.jpg?auto=format%2Ccompress&fmt=webp&width=720)
The three-day conclave of the Akhil Bharatiya Samnvay Baithak of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in Palakkad, Kerala from 31 August to 2 September was keenly anticipated because it was the first meeting of the saffron fraternity’s inter-affiliate coordination platform after Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) President JP Nadda’s hyperbolic declaration amid the Lok Sabha elections campaign that the party had become saksham, ie, competent enough to not need any support from its ideological fountainhead.
Nadda’s declaration triggered bitterness. That the RSS had not taken kindly to the uncalled-for assertions became evident when Sarsanghchalak Mohan Bhagwat made headline-grabbing statements in June and July that undeniably alluded to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, although he was not named.
There were a plethora of other critical remarks by functionaries of the Sangh Parivar, including articles in the mainstream media and even in the RSS mouthpiece, The Organiser. Against this backdrop, the presence of Nadda in the conclave fuelled speculation over the response that awaited him.
Unambiguously, the bitter episode is not yet in the past even as the results made it evident that the BJP was not completely saksham as the absence of the RSS cadre’s enthusiastic campaigning adversely affected the BJP’s performance.
The RSS' chief publicist or Prachar Pramukh Sunil Ambekar in his press interaction at the conclusion of the session accepted the existence of problematic issues between the BJP and the RSS. He covered this up by stating that it was an internal matter within the family and would be resolved by dialogue.
Even though the RSS spokesperson uncharacteristically admitted to divergent viewpoints, Ambekar’s statements on the caste census issue and the recent Supreme Court judgment permitting sub-classifications within Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (for breaking down the reservation quota for the entire community) created a bigger splash.
It has to be recalled that the caste census issues gathered steam among the Opposition parties after Nitish Kumar took the initiative and ordered it in Bihar in June 2022. At that time, the BJP was part of his coalition government and after backing his move, it developed cold feet.
Since then, not just the BJP, but significant sections of the Sangh Parivar have displayed discomfort on the issue. Ambekar’s muddled arguments at the presser on 2 September is the latest instance of the saffron fraternity’s inability to provide reasons, at least in public, for opposing a caste census, although its heart is not into backing this exercise.
And this was not the only issue on which Ambekar appeared to be groping for the right words. Even when asked about the apex court's verdict holding the sub-classification of SCs and STs as permissible for granting separate quotas for different sub-castes within the community, the RSS chose an ambiguous path, neither fully endorsing the judgment nor stating that it was a problematic verdict.
The RSS leader made his organisation’s backing for the two steps, now almost on the anvil, as conditional. On the caste census, his stipulation was that the issue should not be harnessed politically or electorally. Instead, the entire purpose should be aimed at social welfare. He added that this was necessary because it would impact relations between various castes, and therefore, was a “very sensitive issue.”
However, there can be no objective criteria by which it can be determined whether any issue has been used for political purposes or not. For instance, the Sangh Parivar argues that the Ram Janmabhoomi movement was completely cultural in character whereas many would opine, including this writer, that it was harnessed as a no-holds-barred political issue, with the aim to electorally benefit the BJP.
Likewise, Ambekar contended that the subject of sub-classification and the availing benefits of reservations for specific sub-castes should be done after forging a consensus among all caste groups and ensuring inclusivity.
Importantly, the Supreme Court has ruled that the SCs and STs are not a homogenous community and can be segregated on the basis of the extent to which they are underprivileged. Because the judgment provides wider protection for underrepresented sub-castes or groups, there is a possibility that the relatively privileged sections who lose out on the quota that is currently available to them will resent the change in the current system.
Till a few years ago, both OBCs and SC-STs were considered to be composite electoral constituencies supporting different non-BJP parties. The BJP, however, consciously wooed the non-dominant sub-castes and benefited electorally. A caste census and sub-division among SC-STs will rejig the social hierarchy and possibly pit these groups against one another.
Additionally, the RSS fears, although this cannot be stated in public, that sub-classification has the potential to trigger groups of SC-STs locking horns with one another similar to the bitterness and disputes between OBCs and upper castes after VP Singh’s decision to implement recommendations of the Mandal Commission in 1990.
It is not surprising that the RSS stressed the sensitivity of the caste census and rang a somewhat muted alarm that the exercise had the potential to jeopardise national unity and integrity. However, it is perplexing how political parties can be prevented from using the data generated to hone their political and electoral strategies.
It is a known fact that, despite a caste census (in the manner it is being understood) not having been conducted in independent India, almost every seasoned practitioner of politics at various levels has a fair idea of the caste mosaic after gleaning through several data-collection exercises resembling a census.
.jpg?auto=format%2Ccompress&fmt=webp&width=720)
Most political parties have, for decades, used whatever data was available and coupled it with personal assessments of politicians having good connections at the grassroots and comprehended the social profile of various constituencies to draw up their electoral strategies, including the caste identity of candidates.
When the BJP, during the 1991 Lok Sabha election, began consciously nominating OBC candidates from constituencies where they were present in numerically significant numbers, a fancy jargon was coined by the then general secretary of the party KN Govindacharya – ‘social engineering’.
The chief worry for the RSS and the BJP, and this explains their awkward posture on the caste census, is that in public perception, the credit for accomplishing the exercise will go to the Opposition, especially Rahul Gandhi, for having championed the issue most vociferously in the last few months.
The BJP needs to realise that its uncalled-for parliamentary belligerence, like Anurag Thakur’s taunt hurled at Rahul Gandhi in the Lok Sabha for raising the caste census issue, is counter-productive because it only enables the Congress party to get credit for forcing the decision on the government. In contrast, the BJP, despite having been a partner of the government that set the ball rolling, is seen as a party that did not back the move wholeheartedly.
The BJP’s emergence from the political periphery to the centre stage in the 1980s was on the back of the Ram Janmabhoomi agitation. The pan-Hindu unity which was forged mainly in the late 1980s was shattered by the Mandal Commission award of the VP Singh government. The BJP countered caste fissures triggered by the momentous announcement by taking out the Rath Yatra from Somnath to Ayodhya led by Lal Krishna Advani.
Divergences on the basis of caste identity splintered the Hindu community through the twentieth century and Hindu right-wing organisations grappled with this factor during the colonial era and after independence. This explains why the Sangh Parivar is circumspect about the demand for a caste census. The fraternity’s awkward quandary stems from the fact that it has the potential to pit SC-ST groups against one another, but it cannot openly oppose the call either.
(The writer’s latest book is The Demolition and the Verdict: Ayodhya and the Project to Reconfigure India. He tweets at @NilanjanUdwin. This is an opinion piece. The views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)
