by Kancha Ilaiah. Originally published in the Times of India, May 24, 2007
After Mayawati became chief minister of UP, the upper caste intelligentsia in the media assumed that Dalit-Bahujan unity had given way to a new era of Dalit-Brahmin unity.
Dalit intellectuals, who had pitched their hopes on the new alliance, are convinced that Delhi is not too far for Mayawati — and for Dalits as a whole.
There is an attempt to project this electoral victory as one against the Shudra-OBC communities.
This attempt is, in other words, one that undercuts a historical social churning process — uniting Shudra-Atishudra masses from the days of Mahatma Jyotirao Phule to building a Bahujan Samaj by uniting Dalit-Bahujan masses till the Kanshi Ram days.
The Dalit-Bahujan project was based on unity of the historically oppressed productive masses, who were working on land and in casteised artisanal household industries — from shoe-making to pot-making to weaving clothes.
This process was mediated by the interventions, social, spiritual and political, set in motion by B R Ambedkar.
The upper caste intelligentsia is trying to tell us that Mayawati, a Dalit woman leader, whom they hated till the other day, had proved all of them wrong, and therefore had become their heroine.
The Dalit-Bahujan unity proposal is based on production relations and the fact of the two groups being at the receiving end of Brahminical oppression.
The Brahmins wrote ritual texts which established a spiritual and social practice of oppression against Dalits and Bahujans. Will Mayawati’s victory alter these conditions?
Will Brahmins soil their hands with actual work of production, or would Dalits be allowed to head Hindu institutions?
The whole discourse around social engineering, as opposed to social churning, is basically an RSS theory.
Social engineering is opposed to social churning. This election might teach OBCs a lesson, that power is best attained by combining various caste combinations.
But will that power help in social churning and transformation that erodes caste barriers, slowly but surely? Even in movements organized around class lines, only unity of forces from below can turn these into instruments of social change.
The top and bottom cannot make a dissolvable mix.
Ambedkar formulated the theory that caste was not merely division of labour, but also of labourers.
To churn them into a social monolith, one should work among many labouring castes, no matter how difficult and time-consuming the process.
As for social engineering, if Left and RSS forces were to form an electoral alliance, they can come to power even in Delhi.
Even if a Left politician were to become prime minister, what socio-economic change is possible in this situation? A Dalit-Brahmin combine is akin to the unity of the communists and RSS.
The latter was tried out during the Janata Party days, but failed. Not that one wishes the BSP to fail in UP.
But if one sees this as the model for abolishing caste and building a prosperous, productive nation, that would be nothing but a mirage and the end of Ambedkarism.
Mayawati’s success lies in the failure of Mulayam Singh, who left out the Dalit leadership in his political formation.
Mulayam’s party is also another kind of OBC-upper caste combine. He ruled UP almost for a full term and did nothing subs-tantial for OBCs.
Upper castes and a small section of Yadavs had their way. How many OBCs emerged as industrialists or as major contractors during his tenure?
Or, how many poor OBCs were uplifted during his tenure? Did they enjoy improved access to egalitarian, English-medium education?
fight caste, even while being in power, one has to fight Brahminism. How would Mayawati fight Brahminism, with Brahmins sitting in her lap?
With a Dalit-Brahmin combination, she would have to function like any Congress Dalit chief minister.
The promotion of such CMs perhaps began with Damodaram Sanjeevaiah, a Dalit Congress chief minister in Andhra Pradesh in the early 60s.
Can Mayawati break new ground, when Dalit-Brahmin unity holds no potential for social churning?
The writer is a political scientist.
