whyYears ago, I met an American professor of political science who was interested in Indian politics. He argued with me that in affluent, educated Western societies, people voted based on their interests and their views, not identity. Therefore, you could not have and have not had political parties based on caste, language, religion and ethnicity, which was the rule in more “primitive” countries like India. At that point, I nodded in agreement and fervently prayed that my own country would become less primitive in the near future.
Today, I have a different perspective.
Identity based vote bank is the rule everywhere in a democracy. It was a remarkably successful magician’s trick on the part of Western political scientists to make us believe that their voters were not tribals, but members of classes, and adherents of intellectually soft ideologies. At least in India, we openly admit that we are Jat, Yadav, Mahar, Brahmin, Rajbanshi, Bhutia, Lepcha, Chitpavan Brahmin, Jatav, Maratha, Vokkaliga, Lingayat, Dravid, Rajput, Muslim, Ashraf, Ajlaf, Azral is a supporter of Christian, Catholic, Goan Catholic, Syrian Catholic, Syrian Orthodox, Evangelical, Pentecostal, Hindu, Ahom, Saraswat, Nair, Ezhava, Thiya, Chandrasenia Kayastha Prabhu, Pathare Prabhu, Sikh, Jat-Sikh, Mazhabi, Musahir, Vanniyar, Thevar, Pasmanda, Gounder, Pasi, Kuruba, Banjara. There seems to be no end to the list.
The outreach strategies of the two major Indian parties may appear different, but on closer examination, they may not actually be all that different. The Congress has over the years tried to be a rainbow party with many groups within one broad tent. It worked for a long time. But over time, the Congress lost the support of major caste groups in different parts of the country. For example, Yadavs, Jats, Vokkaligas and Lingayats come to mind. But many others stayed with the Congress.
Many people accuse BJP of being a party that promotes uniformity. In fact, it is the BJP that has sought to create a new kind of rainbow, championing a resurgence of interest in leaders such as Suheldev, Lachit Barphukan and Birsa Munda, and recognizing and encouraging diversity within a larger nationalist umbrella . At the Nagpur session of the Congress, Mahatma Gandhi argued that promoting a separate linguistic identity within the pre-independence Congress would strengthen the national movement. Clearly, the BJP has learned its political lessons well from the Mahatma.
Read also: Why BJP did not want PM Modi’s words about Pasmanda, Bohra and Church to come out
economic damage to the white working class
In the ‘free’ and ‘brave’ United States, why are poor white working-class people voting Republican? It occurred to me that they should be called “former working class” white people. When the working classes have no ‘work’, they must ‘form’.
Clinton pushed through China’s entry into NAFTA and the World Trade Organization—sadly, Dubya (George W. Bush) agreed. And these elite global projects harmed workers in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. A far cry from the New York that Hillary chose to represent. Not content with hurting their livelihoods, Hillary told Midwestern whites that they “reprehensibleAnd Obama told them they were “simple”.
You destroyed them financially. They might have lived with it. After all, a hundred years ago, America moved millions of people away from farms into dirty neighborhoods next to polluting factories. But you did not stop till providing them work in such factories. You also insulted their psyche, their culture. Why should anyone be surprised when a Republican senator in the midwest writes an autobiography in which he describes his family members as part of the White opioid-addicted ex-working-class? Identity matters. In fact, identities almost entirely define democratic politics.
For more than five decades now, the southern white middle and lower classes have become a Republican vote bank and African Americans across America have been voting for Democrats. It has been particularly costly for African Americans. If Republicans are convinced that whatever they do, they will not get votes from blacks, then there is no incentive for them to adopt policies that might favor African Americans. Worse, Republicans may have no interest in abandoning the white racist extremists who have gravitated towards their support base. This has happened to a large extent.
A much wiser strategy that African American leaders could and should have adopted is to split their support in both parties so that no one approves of them. I would argue that Muslim leaders in India should start making inroads into the BJP now.
Read also: Modi’s defense of films is important for Vishwaguru Lakshya. Content is the new internationalism
Indian Muslims and America are learning
If BJP thinks that Muslims will never vote for them, then Muslims will suffer the most, not the party. Wise and sensitive Muslim leaders in India today should learn from the mistakes of African American leadership and respond positively to the BJP’s initiative towards Pasmanda Muslims, who in any case constitute eighty to ninety percent of Indian Muslims.
In this context, Muslims can also learn from Indian Christians. While before independence most Indian Christians were considered pro-British, a major section of them, led by people like Father Jerome D’Souza, consciously cultivated and supported the Congress. This ensured proportional representation and importance for them in the Constituent Assembly of independent India. Even today, while many upper-class Indian Christians are either suspicious of the BJP or influenced by leftist ideologies to oppose the former, significant sections of the Syrian Christian community in Kerala are leaning towards the BJP. BJP, The Bohra community among Muslims seems to have adopted a similar approach.
The permutations and combinations permitted and possible within a democratic set-up never cease to amaze. Such adjustments and accommodations are unimaginable in authoritarian countries. In any case, all groups should learn from the mistakes of African American leaders. Here too, the emergence of spokespeople like Candace Owens shows that Democrats should not take their vote bank lightly.
LGBTQ groups in the US have displayed greater inclusivity than African Americans. In a recent vote in the US House of Representatives, several Republicans voted in favor of same-sex marriage. This happened despite the Republican Party’s allegiance to fundamentalist Christian groups that have religious objections to same-sex marriage. the fact that extremely wealthy gay millionaires have charity The substantial amount for the Republican Party went unnoticed.
The recent proposal by the RSS chief, and the government conferring Padma Awards on persons belonging to the transgender community, are all opportunities and openings within the BJP big tent, which LGBTQ leaders should capitalize on. Left-wing parties that are under Muslim or Christian clergy may hesitate to openly support the LGBTQ community. At least for now, the BJP looks a better bet.
Despite what my scholarly American political science professor told me years ago, the fact is that ‘identity’ matters and it matters a lot in democracies. There are challenges and opportunities on both the demand and supply sides of the equation. Political parties need to develop multiple identity groups, while at the same time not alienating the core groups that support them. Identity groups need to ensure that they are able to bargain with multiple parties and leverage their support and that only one organization is not allowed. It is not smart to be a reliable vote bank.
Jayateertha Rao is a retired businessman based in Mumbai. Thoughts are personal.
(Editing by Anurag Choubey)