Sociologist Dipankar Gupta, director of the Centre for Public Affairs and Critical Theory at Shiv Nadar University, and formerly, a professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University, tells Kavita Chowdhury that the Bihar Assembly poll results have shown that the electorate is motivated by factors other than caste
The Bihar Assembly poll verdict is being interpreted as a reassertion of caste identities. What is your view?
That's not the right way to interpret it. First, based on numbers alone, no caste can win an election on its strength alone. So even in constituencies that are supposed to be dominated by the Yadavs for instance, the percentage (of Yadavs in the population of that constituency) would be around 15 per cent at the most. Again, only 15 per cent of Bihar's population comprises Yadavs. So if 25 per cent of Bihar's MLAs are Yadavs, the remaining 75 per cent are non-Yadavs. Several Yadavs fought on Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) tickets, others on Mahagathbandhan tickets. Some won, some lost. The point is, caste alone does not win an election. But we find that the Other Backward Classes (OBC), upper castes and Dalits got together, leaving out some sections of extremely backward classes, to bring about this verdict. Incidentally, there is nothing in the caste order that promotes such coalescence.
It is an important sociological point that we define caste system in terms of mutual repulsion. So if they come together, it can't be because of caste; it must be something else. During the Mandal Commission agitation, the OBCs came together, regardless of their differences, because they saw the promise of a future where their children, who belonged to agrarian or lower middle class backgrounds, would have a foothold in colleges and government jobs. So Jats, Gujjars, Ahirs, Kurmis, Yadavs etc got together because of the promise of jobs and educational opportunities in urban areas. We saw that largely, the Khuswahas did not vote for the Yadavs and the Scheduled Castes did not align with the Paswans. So if you were to look at caste logic alone, it would not work. When they come together it's not because of caste affinity, but external factors.
It's our very Orientalist approach, and it's unfortunate, that we think people vote only along primordial caste loyalties and lines, and no other considerations.
What were the external factors or considerations that resulted in such a landslide verdict for the Mahagathbandhan?
(Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh chief) Mohan Bhagwat's statement on reservations played a negative role for the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance. Until that point, Rashtriya Janata Dal chief Lalu Prasad was remarking about disparate things, but after Bhagwat's statement, he started talking about castes, who had benefitted from reservation in general. Prasad gained momentum. What brings Ahirs, Kurmis, Koeris etc together? The agglutinative factor is not caste sympathies but an issue like reservation, or factors like safety in Bihar or women's empowerment through the bicycles for girls scheme. Many people have told me about Chief Minister Nitish Kumar's record in building roads and bridges and the change it has brought into their lives.
What role do you think Chief Minister Nitish Kumar's track record on development work in Bihar played? Can it be said that his model of development clicked even in the face of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's development model?
I think there were two development models at play here. It's not that Modi's development model was any less (than Kumar's) but he undermined his development card when he and his colleagues talked of religion, caste etc. After Bhagwat's statement, the BJP thought the best way to keep Prasad in check would be to talk of religious polarisation. On the other hand, Kumar talked only about development, Bihar style. I think it was one development model against another: one the Biharis have seen, the other that they have heard about. For the time being, they are going with the friend in the neighbourhood. And because Bihar is already demonstrating the efficacy of the development work done by Kumar over a decade, it was difficult for Narendra Modi to trump that. In fact, it appears that if Bhagwat had not made that statement, Prasad could have been a bit of a load on Kumar.
After Bhagwat's remark, OBCs got together. It wasn't the coming together of castes, but of a class from agrarian backgrounds, who wanted a better future via urban jobs, a place in colleges. Even if we were to look at the much talked about rural-urban divide in Bihar, we see in urban Patna, in the Patna Sahib area which is dominated by upper castes, the Janata Dal(United) has won. In Darbhanga, home to the Maithil Brahmins, the Mahagathbandhan has won. So the caste logic does not hold and all the caste virtuosos that Modi brought in did not deliver.
Some commentators have labelled the 2015 Bihar results Mandal II...
No, they were not. The Mandal agitation had brought these classes together on the basis of reservation. Kumar brought people together on the basis of his development card.
Attempts were made to polarise the Bihar elections and the Mahagathbandhan's victory is being seen as a defeat of the communal card...
Muslims display traits of national minorities, they react to events elsewhere, and yet they did not vote along religious lines (in the Bihar polls). Time and again Imams have tried to polarise elections by advocating a certain candidate, but voters have reacted differently. In Bihar, Asaduddin Owaisi (president of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen) fell flat on his face. And then Amit Shah (BJP chief) played a pure communal card by raking up firecrackers and Pakistan, but that too didn't work.
The Bihar verdict has been analysed in some quarters as taking the state back to an era of more regressive politics...
These are simplistic explanations and as I said before, are a reiteration of an Orientalist perspective. Darbhanga, for instance, has shown that people can move away from caste and vote. The same is true of Seemanchal. It's a caste prejudice of both elites and politicians that propagates this view: they cannot see the voters as being motivated by factors other than caste.
As a sociologist, in what way do you think the Bihar 2015 poll was a seminal one?
Two things: first, it was important because Modi was defeated after that historic win in 2014, and second, it will give different political configurations the vigour they need to stand up against the BJP. It's an interesting election for me because, I hope it will put the last nail in the coffin of caste politics. Even Prasad conceded that it wasn't caste alone, which won them the election. Again, the rural-urban divide has been exaggerated in Bihar. Between 1999 and 2009, the state saw the highest rise in rural non-farm employment among states. So Bihar is, in fact, more 'rurban' than rural.
As for the Modi camp, they would need to change their electoral style and next time around, they would do good to stick to development. The BJP messes up identity politics badly.
