The Palakkad bypoll result came as a shock for BJP leaders and party workers. The party not only lost to the Congress but also saw a significant decline in votes in the constituency on which it had pinned high hopes.
Party insiders and political analysts point to multiple factors that contributed to the party’s setback, particularly in the Palakkad municipality where it enjoyed an upper hand in previous elections.
Campaign that lacked direction
Party workers and leaders believe that the NDA failed to execute even a basic campaign plan in Palakkad. They argue that the party neither presented a clear narrative nor maintained focus throughout the campaign. According to their assessment, despite claiming to uphold decent politics, the NDA in Palakkad merely followed the controversies and narratives set by the UDF and LDF. Comparing this to the stronger electoral performance in the Chelakkara constituency, they suggest that the BJP could have performed better in Palakkad had it avoided unnecessary claims and controversies, particularly those stirred by the LDF.
They also criticise the lack of grassroots-level campaigning, which they claim was almost non-existent. Substantiating these claims, a local BJP leader from Moothanthara, Palakkad, who did not want to be named, said, “Unlike previous elections, there was no visible ground-level campaigning this time. During the last election, many party workers came here to support E Sreedharan’s campaign. However, this time, even those assigned campaign duties were absent, citing personal reasons or other excuses.” Although the party leadership claimed to have made all necessary arrangements, energetic campaigning was missing, the leader added. Sources further revealed that the campaign committee was largely inactive, with most decisions being made unilaterally by the state leadership.
The ‘perennial’ candidate
Despite being a familiar figure to both party workers across the constituency, a sense of monotony worked against NDA candidate C Krishnakumar in Palakkad. Although a committed party man and fully qualified for the role, even party workers were hoping for a different candidate this time. Addressing this sentiment, a Yuva Morcha activist from Vadakkanthara, Palakkad, said on condition of anonymity, “During house visits, some voters asked us, ‘Is he the only leader you have in Palakkad?’ At times, we could not respond because we didn’t have an answer.” The acceptance of the candidate became a significant challenge, even in traditional strongholds, he added. Meanwhile, insiders confirmed that the fresh face of the UDF candidate and his charisma gave a considerable advantage to the UDF side.
Absence of local ‘stars’
Party workers and the district leadership unanimously claimed that the absence of prominent local campaigners negatively impacted the BJP during the campaign. They believe the leadership failed to effectively utilise leaders like Suresh Gopi, V Muraleedharan, Rajeev Chandrasekhar and Padmaja Venugopal, instead relying on national leaders and inflated campaign figures.
“Even in constituencies with slim chances of victory, like Puthuppally, the party deployed leaders such as Sandeep Vachaspati, S Suresh and Sandeep Varier to engage in booth-level campaigns and secure every vote. But in Palakkad, apart from a few leaders from K Surendran’s faction, there was hardly any active campaign presence. Why couldn’t they properly utilise leaders like Suresh Gopi and Padmaja Venugopal in the campaign?” a senior BJP leader questioned.
The senior leader also criticized the state leadership under K Surendran for failing to build strong connections with organisations such as the Brahmana Sabha and various Hindu groups. He noted that the absence of senior leaders like Kummanam Rajasekharan and C K Padmanabhan—who have a strong rapport with these organisations and party workers—contributed to the decline in votes.
Anti-incumbency in Palakkad Municipality
BJP workers and supporters strongly believe that anti-incumbency against the BJP-led Palakkad Municipality contributed to the party’s declining votes in its strongholds. Many party workers admitted that several projects and policies implemented by the municipality failed to reach the people or register any progress.
“The municipal councillors faced severe criticism and tough questions in some of our stronghold areas. As a result, a few councillors opted to stay away from the campaign,” said a BJP supporter from Vadakkanthara, speaking anonymously. He also revealed that around 120 votes in his booth, a traditional RSS stronghold, were cast in favour of the UDF candidate.
A host of other factors
Beyond the obvious reasons, BJP workers and insiders believe that several other factors contributed to the party’s poor performance in the Palakkad by-poll. Many pointed fingers at the state leadership, particularly BJP state president K Surendran, accusing him of a monotonous and ineffective approach that backfired. They alleged that the state leadership sidelined district leaders during the campaign but later shifted the blame onto them for the defeat.
Insiders also observed that neither upper-caste Hindu votes nor minority votes consolidated in favour of the BJP due to the party’s failure to present a compelling political narrative. They believe these votes, instead, flowed en masse to the UDF. Additionally, ego clashes among leaders and unnecessary criticism of media houses further hurt the NDA’s prospects in Palakkad.
However, they unanimously dismissed the notion that Sandeep Varier’s resignation from the BJP significantly impacted the vote decline. On the contrary, they credited the RSS for averting a worse outcome through timely interventions to secure votes after Varier’s departure.