with the Janta the leaders. Don't rule out somebody like an SM Krishna, like Mr. D. K. Shukumar also playing a role. So there are several players who could play a role. Let me add another point here. Some would argue that of course it depends on the seat numbers. Some would even argue the Janta Dal patriarch may be very happy to concede the chief ministership to the BJP or Congress depending on who is in front. Because then it gives him an opportunity to make his elder son who has never had deputy chief ministership or chief ministership to make him the deputy chief minister. You are talking about Mr. Revanna. It gives him a chance to make Revanna the deputy chief minister either in a Congress led or a BJP led. So the possibilities are many and we can speculate but we don't need to because in a short while from now the outcome would be known. But your hunches, your instinct says that there is a distinct possibility that we won't have this kind of a situation. For several reasons. One, I think the fact of a high voter turnout. He implies it's a record turnout. It's a record turnout of the state. He implies for me that there has been very strong mobilization by the parties and a very strong assertion by the voter that she wants to make a point with regard to who should be coming to power. So I think a high voter turnout depending on the areas we are talking about would benefit the key players in this contest. And it gives me even greater confidence that a particular party, Congress or BJP would emerge. You are the national convener of the Lokniti program of CSDS and you've studied the voting patterns, voting trends across the country. What does a high voter turnout indicate? Now there are different views. I mean one view says that you can't make a claim either way that it's going to either favor the incumbent regime or it's an anti-incumbency vote. With specific reference to Karnataka, what does this record voter turnout in excess of 72%, last assembly elections it was close to, it was around 70%. What are the implications? Paranjay, to the best of my knowledge there is no empirical proof to demonstrate that a high voter turnout either favors the incumbent or favors the challenger. However, I will add three points which I think would be important pointers to this direction. One, Karnataka's battle is essentially in the regions, in the six regions of the state. Analysis of the higher voter turnout by region could give you an indication as to who is possibly going to benefit from this. Some people have argued that there has been a significantly high voter turnout in Mumbai-Karnataka. I'm sorry, there has been a lower turnout in Mumbai-Karnataka and a higher turnout in coastal-Karnataka, Hyderabad-Karnataka and in the Bangalore region and Central-Karnataka. So that has important implications. Would you like to expand, elaborate on this? As you say, there are broadly six regions in Karnataka. In the northern part you have the Hyderabad-Karnataka, the Mumbai-Karnataka, then you have the coastal-Karnataka, then the central part. In the southern part you can say the old Mysuru and the Greater Bangalore region and the rest of Southern-Karnataka. What are the likely, I mean how different are these five or six regions in the state? Point number one, the Congress has a spread across these regions. The Congress support base, vote base is across these regions. On the other hand, historically the BJP support base has been limited to four of these regions, five of these regions I would say. Hyderabad-Karnataka, Mumbai-Karnataka, Central-Karnataka, Coastal-Karnataka and the Bangalore region. The BJP is not much of a force in Southern-Karnataka. On the other hand, the Janta Dal is largely a force in Southern-Karnataka and in Bangalore region. You referred to the Janta Dal winning 40 seats last time. In fact 32 of those seats have been in Southern-Karnataka and in the Bangalore region. So there is a clear variation across regions. In fact, I draw your attention to the first May speech of the Prime Minister where most of us were taken aback when the Prime Minister praised Mr. Devagoda in his speech. Now, a deeper analysis would show that here is the reason. Firstly, he wanted to prove to Mr. Siddharamaya that you are not the real Karnataka because Siddharamaya had raised this Karnataka versus non-Karnataka issue. That you are not the son of the soil, the real son of the soil, all those issues. That you are not the real inheritor of the Karnataka identity but it is Devagoda. But more importantly, was this a message of the Prime Minister to the BJP supporters in Southern-Karnataka where the fight was between the Congress and the BJP, between the Congress and the Janta Dal. Transfer your vote to the Janta Dal. If you think that in a specific assembly constituency, the contest is really between Congress and JDS, he is indirectly appealing to the BJP voter to go with the Janta Dal. And also the fact that they have different support bases and there are very few states where they both, that is the BJP and JDS are in direct competition. Now, that also explains why, of course, two days later he retracted that in his next round of speeches. The larger point I'm trying to make is in these six regions of Karnataka, the type of competition is very different. And just one more point on this question of voter turnout. I would say the more important point with regard to voter turnout is who among the voters have come out in larger numbers. If it's likely to be the poor. Inevitably sir, almost inevitably there is a poor who come out to vote in larger numbers than the rich or the middle class. Something which would definitely benefit the Congress party because study after study has shown that the people