24 hours ago, most political commentators agreed that it was too close to call, although the BJP was in pole position. If there was one certainty it was that there was no wave. There were a few notable voices, particularly towards the end that gave the election to the BJP, but very few, including those sympathetic to the party, had a sense of the magnitude of the victory. And without question, this is an absolutely stunning victory. To repeat the performance of 2014 two and a half years on, in the wake of what many saw as the failed demonetization gambit, without announcing a CM candidate, is a staggering feat.

How did such a big wave pass unnoticed? There are some who argue that this is the result of a deliberate slant of the media which makes it prone to downplaying the appeal that Mr Modi generates amongst the people. A significant section of media works hard at undermining the efforts of this government and hence are unable to see any good in its actions, the theory goes. While there is some truth in this, in this case, many among those media persons sympathetic to the government also did not see this coming. Nor did most opinion polls commissioned by channels that include those are seen to be aligned to the government.

It is likelier that the bias was implicit in the way a significant section of media frames reality and this shades what it is able to see. This is a deeper problem, for here the desire to report objectively does not necessarily translate into objective reportage. Election coverage, in particular, comes with its own grammar and vocabulary.

Electionspeak is a specialized language, and consists of an argot comprising an astonishingly large number of sub-castes spread over meant sub-regions and represented by obscure politicians. It is spoken rapidly and has the effect of numbing the listener into awed submission. Existing frameworks of caste and religious affiliations give fluency in a language without always arming it with meaning. In this case, we also had the additional variable of demonetization, which popular wisdom had it, would dampen Mr Modi’s chances. The result was a level of analysis so complex that it paralysed everyone it touched.

This problem runs deep. We see what we know. Trapped in the left/right, caste/religion frameworks, what can happen is that the less significant events get prioritized over those that actually matter more electorally. What the media gets agitated about is often at odds with what people are concerned about and the gap between the two is growing by the day. Modi’s success has a lot to do with being able to frame issues in a way that makes sense to people rather than follow constructs that come from more elevated concerns that emanate from a different vantage point. To a certain extent, this is unavoidable and even necessary, for media’s responsibility extends beyond being a megaphone for the desires of its audience. But particularly when its comes to elections, when what is at stake is what people are thinking, then the lens employed by media can come in the way of seeing things as they are.

But there is a more fundamental issue. That almost all opinion polls, including exit polls, that have been designed specifically for the purpose of predicting the outcome of elections, also got it wrong when it came to the scale of victory, suggests that predicting elections may be a project bordering on futility in the Indian context. Amongst the few Americanisms that I have found of any use is one that a veteran colleague once used- he called some questions NFOs- Not Find Out-ables. It is a useful admission of one’s inability to answer some questions. It is not the responsibility of every question to have an answer. In the case of an election, one needs to find an answer to one very specific question and extrapolate the results across an extremely diverse group of people and perhaps this just cannot be done, even with the help of science. The expectation that journalists would be able to do so, is perhaps unfair.

Of course, the minute the results were announced, we saw a flood of explanations, all ringing with certainty. Everyone knew precisely what Modi and Shah did right. It was possible to reel off all the elements in their strategy that worked. It was all quite simple, really. Given that most analysts would have got but a few hours to send off their contributions, it is a bit mystifying as to how great clarity dawned with such great speed. After all, if the previous assessment was that it was going to a close contest, then presumably it had factored in the Modi-Shah strategy, the BJP’s caste combination and all the other variables that were later used to explain its landslide victory. Had another outcome transpired, without any doubt, the same certainty would be in evidence. We have seen this at work, in an earlier election, when some media outlets called the election too early, and provided with the same air of omniscience, explanations that were diametrically opposite to the ones they had provided only a few hours earlier.

In all fairness, the job of commentators in today’s times is to provide instant analysis. Ideally, one should take some time to look at data, and arrive at a hypothesis that helps explain what happened, but the nature of the news cycle does not allow that. But perhaps the certitude could be tempered and some humility be in evidence? If we were so wrong about what was going to happen, how are we so sure why it happened? In a hurry to explain a phenomenon we don’t fully understand, do we end up avoiding developing a truly fresh understanding of what might be at work? Given the low credibility that media enjoys today, these are questions that need some thought.