IDENTITY POLITICS – IT’S UTILITY, MISUSE AND SIGNIFICANCE IN THE CONTEMPORARY INDIAN SCENARIO

Identity politics which lies at the core of contemporary Indian political reality is neither all bad, nor all good. It provides a means to a change, as it engineers Dalit and OBC consciousness, and thus makes these communities more vigilant and assertive for their rights and clout. It is also a vent for man’s eternal psychological need for identification and association’, and thus takes out his negative energies in less destructive and more sophisticated manner. Though it hopelessly fragments India socially and politically, but at the same time it can also be seen as a necessary phase in the process of India’s social evolution.  

India is the land of conflicting diversities, which conciliate in an uneasy yet harmonious agreement, to form together a mosaic of marvelous, wondrous and bewildering social fabric – and it is an experiment which is miraculous, and an enigma, which has proved itself time and again, as and when the need has arisen. Amidst this amazing diversity, lies the issue of identity politics – the hallmark of current Indian political set up – a realism which has been enforced by the country’s socio-cultural diversity, in conjunction with the prevailing political opportunism and the by and large immature, emotive and tender psychological status of the Indian electorate.

However identity politics is a mixed blessing. While many argue against it’s need in an India, which has theoretically long ago abolished caste system and divisive regionalism, and adapted egalitarianism as the basis of it’s socio-economic philosophy.  There are still others who question the kind of secularism, which identity politics constructs, where religious-communal identities of individuals instead of dissolving become all the more important.

While these points have substantial levels of truths in them, but they miss out the essence of the story, the uniqueness of India’s social demography. India is a country not only with a maddening diversity, which the lawmakers and administrators have to manage, but also the home to one of the most ancient and widespread forms of hereditary social hierarchical order, which has over the millennia completely destroyed the functioning of egalitarianism, and hence created deep scars in society.

What has been wronged will get corrected. This is the natural law of social mechanism. Thus the social transformation we see happening in India (in terms of the rise of Dalits, tribals and OBCs), is a self-correction mechanism, being exercised by the society, which is being catalyzed by social democracy, consciousness among the people and by other ‘instruments of modernisation’. These changes will entail phases of reverse discrimination, rise of casteism, corruption becoming rampant (as the poor castes for the first time taste power, wealth and ways & means of civilization). But these are temporary glitches. These are the milestones on the royal highway to destination, which lie on the rougher side. These are building blocks to success and construction of a new society.

Similarly the so called stone-age secularism has it’s advantages. Since the majority community of India is largely secular and liberal, and usually does not give in to communal attitudes, so in this situation the votes of minority communities become important, and the government can never ever write them off. Although it has it’s negative fallout as well. Since among Muslims – the chief minority community of India – the clout of orthodoxy is still very strong, so at times government in order to garner minority votes legislate policies, which institute regressive secularism, and hence take the minorities backwards, into dogmatic laws and orthodoxy, which are not at all in tune with modern rational thinking.

Regionalism can also be healthy, if not blown out of proportion. The premise is, if you love the part, only then can you love the whole truly. So a person who loves his region or his province and also loves it as a part of the nation, is doing nothing which violates the principles of constitutional morality. Our social life begins from our homes, the most fundamental unit, and then goes up to neighbourhood, city/town/village, region, state and finally up to the nation level. It is the movement from basics to the higher ups, which is perfectly in tune with logical thinking.

Moreover, regional affiliation should be treated as a very legal and justified sub-national identity. Nation is too remote for most of the people, so their nationalism begins with their village, town, region or state.

As India moves deeper into the 21^st century, it has to dump out some of it’s past baggage. But this can not happen all at once. There will be a transitional phase, which would be painful, stressful and inconvenience- causing. So it is an inevitable part of the process, a necessary evil. It is for us to make this change as smooth as possible.

When the new order comes, it does not mean the end of problems. There will always be problems. Different types of problems, of different nature. But this fight, struggle has to go on. An individual’s life is about continuous confrontation with challenges and meeting them with boldness and combating them. The story of human civilization is not much different.  

