Caste and insult have a disconcerting liaison. It is both historical and contemporary. People from the so-called upper castes have shamelessly used caste to humiliate those who are from the marginalised communities.
The Sangh Parivar believes in caste hierarchy; nobody has ever refuted RSS mentor MS Golwalkar’s proposition that the nation and the society will run on the basis of ‘Varna” system. Religious bigotry isn’t the only evil their philosophy legitimises and there is little evidence to suggest that their vision of Hindu Rashtra will be devoid of caste discrimination.
What Anurag Thakur said in the Lok Sabha about Rahul Gandhi should not be seen in isolation from the unseemly rants of the likes of former MP Ramesh Bidhuri who humiliated a Muslim parliamentarian on the floor of the House only because of his religious identity.
The juvenile contention that Rahul Gandhi also asks people about their caste and what’s wrong if somebody asked his caste betrays a poor understanding of the nature of controversy. Questions about caste or gender to highlight inequality and discrimination, and the demand for caste census to gather data for policy formulation cannot be equated with misuse of caste for humiliation and discrimination.
Unfortunately, a section of the media has fallen for this illogic. What Anurag Thakur, a former union minister, said was more perverse because it appeared to question Rahul Gandhi’s lineage, not only caste. Without naming the Congress leader, he said, “Jiski jaat ka pata nahin wo ganana ki baat karta hai (whose caste is not known is talking about caste census).”
While such comments are often used to question the parentage of an individual, and is considered abusive and undignified, Thakur was probably hinting at the inter-caste marriages of Rahul Gandhi’s grandmother Indira Gandhi and father Rajiv Gandhi to suggest that Rahul’s caste cannot be determined.
BR Ambedkar had suggested inter-caste marriages as an effective solution to the lack of empathy for the marginalised castes, gradually creating a situation when caste ceases to matter in society.
Ambedkar was so bitter and concerned about caste discrimination that he wrote: “No society has an official gradation laid down, fixed and permanent, with an ascending scale of reverence and a descending scale of contempt”. Ambedkar had finally quit Hinduism to embrace Buddhism.
The Sangh Parivar ecosystem has run a vicious propaganda about the Nehru clan’s religion for decades – spreading falsehood about their alleged Muslim origin. Though Nehru too was an agnostic, Rahul is a devout Hindu, a Shiva bhakt, unlike most Sangh Parivar icons – from VD Savarkar to L K Advani – who are self-proclaimed atheists.
Rahul’s obsession with Shiva is not merely political posturing; he is deeply attached to the deity and his pilgrimage to Kailash Mansarovar and Kedarnath temple were widely reported. Congress insiders reveal he loves to debate Hindu religion and philosophy in private conversations.
His decision to incorporate Shiva in his political discourse appears to be a compulsion, the last resort, because other attempts to contest the BJP propaganda about the Congress being anti-Hindu and a Muslim party had failed. The Congress had no option except demolishing the perception that the BJP was the sole custodian of Hindu interests.
But Rahul’s emphasis on caste is a serious political project. He has understood the Congress folly of not realising the criticality of social justice earlier and constructed a new politics, using caste census as a potential instrument of social transformation.
If the BJP thinks recalling what Rajiv Gandhi or others said about caste-based reservation will be enough to discredit Rahul, they are grossly mistaken. Rahul knows that the future of secular democracy rests on the debris of systemic caste discrimination and hence the old order has to be dismantled.
His constant and powerful articulation on the cause of social justice laid the ground for an ideological unity with regional forces and the opposition alliance now stands on a firmer platform than ever before. Rahul’s sincere commitment to social justice has dissipated the intrinsic antipathy towards the Congress among the other secular parties.
This ideological coalition demonstrated its potential in Uttar Pradesh during the Lok Sabha elections where the BJP was whittled down to half – even Ayodhya elected a Dalit MP despite the hype over the construction of the Ram temple. Ordinary people have begun to understand that merely being in the Hindu fold doesn’t guarantee equality of status. The Constitution, however, performs that magic.
Leaders such as Rahul Gandhi, Akhilesh Yadav and Tejashwi Yadav understand that the social justice plank has the potential to weaken the BJP’s mobilisation tactics in the name of Hinduism. Society cannot be left to muddle along on the virtues on tolerance and compassion alone.
Social harmony requires real equality which will come through empowerment and rights. If the opposition convinces a large section of society that it is sincere about addressing the vital questions of equitable distribution of resources and representation, the majority of Hindus will abandon the Hindutva bandwagon that has not given them anything except political titillation. Hindu unity is fragile because the RSS-BJP project has neither empowered the majority community, nor addressed questions of caste discrimination.
Every person from marginalised castes understands the purpose and effect of Anurag Thakur’s ‘Jati-ka-pata nahin’ jibe at Rahul Gandhi. The privileged sections of society which hasn’t suffered this humiliation will continue to obfuscate the true import of this taunt.
But both Rahul and Akhilesh responded instantly, conveying different messages to the people. While Rahul’s argument that anybody who fights for Dalits, Adivasis and OBCs is subjected to this kind of humiliation and he was prepared to face it, sent out a message of his personal commitment to social transformation, the sense of outrage demonstrated by Akhilesh appealed to the self-esteem of the oppressed sections of society.
The BJP tried to define the political contest in terms of Hindu-Muslim battle, explicitly articulating it as ‘80 versus 20’contest and Rahul-Akhilesh have now turned the tables on them. They too framed the discourse as an ‘80-20 contest’, a battle between the deprived sections of society and the elite – both privileged castes and the financially powerful.
While Akhilesh calls it PDA (Pichhda-Dalit-Alpsankhyak), Rahul has a similar canvas of OBCs, Dalits, tribal communities, minorities and the poor upper castes. Though the last Lok Sabha election witnessed glimpses of this change in political dynamics, the results will be far-reaching after the opposition parties succeed in making deeper inroads.
Reckless acts by BJP, as committed by Anurag Thakur in the Lok Sabha, will facilitate the opposition’s march. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a politically shrewd leader, demonstrated self-defeatism by endorsing his wayward MP instead of distancing himself from the controversy, like he did in the past in case of Pragya Singh Thakur. When chips are down, political acumen goes on leave.
Sanjay K. Jha is a political commentator.
