The BJP’s defeats in the Pune and Nagpur graduates’ constituencies in the Maharashtra Legislative Council elections have triggered questions within the party over its connect with educated voters, internal dissent and the effectiveness of its grassroots organisation.The setbacks are particularly significant in Nagpur, the BJP’s traditional stronghold and home to Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, Union Minister Nitin Gadkari and the RSS, and Pune, a major educational hub where the party has a substantial organisational presence.The results have come amid growing discontent among youth over issues such as alleged NEET paper leaks, irregularities in Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) examinations and demands for reforms in recruitment.In Nagpur, Congress candidate Abhijeet Wanjari defeated BJP nominee Sudhakar Kohale by 3,271 votes after more than 40 hours of counting. Wanjari secured 67,231 votes against Kohale’s 63,960. In Pune, BJP candidate Smita Jadhav lost to NCP (SP)’s Harshada Deshmukh. The BJP won only the Pune teachers’ constituency among the three seats it contested.A senior BJP minister acknowledged that the party may have taken the support of graduates for granted. “We may have taken graduates’ support for granted. Since we have a strong organisational base in Nagpur and Pune, we were confident of getting their support,” the minister said, adding that the extent of discontent over candidate selection in both constituencies had been underestimated.Highly placed party sources said the results would be examined by the BJP’s core committee, which is expected to meet soon to assess the shortcomings and identify corrective measures. BJP vice-president Keshav Upadhye said the party would have to introspect to understand where it had gone wrong.Candidate selection and internal dissentIn Nagpur, the decision to field Kohale over former MLC Sole exposed divisions within the party. After being denied the ticket, Sole entered the contest as an Independent, raising the possibility of a split in the BJP’s traditional support base.Story continues below this adFadnavis subsequently met Sole, following which the former MLC announced his support for Kohale and said he would try to ensure that he received no votes. However, Sole’s name remained on the ballot because the deadline for withdrawing nominations had passed.Sole’s initial decision to contest independently was a setback for the BJP’s efforts to present a united front. He had represented the constituency from 2014 to 2020 and retained an established identity among graduates. Another party loyalist, Girish Vyas, also expressed disappointment over the candidate selection process.A senior BJP leader from Nagpur said the party should take the performance of Independent candidate Nitesh Karale seriously. Karale secured 24,249 votes, emerging as a significant factor in the contest. The NCP (SP), which had backed Wanjari, subsequently expelled him for six years for contesting independently.Kohale alleged that Karale’s candidature cost the BJP votes, claiming that more than 10,000 of the Independent candidate’s votes came from Nagpur and could otherwise have gone to the BJP. He also attributed part of the outcome to caste-based voting.Story continues below this adOn the other hand, Karale, who had participated in protests across the region and extended support to student agitations, thanked voters on social media and described himself as a kingmaker. His vote share highlighted the ability of candidates with an independent local following to influence contests even in constituencies dominated by established political parties.In Pune, the BJP faced a different problem. The decision to field Jadhav, an outsider to the party’s local graduate leadership, drew criticism from within its ranks. Questions were raised over why a party with a large cadre base could not identify an in-house candidate for the constituency.The twin defeats have renewed concerns that internal disagreements over nominations may have undermined the BJP’s ability to mobilise its traditional supporters.Campaign fell short?Beyond candidate selection, BJP leaders have questioned whether the party’s traditional door-to-door campaign was as effective as in previous elections.Story continues below this adParty members said workers in earlier campaigns would personally visit registered graduates, distribute information slips, explain the voting procedure and follow up to ensure that voters reached polling stations. Some also arranged transport for voters who needed assistance.According to party insiders, this level of engagement was less visible in the latest campaign. There were also concerns that grassroots workers had increasingly taken on leadership responsibilities instead of concentrating on voter outreach, while the RSS’s mobilisation was not as visible as it had been in previous elections.The BJP’s extensive organisational network, therefore, did not necessarily translate into effective mobilisation at the voter