who are economically marginalized in Karnataka tend to favor the Congress party more and it's even more. Nothing to do with the incumbency factor. And it's even more in this election simply because the various welfare schemes which the Congress party started. The five rupees a meal, ten rupees a meal. The various Bhagya schemes now. That is something which a lot of people believe has touched the poorer sections of the society. And therefore a higher voter turnout among those sections is beneficial for the Congress. The other is if you have a higher turnout among middle class and the more affluent voters, that would be something that would benefit the BJP. And again the record of Bengaluru city shows that voter turnout has not significantly increased in Bengaluru city. It is more in the rural areas. And as luck would have it you had an election on a second Saturday and on Friday evening you had long views of people in the airport deciding to leave the city. So that's one important indicator with regard to who could have benefited from a higher voter turnout. Let me look a little bit at the caste equations. Again often it is argued that the two dominant castes, the Lingayats accounting for roughly 17% of the population and the Okalikas accounting for roughly 15% of the population. They are considered to be the politically more influential castes. That in a sense their views tend to influence the political or politics in Karnataka. So if you look at caste equations and in the context of the Siddharamaya government, the minority status for Lingayats, which the BJP and the RSS they have a different point of view because they say the Lingayats are part of the Hindu community. How do you see the caste factor playing out? How do you think the caste factor has played out in these elections? From 1956 onwards Paranjay, the Lingayats and the Okalikas taken together account for more than half the MLAs of Karnataka. Every assembly election. Though they account for roughly one third of the population. That's the other debatable point. There has been no officially released caste census that was done during British days and we are extrapolating from those days and coming to 17 and 15%. The Siddharamaya government actually conducted a caste census which was incomplete and it was not released because of the controversy it would generate. But the leaked caste census shows actually that the Lingayat and the Okalika community as per that census was around 9 and 8% of the population in reality. That means a shrunk compared to the... It's actually 17% taken together and the scheduled caste, of course that's a government category. You need to look at each caste separately but all of them taken together was actually around 22% of the population. But then going back to your main point. The Lingayat community which is largely dominant in Northern Karnataka, Mumbai Karnataka and Hyderabad Karnataka regions and Central Karnataka to an extent. The Lingayat community has been the backbone of the BJP support. Every election last 15 years saved the 2008 election. I'm saying saved the 2013 election. The BJP has been getting the bulk of the Lingayat votes. Partly because they have a Lingayat face as their chief minister. Mr. Yadirappa? Mr. Yadirappa and partly because the Congress has never been forgiven by that community for having very, very unceremoniously removed the last Lingayat to be chief minister under the Congress Mr. Veerendra Patil. In 1990 Rajiv Gandhi just announced Karnataka will have a new chief minister. For the last 38 years really nothing has been done by the party. 28 years. Nothing has been done by the party to remedy that situation. Now towards the end of his government, Siddharamaya announced that we would accord minority status, religion status to the Lingayat community. Now the hope was that this would drive a wedge in that monolith support that the Lingayat community has given the BJP and at least a part of it would move towards the Congress. Now surveys seem to indicate that this has not happened. Surveys seem to indicate that the community still seems to be strongly behind the BJP. But if indeed their numbers are not as large as is presumed, the question would arise is what kind of influence the Lingayat community would have on other sections of vote as those belonging to other castes? While numerically there may be a debate on how much they constitute, in terms of candidates they are a critical number in both the Congress and the BJP. And in terms of influence in their constituencies, I think they do play an important role. However, I must also add this point, the Congress move to give this minority status to the Lingayat community has resulted possibly in a backlash among the Vokaligas who say that while you have done something for one dominant cast, you have not really done anything for us and the backlash of that some people feel was felt in the old Mysore region, Bangalore and southern Karnataka where there is a Vokaliga consolidation. That's correct. And especially because Mr. Devigawda and Mr. Kumar Swamy belong to that community. However, I must add another point. This dominant caste consolidation towards the BJP and the Janata Dal has worked in another way which is the non-dominant backward castes who are numerically quite large in number. Such as? The Kurubas, the ED guys. Which Mr. Siddharamaya belongs to. The Kurubas is the community to which Mr. Siddharamaya belongs. They have strongly consolidated in favor of the Congress. So you have this social... So if you look at the big picture of the state, how would you summarize the way the caste equations could play out? The BJP seems to be the party preferred by the Lingayats and the upper caste in large numbers. The