XXX

COLLECTIVISM AND MOBOCRACY – HOW THEY RELATE AND ON WHAT THEY DIVERGE

One of the chief hallmarks of a healthy society is the ingredient of collectivism. It is a sense of bonding, a feeling of oneness, a commitment to the common good and indeed is the flow that directs the onward march of human progress. It is necessary to be collectivist, but this should not crush the individualities – this premise lies at the core of the most appropriate (closest to truth) equation between micro-entity and the macro whole.  

Strange is the relationship between the micro and the macro. Macro is made up of many micros. But macro can’t be called just a simple sum of all it’s parts. Macro is not merely the combined impact of all the micros. But often it is sometimes much more, or much less, or simply put something radically different from what it straightforwardly ought to be.

So is the case with the whole gamut of issues related to social good and individual choice, and perhaps it is even more complicated, as this deals with highly unpredictable and the most complicated entities encountered so far – the human beings. 

Society is a collection of individuals or better put the sum aggregate of all people living together. It is a sort of collective agreement. It requires sacrifices to be made, it provides fruits for these sacrifices. This contract is a highly complicated one. While it is necessary that the individual take advantage of this collective canvas for his personal, social, cultural, psychological evolution ;  it also important that this ‘collectivity’ does not make him a slave of a group or groups or groupism. There is a very delicate, and often seemingly ‘indistinct’ dividing line that links the parts to the whole and the parts to each other, and this divide and link of inter relationship, if is not clearly and purely defined, and understood, in society or in the minds of individuals, leads to various social and psychological problems.

Individuals need to gel, where they got to gel. And they need to be distinct, where ever the need be so. The ideas of individualism, collectivism, free choice and adherence to authority or some central tenet, is the most challenging of all the issues that impact mankind in his well being. It’s not that each one has to be at the cost of the other. Free will is the most precious possession of an individual. But this free will finds it’s fullest of force only when a man doesn’t exercise it merely superficially. There has to be a depth. And this depth can’t discount his filial and social responsibility. 

It can be said that a person needs to be a part of the whole. This connotes indivisible collectivism. But at the same time, his individuality must be always retained. He must be socially integrated, yet individually distinct. This sounds more than a paradox, but ideally ought to be the case. If the flow of time and the world is like a mighty river, then it’s rich diversity should be expressed in myriads of ways.  We have had many revolutions in the world, so many wars, so many diverse intellectual theories, all have impacted the world in more than several ways. The efforts to create a better world will never cease.

But certainly, we need more intellectuals, more and more learned people, more and more people who can think and reason by themselves, and their clout should be made to increase. The impact of evil and destruction is always more than that of goodness and construction. Thus we see Gandhi’s Satyagraha look puny before Hitler’s holocaust, in terms of magnamity and impact. Knowledge should never be lost. And it should be applied. Sense of discrimination should be used. 

What is bad is bad at all costs. We have anti-Jewish pogrom of Hitler, Hindu-Muslim slaughter of the Indian subcontinent, apartheid in South Africa, anti-Dalit discrimination in India, and there is a long list. These are clear examples of mobocracy, where man is blinded by group (mass) beliefs. However things got to be seen in their totality. For Eg – No one can justify the mass murders of Muslims in Gujarat immediately after the Godhra incident, but the Hindu-Muslim relationship in India is a product of several other complicated factors, the natural docility of Hinduism and the simultaneous zeal of Islam, is a factor which can’t be discounted. If politicians in India make laws which encourage secularism among Muslims, and take them to education, enlightenment and upliftmment only that would be the right approach.

A mob is a misguided, disorderly, faceless and senseless group that is out to destroy anything and everything. While collectivism is for a mission, for progress, for development, for upliftment. Collectivism is ultimately liberating, it collects people for strength, for power, for magnitude of movement. The anti-corruption movement being led by the Gandhian social crusader is an apt example of collectivism.  Collectivism is unification, mobocracy is division, it brings together people for communal riots, for terrorism, for the ultimate divide. 

Only with a sense of discrimination, with knowledge, with uprightness can mobocracy be defeated and collectivism triumphed.