level.Kohale had predicted a victory margin of more than 50,000 votes before polling, citing registrations exceeding two lakh. Wanjari, by contrast, said his campaign had focused on direct engagement with graduates, students and professional organisations rather than publicising registration figures.Story continues below this ad“We never spoke to the media about our registration figures,” Wanjari said, arguing that his campaign had concentrated on graduates’ concerns, student demands and the work he had undertaken as the sitting MLC. He cited support from teachers’ and professors’ organisations, educational institution managements, workers’ groups and other associations.Wanjari also questioned whether all sections of the BJP had worked to ensure Kohale’s victory, suggesting that internal political calculations may have played a role in the outcome.Preferential votingThe counting process in Nagpur further exposed the limitations of the BJP’s initial lead. Kohale secured 60,924 first-preference votes against Wanjari’s 56,630. However, neither candidate reached the required quota of 75,438 votes, necessitating subsequent preference counts and elimination rounds.Of the 1,65,906 votes counted in the first two rounds, 15,032 were declared invalid, leaving 1,50,874 valid votes. Wanjari eventually secured 67,231 votes, defeating Kohale by 3,271.Story continues below this adKohale questioned the number of invalid ballots, saying he was surprised that so many votes cast by educated voters had been rejected. He argued that mistakes in marking second preferences had affected the outcome and maintained that he would have won by around 4,500 votes without the quota requirement and subsequent preference rounds.Wanjari, however, pointed out that preferential voting was central to the election. Voters were required to assign rankings to candidates, making the correct marking of preferences an essential part of the process.Karale’s performance added to the significance of the subsequent rounds. His substantial vote share, combined with the transfer of preferences during counting, complicated the BJP’s initial advantage. The result underscored that leading in the first-preference count does not guarantee victory under the prescribed system.Student protests a factor?The results have also revived questions about the BJP-led government’s response to the concerns of educated young people. In recent months, student protests over alleged examination irregularities, including NEET and MPSC-related issues, have drawn attention across Maharashtra.Story continues below this adFadnavis has accused the Opposition of exploiting issues affecting the younger generation to create unrest and destabilise the government. At the same time, his administration responded to protests over MPSC examinations in Pune by accepting demands, sending MPSC chairman Vivek Bhimanwar on leave and setting up a high-powered committee to examine reforms in the examination system.The contrasting developments have raised questions within political circles over whether the government’s responses have sufficiently addressed the concerns of students and graduates, particularly those seeking fair recruitment processes and greater accountability in public examinations.Alliance tensionsThe results have also exposed friction within the ruling Mahayuti alliance. BJP spokesperson Navnath Ban alleged that alliance partners, particularly the Shiv Sena led by Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde, had failed to support BJP candidates in Pune and Nagpur, while also accusing them of working against the NCP in the Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar graduates’ constituency.“The alliance partners failed to adhere to coalition dharma. This is unfortunate,” Ban said.Story continues below this adShiv Sena leader and former MLA Ravindra Dhangekar responded with a warning against taking alliance partners for granted. A Shiv Sena minister also questioned why the alliance’s coordination committee had failed to hold discussions and ensure cooperation during the Council elections.The exchange of accusations suggests that local rivalries and the absence of effective coordination may have compounded the BJP’s problems. While alliance partners may have influenced the results, the party will also have to explain why it failed to secure sufficient support in constituencies where it expected to perform strongly.Fadnavis’s faux pasThe Nagpur result also became a political embarrassment for Fadnavis after a social media post he had shared in response to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s remarks on Congress’s performance in MLC elections was deleted. The Congress subsequently used the episode to taunt the CM and warned that the results could have wider political consequences.For the BJP, the defeats in Pune and Nagpur are unlikely, by themselves, to alter Maharashtra’s broader electoral balance. But they have exposed weaknesses that the party cannot easily dismiss as the outcome of a few local contests.