They have Obama, We have Mayawati?
So, Barack Obama has won the race to the White house, and there is jubilation all around, with much talk about breaking of racial glass ceilings and so on. Whether or not Obama is a “typical” African-American (after all, his father was a recent, educated immigrant from Kenya, and his mother white), symbolically, it is still a big deal.
Television channels in India have immediately started drawing parallels to the Indian context. We don’t have race of course (or not as a significant issue), but what we have is Caste. So, the obvious question is, is India ready to elect a Dalit prime minister? More specifically, are we ready to elect the likeliest Dalit candidate on the horizon, Mayawati? Â
Leaving aside the fact that Indian politics is more complicated than the American landscape, with its multiple parties, both national and state-level, I have to say that Mayawati somehow draws a very polarized response from me. Put simply, these days, whenever I see her on television, I feel a terrible dislike. But, I didn’t always feel this way. I remember the 90s when she first emerged as someone to reckon with, I was thrilled - a woman and a Dalit - mobilizing a constituency that had never been really mobilized before (despite all the lip service paid by most politicians); for the first time, there was a sense that there could really be an India where Dalits mattered. While the Mandal issue had brought caste to the table as a major election issue, the BSP gave out the hope that Dalits could haul themselves up and march to the capital - they didn’t need handouts from anyone else.
As an upper-caste woman who gets to see upper-caste whingeing and prejudice at close quarters, I thought that here was an opportunity for the historically oppressed to really have the power that is needed to create a new social order. Perhaps because my expectations from the BSP, and from Mayawati were so high, I feel all the more let down.
Yes, symbolically, she is a huge inspiration and in a sense, she proves that India has reached a stage where being Dalit need not be a barrier to success. But, beyond all that, how have her stints in power been? Let’s see.
Her government has been in the news for accepting kickbacks.
She has about 40 statues erected to herself.
Now, none of these are unique to Mayawati. Every Indian politician makes money, steals money from public coffers and spends extravagant sums on his/her self-aggrandisement. Should Mayawati necessarily be different simply because she has come to power, promising to fulfil the aspirations of Dalit voters? In other words, should she be held to a higher standard?
On the one hand, as a feminist, I am tired of hearing people say that women have to work twice as hard to make it. Do you have any idea how tough it is to work twice as hard? And that too, when most women actually hold down two jobs, one outside, and one inside the house. Doesn’t expecting a Dalit Chief Minister to be better than every other politician smack of this?
On the other hand, no one can deny that there is so much work to be done. And Dalit or not, can we not ask our leaders to be accountable for the money (our money) that they use?
Apart from issues of misuse and accountability, there is also a worry that in her haste to consolidate power, Mayawati is willing to woo the upper castes - as such, there is nothing wrong in this - having an inclusive agenda can lead to less caste-divisions and progress for everyone. But, is that what it is, or simply vote bank politics and fear of losing out on the upper-caste vote? I’m also surprised that we don’t hear her much on Dalit issues anymore - According to the National Crime Records Bureau, the last data available (for 2005) shows a small decline in the number of atrocities against SC/STs, but even so, we are a long way from caste-based crimes being eradicated. Plus, while she clearly shows prime-ministerial ambitions, we don’t really hear her speak or do enough when there are such cases being reported in other states regularly, which makes me suspicious that she is soft-pedalling the issue to gain wider acceptance.
So. Is a symbol enough or should we be expecting more?
What People Say