Janata Dal seems to continue to be the party which is supported by a majority of the Vokaligas. Whereas the Congress seems to have consolidated its presence among the non-dominant OBCs, among the Muslims, among the Dalits and among the Tribals. And I will emphasize the last three a little more. There was a belief that the Muslim vote could get split between the Janata Dal and the Congress. Data shows this may actually not have happened partly because of the belief that the Janata Dal and the BJP are in a tacit understanding. And this led many would believe in Southern Karnataka to gravitate towards the Congress party. No, on this point, it is, correct me once again if I'm wrong, it is presumed that the coastal Karnataka, the coastal region of Karnataka is arguably where the communal divide has been very evident and intense or has intensified in the recent past. We've heard about the activities of groups like the Sri Ram Sena. We know about, again, internet sign fights when Baligarh who is supposed to be close to Mr. Yadu Rappa, he exposes what is supposed to be corruption in the temple trusts and then he is attacked by Nareesh Shanoi, who is the founder of the Naam Obligate. So, I mean, again, two questions. How united is the so-called Hindu consolidation? Is it working on the ground? Is it working especially in coastal Karnataka? And you could perhaps analyze what's happening in other parts of the state. As you rightly said, I would do it in two different ways, looking at coastal Karnataka separately in the rest of the state on the question of Hindu consolidation. Coastal Karnataka has historically seen this consolidation not just in this election, but it's been happening for quite some time now. Given the strong presence of minority communities in coastal Karnataka, especially the Muslims and the Christians and also the economic power that they have started to wield, what the BJP has been to a certain extent successful in doing in coastal Karnataka is ensuring a majority community mobilization in the coastal region. So if you drive across the coastal region, you will very clearly see the polarization that has happened on very strong religious lines, very clearly on religious lines. And that's the reason a lot of people would believe that the BJP is likely to do well in the coastal region because of this polarization that is achieved. There is another factor, coastal Karnataka has always seen with every election a switch from the Congress to the BJP and BJP to the Congress. And last time the Congress did very well in the coastal region. So people believe both these factors are operating. Across the state, I would say that this mobilization on religious lines has not been as intense as you notice in the coastal region. Again, the last survey which the CSD as Lokniti did, which was in the first week of May. Now that survey shows... First week of May of... This year. I mean, we did a pre-poll just 10 days ago. That poll shows that the Hindu vote, if you may, the Hindu vote is more or less equally divided between the Congress and the BJP. The belief for... So that means the consolidation may not have been... It has not really happened as much as people thought it would happen outside the coastal belt. Within the coastal belt, yes, that consolidation has been very intense. But outside the coastal belt, it has not worked so much. Simply because I believe other factors are in play that the social coalitions that are in place are in play. And that may have impacted on religious polarization not being the only factor which defines and decides the direction that voters go. Okay. My last set of questions to you, and this is regarding the issue of corruption. And specifically, when we look at the illegal minors, Gali Janadhan Reddy, he's himself not contesting, but his associates, his family members are contesting. I remember when I interviewed you, when I was making a documentary film almost eight years ago, and you talked about how the Reddy brothers, their sort of relationship with the Bharti Janta Party and the RSS. And you compared them to a family where there are two sisters in law. One sister, one wife has come from a rich family, and another sister is from the same community. So she's accepted because she is a wife, but she's been there because of her money. But there is a subtle or sometimes not so subtle sort of differentiation between the two wives, or wives of the two brothers. I found this a very interesting analogy. But today all these, it's no longer nuanced anymore. It's no longer subtle anymore. The same set of people who were accused of corruption by among others, the then Lok Ayukta, just Santosh Ekbe, and it's all documented in writing how the family members of Mr. Yadurappa benefited. I mean, it's all there in black and white. But they say, where's the case against us? Kalijanathan Reddy spent about three years in jail. Mr. Yadurappa, three weeks in jail, a little more. And then after that, he breaks away from the party, now he's back. So I want you to analyze for me the relationship between the Bharti Janta Party in Delhi. Remember the famous picture where you show Sushma Swaraj with her hands on the two. And then later on, Sushma Swaraj says, I've not got a single paisa from them. How do you analyze the impact of the BJP embracing the Kalijanathan Reddy and the miners, the so-called dirty miners of Balarri? Paranjai, as elections approach, this very esoteric term, winnability. And nobody has really defined what are the contours of this winnability. Now, winnability becomes the issue. And I think the way in which the Reddy brothers have made a return to mainstream politics, I think is a reflection of that. But I must add another point. I would say