XXX

MAYA’S JAAL IN UTTAR PRADESH – BSP GOVERNMENT ALL SET TO BE VOTED BACK TO POWER IN THE UPCOMING ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS

(A PERSONAL VIEW OF THE WRITER OF THIS WRITE-UP - NISHKARSH PANDEY, WRITTEN ON 2^ND DECEMBER, 2011)

With elections round the corner in the politically crucial state of Uttar Pradesh, the big question being raised now is who will rule the state in post-elections 2012. It is highly likely, that Mayawati led Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), will come back to power once again, and with a larger majority than the previous elections.

In the last over four years rule of BSP government in Uttar Pradesh, one undisputable achievement of the Mayawati government has been that they have been successful in retaining their core support base – Dalits. From the huge Ambedkar park to the numerous statues of Dalit icons which dot the capital city Lucknow and other important towns of the state, and from the generous welfare schemes that their government have rolled out for the ‘downtrodden’ to the symbolism of the just-established Dalit formidability – all these factors impress, allure and entice her core voters like nothing else. She has created, in the minds of her voters, a sense of immense Dalit activism, a feeling that she has done for them what no one could do in the last 5,000 years of Brahminical civilization, a hardcore Dalit leader has risen to huge heigts of her own accord, and for the first time Brahmins have voted for Dalit suzerainty (Brahmins had voted in large numbers for BSP in 2007 elections) – a complete inversion of the millennia old pyramid of social hierarchy. So her voters treat her as a messiah, a powerful leader – who has given them their due under the sun.

Many may point out at the magnitude of corruption in the BSP government, but to their core voters, it is a blatant ‘upper-caste conspiracy’ to bring down their leader and their newly established socio-political order.  So it is unlikely that their core voters are going to desert them, even partly.

OTHER PARTIES’ POSITIONS – Congress : Saddled  with corruption, SP : Loosing support base, BJP : Lacking wave

Among the various opposition parties, none seems to be in a position to take on the BSP. While Mulayam Singh Yadav’s Samajwadi Party (SP), which largely depended on Yadav-Muslim caste combination for it’s rise, is seeing a rapid dent in it’s Muslim votebank, owing largely to poaching by BSP and Congress. So without muslim support, SP can not do much. It faces a serious crisis as with just Yadavs as it’s support base, could mean serious electoral setback and even existential crisis in the not-so-distant future.

Congress, which has been banking on it’s spectacular performance in the state in the Lok Sabha elections 2009, may also suffer a serious setback. The immense corruption charges the central government faces, is not going to go well with it’s voters. Besides, it remains to be seen whether the road shows and night stays at Dalits’ homes, being enthusiastically undertaken by the Gandhi scion, are going to have much impact on the people. A serious leadership deficit at the state level is also a fallacy of the highest order.

BJP stood at an abysmally low level electorally in the last elections, and it is unlikely that it would fall down any further from here. It is likely to marginally improve it’s tally but would be of no match to the mighty BSP. The re-induction of Uma Bharti and her canvassing in the state for BJP, may somewhat improve it’s tally.

BSP’S WINNING CASTE COMBINATION

While 23% dalits would vote for BSP en-bloc, many MBCs (Most Backwards Castes, i.e. OBCs other than Yadavs and Kurmis) are also likely to vote for BSP in tune with ‘the Bahujan Cause’ as they now feel ideologically closer to BSP, and Mayawati has spared no efforts in wooing them.

A big chunk of Muslims too will vote for BSP, as they feel benefited by the state government’s welfare schemes and will prefer BSP to Congress and SP as it can take on the BJP in a better manner.

Upper Castes would be the most divided lot. A good number will vote for Congress. A significant number are likely to vote for BSP (particularly Brahmins from rural areas). Some will vote for BJP.

The proposal to divide Uttar Pradesh into four parts will also advantage the BSP. Though it is yet to be approved by the Parliament and Central government, but Mayawati has clearly shown her commitment to the issue, by getting the bill passed in UP assembly, within 20 minutes, inspite of stiff opposition. The sympathizers and desirers of ‘division’ of the state in different corners are likely to be swayed by this political masterstroke.

If we see across the social faultlines of divided Uttar Pradesh, we find that only Dalits are clear and determined to make their leader win. All others castes are divided, confused and unfocussed. Overall it appears BSP will be an easy winner. While Congress may get upper castes votes but it is unlikely to get many Muslim votes.

