There is no doubt that more than ever caste and community play a major role in Indian politics, today. However, there was a time when everybody pretended these did not. Unfortunately, once ‘affirmative’ action began to make inroads into hitherto ‘unexploited’ areas, caste consciousness and mobilisation became stronger. It was only a step further to address caste-based aspirations and promise sops targeted specifically for them. As such, those elected became representatives of just these sections, even going to the extent of excluding others from the benefits due to them.
In actual fact, as supposed leaders of society, the public representatives ought to have been in the forefront of breaking down caste barriers – which are bolstered by reinforcement of caste identity. Instead, they have succumbed unashamedly to the ‘easy’ path of caste mobilisation, particularly if they belong to a major caste in number. So it is that politicians are today referred to as ‘Dalit’, ‘Yadav’, ‘Lingayat’ leader, etc. Political groups are also formed by bringing caste groups together, such as MY (Muslim-Yadav), Dalit-Brahmin, and so on. The basic idea is to have combinations that are not in any danger of boundaries dissolving, so that leaders can retain control over their particular castes.
With all this, it is only natural that castes benefiting from such political alliances will be heavily invested in continuance of caste consciousness. As such, how is the national goal of removing caste distinction, discrimination and conflict going to be achieved? This goal ought to have been realised through social reform movements, political activism, education, etc. Unfortunately, while certain castes believe they would lose ‘affirmative’ benefits provided to them should the distinctions disappear, others feel that a ‘casteless’ society would actually practice silent discrimination. It is only through bringing caste into the open that upward mobility is possible.
Under the circumstances, it is only through imposition of legal barriers that the matter can be stopped from getting out of hand. Judicial pronouncements, therefore, are means of last resort and indicate the dire straits Indian society is in at the present. Even urbanised youth who know little of caste, unconsciously benefit or suffer from the established caste distinctions. In all this, it has been seen that the one ‘sure’ way of almost entirely eliminating the burden of caste is through economic advancement. Those who can earn money from the market on the basis of their business skills can acquire status and freedoms that are otherwise denied them. Conversely, those trapped in the rural economic structure, which has not been able to break the bounds of feudal practices, cannot find a way out, reservations in education and jobs notwithstanding.
There are dangers, of course, in judicial fiats becoming a means of denying political representation to the traditionally backward sections of society. A plethora of such ‘don’ts’ keep rival ideologies from getting past even the first post in ‘democracies’ like Iran and China. It is very easy, for instance, for a dominant party to ensure that young activists are framed in criminal charges at the start of their career so that they never can participate in elections. Or, to manipulate caste from a position of power to keep oppressed sections from organising on lines that could be interpreted as casteist. All the same, it was time someone lays down the line, and it should come as a wake-up call.