both the Congress and the BJP are guilty of having given nominations to people whose records on the mining issue itself have not been cleaned. The large family was always with the Congress. But Anand Singh, who was an MLA belonging to the BJP, has now moved Congress. But you could argue that the people who were supposed to be spearheading the illegal mining scam, they are today very much with the BJP. Not just Suman Sagar Reddy, Sheeramulu. What is grabbing public attention is the fact that at the national level, the BJP has launched this very strong campaign of fighting corruption, of not defending those who have violated the law. And even in 2014, when you had the Lok Sabha elections, the Reddy brothers were kept out of the whole picture. Prime Minister Modi's famous statement, So, but then the state unit of the BJP chief minister candidate has clearly said that the Reddy brothers are important in winning 10 to 12 seats. And therefore in a close election, this becomes important. So, at one stage the BJP tried to maintain this distance, that the state unit of the party wants these brothers in, but we don't want them anywhere close. The party president has consistently maintained that Janardhan Reddy is not officially anywhere on the podium of the BJP. He cancelled a rally in Bellary for that reason. But interestingly, when the Prime Minister's rally was held in Bellary, the cousins were all in the stage because they were contestant. So, I don't know if this is a price that the BJP thought has to be paid in that desperate bid to be able to win a state. Now, I think tomorrow we'll get to know whether it's actually worked because there is also this view that to win a few seats, which ultimately you may not also win, have you sacrificed something, have you sacrificed that moral edge across the state and across the country? Correct. So, that's an important question. And if you look at this debate anywhere, whenever the BJP is asked what is this you have done, they will never answer that question. But they will say, look, the Congress has also fielded these such people. And also the CBI, the Central Bureau of Investigation, you know, just giving them a clean sheet in some cases or just not going ahead with the investigation of these cases. What appears to be rather frenzy grounds? I hope the sagacity of the Karnataka voter, who at the end of the day can actually put a stop to this, would clearly send a message in this election saying, irrespective of party, if somebody does not have a clean image, we are not going to elect them. We are not going to support them. That will be a very strong message to every political party that next time you put up a candidate, be careful on this fact because at the end of the day, the voter does not take kindly decision. You know, once again, we have conflicting views. You recall in the mid-80s and the late-80s, people said, oh, Bofors won't matter for Rajiv Gandhi. But today on hindsight, we say, no, the impact of Bofors on Rajiv Gandhi, he was the youngest ever prime minister. His rise was as spectacular as his decline. So this whole issue of corruption, whether it matters at all to ordinary voters, especially poor voters, poor people. In fact, there are two conflicting trends which are coming up. When we asked in our survey whether the Siddharah Maya government has done enough to check corruption or has corruption increased or decreased or remained the same during Congress rule, people said actually that the corruption has increased. On the other hand, there is nothing to do with his watch. But then the same people when asked which is the most corrupt party in Karnataka, Congress BJP or Janta Dal, they actually pointed out to the BJP. So the people do feel that the corruption record of the BJP has not been very clean, has not been very something positive. And they also believe that the Siddharah Maya government has not done enough to be able to check corruption in the state. So both get very poor marks on this critical issue. Okay, so if I have to summarize your views and if you sort of tie up all the, you know, sort of connect all the dots and tie up all the loose ends, we just have a little while to wait before we know the outcome. You would say your view is that it's slight advantage to the Congress, is it? It's a slight advantage to the Congress. One of the two is definitely going to be in triple digits. It looks to be either the Congress or the BJP. The Congress seems to be having a nose ahead. However, the last week of campaign where you saw the Prime Minister really No, don't stop. Increasing the rallies that he had and all that, whether that actually has impacted on the voter, whether that has been translated by the party carders on the ground will be the critical question. And if that has happened, I would not be surprised if the BJP actually moves ahead of this. Like a good analyst and a good scholar, you are hedging your bets a little bit. But thank you so much. I think I would, I respect the sagacity of the Karnataka voter who I think at the end of the day would give a verdict which would provide for that stability in the state for five years. Which of the two parties the voter feels, I think, I would bow my head down to the wisdom of the voter in that regard. Okay, thank you so much for giving us your time and for this very, very lucid analysis. And we just have a short while to wait before the outcome of elections would be noted. You just heard and watched eminent political scientist, Professor Sandeep Shastri explaining the various factors that could influence the outcome of the legislative assembly elections in Karnataka. You just have a short while to wait before you know the final outcome. Thank you for being with us.