The achievement trap

To begin with, how can this experience be described? D.L. Sheth has provided one of the most compelling readings of Dalit politics of UP. He understands it in terms of two mutually exclusive discourses 8212; the first deals with the politics of movement and the other is the pure discourse of theory. The former involves an element of pragmatism to maximise the chances of Dalit empowerment within the available resources. This involves making electoral alliances across the political spectrum. Pure discourse privileges scepticism and seeks theoretical resolutions to Dalit questions. Sheth privileges discourse of real politics over pure discourse.

The 8216;success8217; of Dalit politics in UP might be seen as an argument to assign more weightage to the discourse of real politics. The UP experience has signalled that Dalits aren8217;t just the means to a political end for dominant political parties. Kanshi Ram8217;s politics was an assertion: Dalits would not make just a guest appearance in the election manifestos of other parties; instead, they themselves would write the script of their political personality.

The achievement of this politics could be seen in the upper caste acceptance of Dalit leadership. Electoral democracy has forced a dialogue upon a hierarchical tradition. But 8216;enlightened8217; upper castes used the Hindu idiom of 8216;Raksha Bandhan8217; rather than 8216;Buddhist Maitree8217; as the framework for this new political alliance.

Even so, these achievements are spectacular. Yet, Dalit politics of UP could not be repeated elsewhere in the country. Why? In the interests of Dalits, it is necessary to ask why UP politics could not be successfully repeated in other parts of the country.

The discourse of real politics destroys the very moral and political conditions on which rest the ambitions to make Dalit politics meaningful nationwide. The need to remain relevant in regional politics forces Dalits to tighten their grip over their own social constituency through provincialising their own imagination and the political energies of Dalit activists.

The need to make electoral victory safe compels Dalit leaders to siphon off resources from other regions and deploy them in the favoured regions. Thus, the BSP8217;s success story in UP takes a toll on Dalit energies and imagination vis a vis other regions. Ironically, the logic of real politics becomes antithetical to the justice principle in as much as it feeds on the deprivation of Dalits from other regions. But primarily, questions of justice do not find articulation because of a lack of self-critique within Dalit politics.

The silence on normative issues could again be attributed to the discourse on real politics which is obsessed with non-cognitive properties. The BSP8217;s appeal to the middle/lower class Dalits to 8216;pay back to society8217; points to the consensual model conditioned by these non-cognitive properties. The politics which can be found in UP fails to grasp the conflictual and controversial character of Dalit social life. Consensual politics insulates Dalit leaders from legitimate critique. Dalit leaders feel free to switch lines sharply and frequently, like abruptly jumping from Dalit to bahujan to sarvajan.

Let us not forget, Ambedkar8217;s political project was based on the culture of deliberation. Ambedkar has acquired universal stature not because he was a Maharashtrian or a Mahar but because he became an embodiment of the ideas of opposition and emancipation, that could travel across regions and could become part of their imagination. Kanshi Ram8217;s dream to make Dalit politics universally creditworthy depends not on his rhetorical accommodation or ambition to become PM but on the oppositional and alternative imagination that has firm roots in Ambedkar8217;s theory and practice. Dalits have a great hunger for ideas. What is expected of Dalit political parties is that they become vibrant universities for these ideas.

The writer is professor of politics, Centre for Political Studies, JNU, Delhi