|
Emergence of the Bahujan Samaj Party in Uttar Pradesh, the most populous state of India, has come as a shocker for the pro-establishment minds who had begun to conceive future polity in terms of bipolarity. That have-nots could deliver a mandate as resounding as the one in Uttar Pradesh, marginalizing the two polar outfits, namely the BJP and the Congress, was hardly conceivable, let alone being palatable. So far, only the Munnetra Kazhgams and the Marxists were considered to have this unique privilege. And they fell outside the Hindi belt.
By any stretch of imagination, the rise of Mayawati and the Bahujan Samaj Party in this key state, is noteworthy. First because it was not considered a mainstream party. Its reputation so far was that of a spoiler. Second, it pursues an amorphous ideology shorn of any specifics. Third, it is casteist to the core and may have included Muslims and uppercastes merely for the sake of strategic gains. Fourth, the mandate has left the mainstream parties not even within sniffing distance of power. Fifth, the factor that causes fright is that even the opposition slot has gone to a regional party, the Samajwadi Party.
BSP’s capture of power with an absolute majority certainly serves, both, as an index of robustness of Indian democracy and the fairness of the electoral system. Few in the West, the land of birth of the electoral democracy, can today conceive of sudden emergence of a party of have-nots on the power scene in the manner the BSP has done in Uttar Pradesh which by any standards has more voters than any European state. In an ambience where the elite-industry-media-bureaucracy nexus constitutes the power base, arrival of a party without any such support, is likely to be viewed as a complete negation of the rules of the game. Though even the Marxists have consistently retained their grip on power in West Bengal without all these, they had the advantage of a cadre which the BSP visibly lacked. The BSP would therefore require all the guile at its disposal to overcome the challenges posed by entrenched lobbies. It will need to nurture its own base in all sectors that constitutes the sinews of permanent power emanating from non-electoral sources.
The BSP would do well by reminding itself that its electoral base still remains fragile and does not point to any firm coalition of social forces on the ground. This is mainly because the recent polls witnessed low turnout of voters, just around 45 per cent. Second, the upper caste component has just about aligned with it out of expediency and does not share its ideological vision. Third, the party has garnered a little about 30 per cent votes cast. The arrogance of power should therefore not go to its head and the party should carry all sections of people with it. Obviously, empowerment of Dalits would occupy prime of place on its agenda. But it should not be at the expense of other sections. It should also be wary of bureaucracy which draws its vision from the globalizing elite who have ridden roughshod over the concerns of the have-nots. Nor should it engage itself in cosmetic exercises of installing statues of party icons and changing names of the places. Bijli, sadak, paani, education and health for all should take priority in its scheme of things.
It seems the Muslims have backed the BSP and the Samajwadi Party in ample measure. Between themselves they share 49 of the 57 Muslim MLAs in the new Assembly. In fact none of the Muslim candidates set up by the Congress and the BJP could make it to the winning post. The house has also witnessed substantial increase in the representation of the community, though still less than the proportional share. The two Muslim fronts floated by the Delhi based leadership have met their waterloo in the plains of Uttar Pradesh. It was not in the interest of Muslims to have followed communal politics in a state where memories of partition are raw and social fabric brittle. Muslims would be well advised not to fall prey to any such machination in future.
|
|
