Identity and Development in Democracy

(Secular Perspective December 16-31, 2005)

Madhya Pradesh elections last year and Bihar elections this year have posed new dilemma for politicians. Mr. Digvijay Singh former Chief Minister of M.P. and Mr. Laloo Prasad Yadav of Bihar had proved their secular credentials to minorities, particularly Muslims and were being voted by them massively as they had ensured communal harmony in M.P. and Bihar respectively during their rule.

But Digvijay Singh lost in M.P. and Laloo Prasad in Bihar after a long spell. Both were quite certain to win but lost ignonimously. Digvijay Singh lost in M.P. to the B.J.P. on the issue of Sadak, Pani and Bijli (lack of roads, water and electricity) and Laloo lost to Nitish Kumar of NDA on developmental issues after a long spell of 15 years.

The important question then is: How far identity politics can ensure electoral victory to a party or for a charismatic leader like Laloo? Can secular credentials alone is enough to win elections in a multi-religious democracy? Obviously not, if M.P. and Bihar election results are any indication. But then what about Andhra Pradesh? There Chandra Babu Naidu was busy ensuring development but lost heavily both state and Lok Sabha elections of 2004.

But then Mr. Naidu had aligned himself with a communal party like the BJP. Thus it shows that if secular politics with lack of development cannot carry beyond a point so also development politics in alliance with communal politics can also not go beyond certain limits.

However, there is one more variable, which has to be kept in mind. Naidu’s developmental model was too elitist to have any impact on poorer masses. Thus Naidu’s rout in election resulted both from alienation of Muslims as he had aligned himself with communal forces and also because he was following a developmental model which left poor masses high and dry.

India is not only multi-religious but also a society based on rigid caste hierarchy. Thus in India it is not only religious identity which matters but also caste identity which has its own dynamics. In certain respects caste identity plays even more important role. Laloo Prasad Yadav was product of Mandal politics and he was successful in enticing O.B.Cs. (Other Backward Castes). In fact his success mantra depended on combining Muslim votes with OBC votes.

But OBC votes have their own hierarchy. Now as it appears from Bihar elections there are also MBC and EBC (i.e. Most Backward and Extremely Backward Caste) votes and all the fruits of power went to OBCs and MBCs and EBCs were totally left out and they took their revenge by deserting Laloo Prasad. They opted for Nitish Kumar, not because he will give them greater share but because they wanted to protest for being totally neglected.

As Secularism become mere slogan for politicians, OBC politics was also reduced to a formula for winning elections. Secularism ensured a riot-free politics for minorities but without ensuring to them any benefit of either political power or any share in economic development by providing them jobs or other facilities thus causing disenchantment among them beyond a point.

Mandal Commission aroused hopes among backward and other backward castes and politicians like Laloo Prasad promised them heavens to get their votes. But like Muslims the MBCs and EBCs too were left high and dry and most of the benefits were garnered by one or the other caste like Yadavs. The BJP during mid and late eighties of last century tried to construct strong Hindu identity by suing Ram temple issue. In Gujarat it went a step further in 2002 and tried to polarize Hindu voted by massacring Muslims and its leaders like Arun Jaitley even called it a new model to be followed in other states. However, this also did not happen and the BJP lost election very badly in the very next election in Himachal Pradesh.

The BJP also could use its Hindu card only for a very limited period and only in some states. Thus even majority community finds itself in a Strait Jacket as far as Hindu identity is concerned. The Hindu middle class, mainly from upper castes believed strongly during mid eighties of the last century in the theory of “Hinduism under siege� but now this also soon, lost its appeal and the BJP has altogether stopped talking about it.

BJP which claimed to be a party with difference throughout eighties and boasted about discipline is now rent with dissensions worst in nature even compared to the Congress or Janta Dal or any other party for that matter. The BJP which is based on the Hindutva ideology played identity politics to the hilt and consequently paid the price.

It would be seen that it is easy in the beginning to play identity politics but very difficult to sustain it for very long without combining it with issues like development with justice. The Congress sustained itself in power for close to three decades on the votes of upper caste Brahmins, Muslims and Dalits and Tribals. But in effect its development policies were highly biased in favour of upper caste Hindus and hence Muslims and Dalits got disillusioned and began to desert Congress. When Muslims and Dalits deserted Congress the Brahmins also did not want to remain in a sinking ship and found their natural ally in the BJP.

The Congress was thus wiped out and BJP with upper caste and OBC votes began to rise. The BJP was, however, controlled by upper castes and OBC soon realised that except for few symbolic acts it would not get much benefits from it. Dalits in UP began to support their own party BSP and its leader Mayawati an aggressive fighter grabbed Chief Ministership in UP through tactical alliance with the BJP. But this alliance being quite opportunistic soon fell through.

The S.P. which is in power through Yadav and Muslim votes as in Bihar is also in the doldrums and is facing severe crisis. In this My (Muslim and Yadav) combination, Muslims as usual are the loosers and only the Yadavs the gainers. And with Mau riots of October the Muslim sense of security has also been shaken. It is, therefore, difficult to say how long Mulayam Singh will last in power. The cracks are there for anyone to see. The law and order situation is also fast deteriorating in UP. It is facing Bihar like situation. The only difference is that the media is not as hostile to Mulayam Singh as it was to Laloo Prasad. But whatever media’s role in UP, the ground situation in UP is fast slipping from Mulayam Singh’s hands. He may not last very long.

