The role of politics in empowering castes is undeniable, but all SCs or OBCs are not a homogeneous group - and elections are increasingly about development.
Professor of Sociology, Jawaharlal Nehru University
‘In 2007, Mayawati won extensively in OBC strongholds and lost in some SC ones — those who voted for her were actually voting someone else out’
What the 2009 elections have made very apparent is that calculations based on caste do not count when it comes to voters. This was hidden from public view from 1990 till the end of the last century because the OBC movement — led by Lalu Prasad, Mulayam Singh Yadav and Ram Vilas Paswan, among others — gained strength and gave the casual observer the impression that it was caste that mattered above all for voters.
What people overlooked was the fact that the OBCs are not a homogeneous group internally, nor are the castes that loosely comprise the OBC category congenial to one another. This point needs to be kept in mind for all too often it is believed that Gujjars and Jats or Dhanuks and Kurmis are natural caste allies. In fact, if one were to go to west Uttar Pradesh, Jats and Gujjars will not even share a hookah together.
Additionally, in no Assembly constituency, let alone a parliamentary one, is there one caste, or even two castes, which can singly or jointly, determine the electoral outcome on the basis of their numbers alone. Any constituency that is of an Assembly size will have around 13-14 castes within it, and the size of each caste group is roughly equal. In Bihar, for example, at the best of times, the Yadavs do not exceed 20 per cent of the voters in Madhepura. In other areas traditionally seen as Yadav strongholds, their strength will not be more than 12-13 per cent. Western Uttar Pradesh too has a small number of Jats, not exceeding 8 per cent but the whole area is popularly believed to be the lair of Jat lions.
The reason why it looked as if the Yadavs controlled eastern Uttar Pradesh and Bihar and the Jats western Uttar Pradesh was that they were the best-endowed in their respective regions: They were the most-literate, were best-networked, had influential connections in the bureaucracy and in politics, and many among them were running police chowkis and village schools. This is what compelled other communities and castes that were not in the same social bracket to depend on Jats or Yadavs, as the case may be.
Also Read
A large number of the so-called backward castes are still desperately poor and their lifestyle is no better than that of the indigent Schedule Castes (SC). They are not even thinking of getting comfortable jobs in the private sector or admission into prestigious educational institutions. If they seek employment outside agriculture, and most of them do, they would be happy to get one which pays by the month and not by the hour. They realise that for this to happen they need better schools for their children. Which is why, when Mulayam Singh Yadav and Lalu Prasad failed to deliver, these castes turned around and voted for Mayawati in UP and Nitish Kumar in Bihar.
In 2007, Mayawati won extensively in areas of Uttar Pradesh that were not SC strongholds but were OBC strongholds. Indeed, she lost in some areas where there is a strong SC presence. When various caste groups voted for her, they were actually voting someone else out. But they were not voting on the basis of caste. Caste plays a stronger role in village-level elections, but that is to be expected. But if we take a cluster of villages into consideration, the numerical advantage a caste enjoys in one village is soon negated by another. Hence MLAs and MPs had better think beyond caste if they want to come back the next time around.
Dipankar Gupta is the author of ‘The Caged Phoenix: Can India fly?’
(As told to Sunil Jain)
Senior Honorary Fellow, CSDS*
‘Why would the Bahujan Samaj Party nominate a Gujjar to fight from South Delhi and the BJP respond by nominating another Gujjar from the same seat?’
Community and caste are still important in India. If caste was irrelevant for this election then parties would not have taken the trouble to do surveys and calculations on the caste content of each segment of the population and assign candidates to suit each area and its caste composition. Each party has its data bank which is constantly updated on the detailed caste composition of each segment of the electorate. It is more detailed than any census operation.
Why would the Congress nominate a Bihari to fight elections from a certain seat in Delhi? Why did the Congress go on about Manmohan Singh being the son of Punjab? Why would the Bahujan Samaj Party nominate a Gujjar to fight from South Delhi and the BJP respond by nominating another Gujjar for the same seat?
Does it indicate that caste meant nothing to the parties and to this election? Everyone votes according to certain interests. This could include good governance, low prices and security. This may even dilute caste considerations. But whatever these exceptions or dilutions, the basis of an organisation in India remains caste and community. That is human nature and it cannot be wished away.
Forgetting this does not help us at all. Though caste is treated as a dirty word today, caste in politics has been a channel of mobility. It has meant mobility in politics, just as politics has provided mobility to castes. People forget that the Vokkaligas, Jats, Lingayats, Patels, Reddys are shudras (untouchables). They have been empowered and became part of society thanks to being politically organised. Such empowerment would not have been possible without political organisation on the basis of their caste.
The newer castes which have been similarly empowered through political mobilisation include the Yadavs and Kurmis. That’s how we finally got a Yadav chief minister after four decades. It is a phenomenon unique to India. In other countries, people rise economically and socially and then enter politics. But in India, they first get organised politically, become empowered and then rise socially and economically.
In the present election, the Kapus of Andhra Pradesh have found a political platform in the Praja Rajyam party of film star Chiranjeevi. The Kammas had similarly come into the reckoning under the leadership of another actor N T Rama Rao who launched the Telugu Desam Party. And the Praja Rajyam has done quite well for itself.
Merely raising slogans that caste is dead or that it should go out of politics is to ignore the reality. This election was planned meticulously, brick by brick if you like, on the basis of caste alone. Look further, look at British politics. Even that is influenced by regions and ethnic groups. Indians who have made it to Parliament come from a particular region which is predominantly populated by Indians. Or look at the US. The Black people voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama. If people in these developed countries are not prepared to bury their ethnic, community identities, why should we deny that caste is an important element in our politics? It is better to embrace reality and make the most of it than to delude ourselves.
Ashish Nandy is the author of ‘The Romance of the State’
(As told to Sreelatha Menon)
*Centre for the Study of Developing Societies