It is a predicament which many would deplore (as a highly corrupt and casteist party would win), while others would celebrate (as a party which is not only for Dalits, but for all poors and for development would win again). It is something which only time will finally tell.

XXX

THE RED STAR, THE WHITE STAR AND THE BLUE PLANET

The seemingly contradictory ideologies of Marxism and peaceful development via secular or religious ethics (represented by the likes of Democracy and Gandhism), are the two extreme positions taken up by the divergent groups, who fall into faulted mindsets, for each one of them individually represents the splitting of the rational consciousness. This diversion symbolizes more dichotomy than which is apparent, and is another example of extremes being at loggerheads with each other.

Little must Karl Marx have known that one day his ‘ideology’ would spark ‘bloody’ revolutions across the world. But, in it’s hey days, Marxism was the order of the day of a large section of nations, including the formidable Soviet Union (erstwhile) along with giant China, and other significant countries of Eastern Europe and some other countries, here and there.

Marxism symbolized the ‘labours’ assertion’, it was anti-rich and anti-capitalist and dreamt of a proletariat revolution, which would wipe out the concentration of wealth in a few hands and would equally distribute it among all the people, culminating in the establishment of ‘a classless society’, whose chief hallmark would be, the control of working class over the institutions of society. Marxism predicted a ‘world revolution’ against the capitalists and ‘working class takeover’ of the world as a natural fallout of social evolution. Communism would ultimately destroy the last vestiges of medievalism – superstitions, feudalism, religion, among others. Marxism was essentially anti-religion and largely anti-God, and considered these as ‘the opium of masses’. It shirked the way of peace and slow but steady social evolution, but rather practised and glorified the path of massive social revolution, which included violence and bloodshed, as it was very right to ‘finish off’ the class enemies (the rich) violently.

There is another path – the more conventional one – the path of peaceful social reforms and change, which is represented chiefly by Democracy, but it also contains elements of religious ethics. After all, modern Democracy owes a lot to the Greek and Roman philosophers, who were deeply interested in religious and moral ethics, and their belief systems, can not be, at all divorced from religion.

This path can be said to represent an umbrella of various concepts, thinkings, set ups and ideolologies, which are for peaceful means of social change. This ‘dimension of thinking’ does not aspire for immediate or quick changes. It believes that drastic change may have serious repercussions and disastrous consequences. It feels that slowly but steadily man’s social evolution would graduate the human civilization to higher and higher levels. It is ready for this ‘long wait’.

In reality, both the ‘thinkings’ miss the essential point. We need change which is fast and all-encompassing, but at the same time, which is enduring and stable. We need the determination and commitment of Marxism, along with patience and perseverance of the peace-path movers. It is something like the situation of Indian National Congress, much before the independence. It was divided between the moderates and the extremists. Then Gandhi ji united them and forged a path which combined the best of two, and this method of struggle became a classic example, which the world emulates even today.

Thus there is a need for the combination of best of both. Democracy entails freedom of speech, expression, religion and living, which is a significant point to be adapted by all ‘right-minded’ governments. But at the same time, there should also be utmost care and concern for the common man, the poors, the weaker-sections and the vulnerables. Human civilization is unduly biased in favour of the rich, the powerful and the successful. This is an error of high order, which is so much a part and parcel of our thinkings and set-ups that we take it as a ‘natural way of the world.’

Thus democracy has to shirk it’s relative and often unintended ignorance of the common man. There is need for a true ‘government of the people’, which would deliver the weaker sections more than the rich, as they need that support. However emphasis on the poors does not mean complete exclusion of the rich. It has to be a fine balance. Help each one as much as they need it.

We need an aggressive evolution, which proceeds at a fast pace, and which is tough towards injustice, exploitation, and all forms of excesses, but this process should not make rulers very strong, who in turn become exploiters. Meritocracy is not the ultimate aim. What is needed is every one gets to utilize his or her subjective talent, which leads to maximum welfare.

You take the fearful shine of the red star (Marxism) and you mix it with the soothing ness of the white star (Democracy and the the peaceful methods), then you get what this blue planet (Earth) deserves – freedom with equality, and socialism with prosperity.

XXX