Then what about identity politics? Is it justified or not? Should it be resorted or not? In democracy identity politics cannot be avoided altogether. In a backward country like India (though India is fast developing but this development is resulting even more in economic polarization) with highly skewed development, identity politics can hardly be avoided. Several religious communities and castes in the Hindu society have strong sense of grievance and which politician would resist temptation to exploit these grievances?

But more you exploit these grievances more you land in intractable problems. Who knows this better than Laloo Prasad, Mulayam Singh and Mayavati besides the BJP leaders? This is because these leaders are far from being honest and transparent and use these grievances for personal aggrandizement and hence land themselves in intractable problems.

It should be clearly understood that in a highly diverse and complex society like that of India identity politics can play very creative role, if it is done to seek justice for backward sections of society. Those who talk of only national identity and deny the role of other identities like that of religious, caste, regional and tribal identities are less than honest and do so to retain their unfair privileges which they have been enjoying and they make national identity co-terminous with majority religious identity. Thus in case of India the Indian national identity is sought to be made coterminous with Hindu identity and this Hindu identity then is used for suppression of other lesser privileged identities. Thus the concept of religious nationalism can be very dangerous for social justice and even and just development of society. It is only through assertion of these unprivileged identities that weaker sections of society like religious minorities, dalits, tribals and lesser developed regions can demand socio-economic justice. But again the dilemma is that unscrupulous leaders of these communities use these identities as tools for their own advancement. Another dilemma is that more backward sections tend to be more emotional and hence it becomes much easier for their leaders to exploit their emotions for political purposes. Being backward they are less educated and ready to be mobilized on emotional issues. They have no stakes in the given situation and longstanding frustrations and sense of deprivation makes them psychologically most vulnerable.

It is for this reason that Muslim politics in India has been centred around emotional issues like Shari’ah law, Aligarh Muslim University, Babri Masjid and Urdu. All these have become powerful emotional symbol of minority identity and politicians like Shahi Imam and others have been using these symbols for their own ends without bothering about their concert economic and educational problems. And these emotional issues also become not only potential source for communal violence but also easy means for strengthening Hindu communal forces. Thus in mid-eighties BJP thrived on emotional outbursts among Muslim on issues like the Shah Bano Judgment and Babri Masjid. These highly emotional issues also caused great deal of communal violence. The UP had in fact become a communal powderkeg and most of the major communal riots took place in mid-eighties and thereafter in UP and Bihar.

Similarly Mayavati exploited Dalit emotions for her own politics and reduced Ambedkar as a powerful symbol in her politics of personal ambitions. She hardly did anything for dalits to solve their land question but went on erecting Ambedkar statues and parks during her reign in UP and named few districts after Dalits icons. At the most she posted few Dalit officers subservient to her to some key posts. But the socio-economic condition of Dalit masses hardly improved. They were made to feel proud that Behenji, (this is how Mayawati was usually addressed), their leader, is in power, though they themselves were never empowered.

For extreme backward caste less said the better. Though their votes were exploited by like of Laloos and Paswans none of them even could emerge as leaders. It is these who joined Naxalites to fight the menace of landlords in their villages and it is these who get usually killed in either reactive violence by the landlords or in so called encounters by the police.

There is hardly easy solution to such a problem of complex identity politics. Greater the backwardness and illiteracy the greater will be the potential for exploitation by the unscrupulous politicians. Politicians play the game according to their own rules. Identity politics can become a powerful instrument for betterment of weaker sections and it can also become powerful tool for empowerment of opportunist politics. However, the poor and exploited masses have no choice in the matter. They trusted their leaders and they betrayed them. They went behind Naxalites in some instances and got nothing more than violent death. Though Naxal leaders are comparatively more honest but they do not realize that violence begets more and more violence and road to violence ends only in an abyss. And it is hard to find honest politicians among those who are seeking power through these identities.

The situations seems hopeless and unnerving. Only hope one can have in the democratic process and struggle of the masses. Masses can and do punish unscrupulous and ambitious politicians during elections. But one can argue this process is to slow and cumbersome. The masses in Bihar did punish likes of Laloo but those who have replaced him are worse rather than better. They are no less corrupt and also aligned with communal forces. Thus only solution seems to be struggle by the masses under the leadership of those who do not have ambition for power to build powerful pressure on the system.

However, this is not an argument for party less democracy. Obviously Jay Prakash Narain’s movement for partyless democracy failed miserably. This is an argument for building pressure on the system through mass struggle. Such a struggle though does not ignore identity but also goes beyond it by building alliances across identities. It is identity politics but goes beyond it too through building creative alliances. It can pave the way for revolutionary change for social justice with a leftward thrust.

The regional and ethnic identities in Kashmir and North East have chosen violent ways. But the leaders of violent struggle too like other politicians acquire powerful vested interests and are more interested in perpetuating violence than in solving the problem. Democratic elections in Kashmir held last time in freer and fairer atmosphere have ensured greater relief than years of violent struggle which brought nothing but trail of death and destruction without yielding any result. Thus the democratic way of struggle, though slow, is certainly more productive. The people of Kashmir have realized this at a cost of more than sixty thousand lives. Democracy and democratic struggle can ensure better and more peaceful ways of realizing justice and fair play.