Author: Varghese K. George
Publication: The Indian Express
Date: November 5, 2005
URL: http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=81333
Introduction: Bihar voters have to decide
on two questions - for or against Laloo, for or against backward caste rule.
The outcome will depend on which becomes the predominant fault-line of polarisation
Bihar's five crore voters are divided into
200 plus castes. Aspirations - individual and collective - in Bihar are defined
by caste more than any other factor. That is why caste is the most significant
determinant of voting behaviour in the state.
Optimists have suggested replacing caste with
development, as the driving force of politics. It is worth striving for, but
even development is not independent of caste in a society in strife. People
of all castes demand schools, but when a school is actually allotted, the
location of it within the village becomes an issue of caste conflict. Even
today it is not easy for a Yadav child - let alone a Dalit - to learn in a
school located in a Bhumihar hamlet. The debate hence is back to basics -
of atavistic affinities.
During elections, influential castes make
alliances, based on a common minimum programme. Electoral outcomes are determined
by the strength of such alliances. Deconstructing the three political formations
in Bihar in terms of the caste aspirations they represent, could help in making
sense of the dynamics of this election. JDU-BJP alliance first. Four upper
castes, 12-13 percent of the population, wanting to see the back of Laloo
Prasad Yadav, are solidly behind the alliance. 2.5 percent Kurmis, and nearly
5 percent Koeris, are also supporting the alliance.
Kurmi, Koeri and Yadavs - the three upper
backward castes - pioneered the backward caste movement early last century
under the banner of Triveni Sangh. When power finally and decisively came
to the backward castes in 1991, Laloo Yadav, as leader of the dominant 13
percent Yadav became its leader. Nitish Kumar, Kurmi, now NDA chief ministerial
candidate, was Laloo's co-traveller then. Aspirations of Kurmis and Koeris
were not sufficiently accommodated under Laloo; and they now want him out.
Thus, what unites upper castes, Kurmis and Koeris is their opposition to Laloo.
Development commitments made by the leaders of the NDA may well be genuine,
but the glue of this alliance is definitely not a shared urge for development.
Numerically, NDA's core social formation is
far from winnable. NDA had to broaden its base - in February, the alliance
tried to project a pan-Bihar development agenda. It pitched for the vote of
anyone who was opposed to Laloo's misgovernance. This time, besides its promise
of development, the NDA has explicitly stated Nitish Kumar as its CM candidate.
Unless by attracting a good section of other backwards, the alliance can never
win; projection of Nitish is an attempt to do so.
But the inherent dilemma here is the age-old
mistrust between upper and backward castes. The more Nitish becomes acceptable
to upper castes by distancing himself from backward politics, the more suspect
he becomes in the eyes of the backward.
The other opposition to Laloo is from Ram
Vilas Paswan, projecting himself a Dalit leader. But the 15 percent Dalits
of the state are not a monolith. Ram Vilas has the unqualified support of
only the Paswans. In his crude idioms, Paswan is promising a section of backwards,
Dalits and Muslims, political empowerment they could not achieve under the
regime of Laloo Prasad Yadav. In other words, Ram Vilas is focussing on a
new strand of backward politics as opposed to the pre-dominantly Yadav focussed
politics of Laloo Prasad.
English readers often wonder how, Laloo Prasad
Yadav - perceived as inefficient and corrupt - manages to win elections. Unwillingness
or inability to understand Bihar often lead to simplistic explanations - the
most favoured of them being booth capturing. At any rate, fewer booths are
captured in Bihar in the last 15 years than in the previous four decades!
After "15 years of misrule," the following is how a staunch supporter
of Laloo explains his position. Heard last week, this is more relevant than
cliche: Ajay Arya of Jamui was 12 years when Laloo came to power. "I
am a Dalit, a chamar. In my childhood, everyday, I suffered expletives from
the upper castes for nothing. Rajput boys destroyed our kitchen garden for
sport. I am still poor, unemployed, but it is only after the ascent of Laloo
Yadav that I can talk the way I do. Only for that, I will vote for Laloo all
my life." This election one is more likely to hear this than in February.
Even Arya admits that there has been no economic development under Laloo.
Indeed, many of Laloo's own voters are bitter about Laloo's refusal to notice
their material miseries.
Thus, there are two distinct two fault-lines
visible in the ongoing Bihar elections. One division is on the question of
supporting or opposing Laloo. The other division is on who will rule Bihar
- the backwards or the non-backwards. Each voter, irrespective of his caste,
will have to take a stand on either or both of these questions. For an upper
caste voter, it is fairly easy this time - he is against Laloo; he wants the
end of the backward rule. However, for a backward or a Dalit or more than
100 EBCs, who may be bitterly opposed to Laloo Yadav's rule but touchy about
the rule of the backwards, the decision is not an easy one to make.
The outcome of this election will depend on
which factor prevails - the anti-Laloo sentiment or an assertion for backward
rule. If it's the first, Nitish will laugh his way to the assembly. If it's
the second, there are two claimants for it - Laloo and Ram Vilas.