The general elections in India have already been called the most polarising and divisive ones ever. All parties are giving it their best and more to win that extra seat, knowing that their final strength in the Lok Sabha could give them a shot at power. The two big national parties have a lot to lose and gain — the Congress, which has been in office for 10 years and now looks like losing, wants to at least put up a respectable performance and the BJP, which has built up a massive campaign, is still hoping that it will get enough numbers for a credible government. Smaller, regional parties are hoping to be called to provide support to a coalition that will give them national leverage.

Opinion polls suggest that the BJP and its partners will win handsomely, but opinion polls have gone wildly wrong before. In 2004, the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance was supposed to come back into power with over 320 seats, but lost badly; the Congress, which the polls showed was going to slump to below 100, won. The seat projections (an inexact science, by the way) this time round are similar, but we will only know for sure after May 16.

Not surprisingly, the parties are sparing no effort to hit out at their rivals and the debate this time has sunk to new lows. Personal allegations and private lives are fair game and each day brings another cheap shot. Old timers, who have seen it all, are startled at the depths to which campaigning has reached.

But it is on another front that these elections are completely unique. This is the first time, in living memory, that the names of business houses are being dragged into the public domain. And not just in vague terms — serious allegations of corruption have been made against politicians and their links with big business houses. What is more, these allegations have had a tremendous impact, though we will not know whether they sway voters in any way.

In the old days, big business remained in the shadows though it was well known that industrialists and corporate houses funded almost all political parties. Indeed, without such funding, political parties would have found it difficult to meet campaign expenses. It was also assumed that there was a quid pro quo attached to such funding, by way of a much-needed license or permit during the days when the government tightly controlled the economy.

In any case, in socialistic India, businessmen were assumed to be mere profiteers, getting rich on the backs of the working class.

Attacking them, in the abstract or personally, would not have made much difference. And with everyone accepting off-the-books “donations” who would have thrown the first stone?

Over the years, things changed gradually.

Economic reforms brought businessmen in the limelight, mainly in a positive way. But in the last five years or so, the plethora of big scams, in sectors as varied as coal mining and telecom, has shown that large business houses were closely involved in subverting policy. Phone tap leaks of a lobbyist exposed the close links of businessmen and politicians (and media personalities) and hinted at efforts by corporates to plant their own pliable men in key ministries. Politicians and top executives went to jail. The public has also seen how crony capitalism has worked, wherein business houses bribed key politicians not just to get licences but also to keep their rivals out. Some businessmen have become hugely rich and powerful within just a few years.

All this was known, but it was not till Arvind Kejriwal, the maverick activist who last year floated the Aam Aadmi Party mentioned the unmentionable and linked political parties to businessmen openly. The main target of his attack was Narendra Modi, the BJP’s Prime Ministerial candidate, and Kejriwal accused him of being in close cahoots with Mukesh Ambani of Reliance and Gautam Adani, a Gujarat based businessmen who, it is said used to drive a scooter a few years ago and now presides over a multi-billion dollar industrial empire in areas such as ports where government connections matter.

Instead of beating about the bush, Kejriwal put it out there in the open, claiming that Modi was closely linked with Adani and Ambani and had given them undue favours, though it needs to be pointed out that the latter’s petroleum refinery in Gujarat was made much before Modi came into office. Nonetheless, the barb hit home and for a moment or two, rattled the BJP and Modi; it was one thing to bring up the issue of Gujarat riots, which did not bother his supporters, but quite another to talk of crony capitalism. What is more, Kejriwal travelled around Gujarat and created photo ops near run-down schools and medical centres, thus pooh-poohing the “Gujarat model of development”, the most important campaign plank of Narendra Modi. This was meant to hurt and it did, because Modi is a candidate who is being pitched on the platform of bringing back much needed growth to India. He constantly talks about the wonders that he has achieved in Gujarat, his home state, even though there is sufficient evidence to show that other states have done much better even if they don’t tom tom it. Gujarat’s human development indicators continue to be poor and Kejriwal’s contention was that Modi’s economic policies benefit only the super rich, while the poor suffer.

With Kejriwal’s direct accusation and naming of names, the cat, so to speak, was out of the bag.

Since then, even Rahul Gandhi, scion of the Congress first family, has raked up the subject and suggested Modi's close connection with Adani, which have apparently benefited the latter. The stock market, which understands these things like no one else, has been giving thumbs up to all shares associated with Adani. Modi has been reticent on the subject, even if he hits out at his rivals for every little thing. Kejriwal’s supporters claim that the attacks on him in the media intensified soon after he started linking Modi with big business — this feeds into the growing perception that big business has now taken full control of key television channels and are directing news and analysis in a way that supports their candidate.

Kejriwal has also attacked the Congress — specifically Robert Vadra, the son-in-law of Sonia Gandhi, by accusing him of buying land cheaply in states controlled by the party in cahoots with a major construction company. But while the issue made some waves, the weakened Congress is no threat to anybody so no one took it forward to its logical conclusion.

No evidence has been produced to prove any of these allegations. And it is probably unfair to confuse legitimate pro-business decisions with corruption or crony capitalism. But a doubt has been seeded in the common citizen’s mind that big business has a vice like grip in the media and on politicians and is driving the agenda. How this will impact voting is anybody’s guess. Moreover, unlike in the old days, being pro-business may probably be considered a good thing by young professionals who feel growth has slowed down under the current government. Industrialists feel that the Congress government’s laws on land acquisition and environmental clearances were too stringent and slowed down investment and expansion — they want these to go.

Many of these perceptions are challengeable by facts and figures, but the constant refrain in the media and by prominent businessmen that growth has stalled and needs to be kick-started — a theme that foreign investors too echo — has now become a mantra that is seen as the truth.

If Modi does become the Prime Minister, there is little doubt that he will take big pro-business steps, though running a government at the centre in India’s federal system is not the same as managing a state. This will make his supporters happy, but will it benefit the common citizen? Any government must consider the welfare of not just the rich few but also the many poor and the hapless middle-class. Otherwise, the allegations of close linkages between politics and business and of crony capitalism will turn out to have some truth in them.