Six BIG drivers of my vote

1. Indian Democracy:
The Gandhian(rather Nehru, or actually Khan, ok, I don't know) dynasty that runs in the congress is blatant, in-the-face mockery to whole concept of democracy. All the later generations of Nehru(Indira, Rajiv, Sanjay, Sonia, Rahul) have reaped the benefit of family name without having any actual potential of their own. They didn't rise from party heirarchy but they were/are gifted with highest of ranks in party just because they have their family name. On top of that, Gandhi name is sold like a brand in India, making educational institutions, government policies, government schemes on Gandhis' names. The choice will be ours to decide if we want a rule of democratic party in democratic India or a rule of royalty in democratic India. At least I won't encourage any dominance of autocracy over democracy.
Case of Gandhi Nomenclature


2. Political Interference in Indian state:
Election Commission and President are two unbiased institutions of Indian state. If these are politicized, I wonder, in what manner Indian state could be called a free democracy or why cant Indian republic is not a failed one.
The case of Chawla/EC and election of president, politicized by UPA, points nothing but an institutionalized interference of congress in Indian state.
Even though BJP continuously campaigned against Pratibha Patil, UPA went ahead with making Pratibha Patil, the president of India, more so when her credentials were in a fair doubt.
Even after Shah Commission declared Chawla “unfit to hold any public office which demands an attitude of fair play and consideration for others”, the UPA let him continue the most unbiased(should be), critical-for-democracy office.
On the other hand, there is NDA(so called pro-Hindu) nominated a scientist, think-tank, muslim Abdul Kalam as president.
Credentials of Pratibha Patil
Chawla Must Go


3. Economic Front:
Not diluting the phenomenal change in Indian economics brought by Manmohan Singh during Narsimha's government, I have no hesitance to say that it was only congress's pro-communism (allying with socialism in Nehruvian regime) that delayed this much-needed revolution. Lets not awake the dead from grave, but current UPA has done no better job in economic front. Sometimes I wonder if P Chidambram and Manmohan Singh are really worthy of being called competitve economist or is that just an myth created by media. UPA always has been high on its pro-poor governance but when there was chance of fiscal consolidation the UPA missed the mark. And let me tell you that fiscal consolidation is not a small issue. It is the basic reason why India could not fight with current recession effectively and the basic reason of inflation at these times even when crude oil has dropped in to the well from a high ceiling. P Chidambram has his own view of economic policies, and he himself agrees that fiscal deficit actually reduced in NDA's regime. In 2004 elections NDA has fiscal consolidation as its major economic agenda which UPA completely overlooked for sake of minority appeasement.
On top of that again minority appeasement has always been bugging the UPA economic policies in form of expensive useless schemes like 'farm loan waiver'.
Another point to consider here is that BJP has always been pro-development and there are people like Arun Shourie in BJP who have a concrete economic policy for India.
Tough times ahead UPA
India's Need for Fiscal Consolidation
An analysis on PC's deliriums

4. Communalism/Minority Appeasement:
BJP is often looked as a communal party. The reson for that in my view is our minority-biased media. I dont deny BJP is communal but other parties including congress are no less communal than BJP is. Congress is communal in favor of minorities. Take for example, to appease Muslims UPA removed POTA but then again was compelled to bring back POTA(in form of NSA) after Mumbai-attacks. In my view, as much BJP has been communal in favor of Hindus, congress has come communal agianst Hindus. In both of these fights, minorities dont get any benefit except for a false belief of appeasement. If Babri Masjid or Godhra can be counted as BJP communism then 1984-Sikh-riots and Nandigram are congress/left given communism. There is another point to consider here that in India almost every party has a coomunity base. Whether its Akali Dal(Sikh community), BSP(Dalit community), Shiv Sena(Mahrashtra community), BJP(Hindu community), congress(every kind of minority), the political base that these parties have made has been because of appeasement each give to their targetted group. There is absolutely no party who considers India as whole.
In this case I dont conisder any party better than the other.

5. Security and Foreign Policy:
If NDA had been succesful in Kargil War anf Pokhran tests, then UPA also has success of Nuclear Deal and handling of Mumbai Attacks in its pocket. UPA handled Pakistan (post Mumbai) very well through dipomatic pressure and was not provoked into direct confrontation on border. I believe I will have to go with equal points to both NDA and UPA in this criteria.

6. Coalition Corruption:
As I had explained the dilemma of diversity and corruption, UPA has been a fortress of corruption cases in its last tenure. For the forthcoming elections UPA has already seen disappointment from its allies only because allies like Lalu and Mulayam see a better opportunity of negotiating in post-poll-alliance than pre-poll-alliance. In this regard they even dream of becoming prime-minsters. And with UP being the the fort of Indian politics, (to me) there seems to be no chance of UPA coming to majority in its present form, which will only ensure that it will have to succumb to post-poll alliances. If conditions in coalition itself are so aggravated, one can imagine the corruption that will erupt during the tenure. And there will be great deal of chances of disagreement in these parties (kind of congress-left divergence on nuclear deal) the price of which will have to paid by Indian people only.
NDA is not entirely devoid of corruption, but the gap is wide between UPA and NDA.

In nutshell: I view all the political parties in current state are noncompetitive to run a government in India. But we have to accept the fact that for the sake of India we have to make a choice out of these given parties. In my view NDA is relatively better option than others and I would have voted for NDA(if I could have). You should, too, make your choice without bias, on basis what is good for India (not what is good for my community).

Note: I have not considered possibility of third front. The reason being, in my view practically third front as an electoral victory is not viable. Even if third front comes into existence and wins, even then I reject it as an option on the basis that a fragmented(ideological point of view) coalition can not deliver at national level on any(economic, plitical, social) issue. Secondly, any involvement of left is not acceptable to me. I consider left(or any communist ideology) a threat to any kind of progress(I am using word 'progress' not 'development'. Left is anti-development is easily understandble, though.)