In the article, “Electing a New People “, the writer attempted to draw a parallel between PM Narendra Modi’s statement about Rahul Gandhi’s candidature in Wayanad, RJD’s narrative against Kanhaiya Kumar in Begusaria and the separate electorate during colonial India. It quotes Narendra Modi’s “Where the majority is minority” narrative as a piece of evidence to expose politics prompting the ugly idea of the separate electorate which was critical to British’ ‘Divide & Rule” policy and was vehemently opposed by Mahatma Gandhi. Further, the writer also questioned RJD’s choice to contest Tanveer Hassan from Begusaaria and appealing to the Muslim voters.
The article substantiates the idea of the universal franchise by quoting an example from constituent assembly debates and constitutional mandates which seems fair enough. But in quest of proving her point the writer has conveniently ignored the 70 years of Indian electoral politics where ascriptive identity by virtue of place of birth, caste, creed, and religions has played a dominant role in electoral choices.
The attempt of projecting Kanhaiya Kumar as the champion of the doctrine of universal franchise, itself weakens the entire argument. Kanhaiya, a PhD holder from JNU did not choose any other constituency from the list of 543 constituencies, but Begusarai, where Bhumihars have the maximum voting share and it came as no surprise that Mr Kumar belongs to the same caste group. By tactfully choosing Begusarai, he only strengthens the idea of caste-based politics in Bihar and proved that he is no different. Besides, the writer missed the chance to elaborate upon the electoral possibilities as to which one is more inclusive and congruent with the idea of the universal franchise- a Muslim candidate representing a Hindu majority constituency or a Bhumihar (Caste Hindu) representing the constituency dominated by Bhumihars themselves?
Moving further, the article in the pursuit of promoting Universal Franchise, discarded the entire demands and movements in favour of increasing the representation of minorities, women and scheduled tribes and castes. If we accept the idea prompted by the article, there would be no need for the reserved constituency for SCs and STs as anyone irrespective of their sub-national identity is supposed to represent them effectively. The article can also be interpreted as inconsistent with the demand of women reservation, as according to the writer there is no need for women to represent women.
Contemplating India’s socio-political scenario, none of us can discard the goods brought by the politicisation of the caste started in the late 80s. It does not just give voice to millions of voiceless but also an opportunity to get heard after centuries of ignorance. It adds value to their vote and electoral choices by bringing their concerns to the forefront. Definitely, we can’t be ignorant towards the vices introduced by the ascriptive politics in India which prolonged the convergence of societal cleavages.
Describing these political statements as a pitch for the separate electorate seems over-exaggeration and incomprehension of India’s political scenario.
Note – This article is written in response to an opinion piece, “Electing a New People ” by Seema Chisti appeared on Indian Express(print version) on May 6, 2019.