Relevance: Sociology: Politics and Society: Nation, democracy and citizenship.
Political parties, pressure groups, social and political elite. Regionalism and decentralization of power. Secularization
The relationship between caste and politics has been analysed at two levels: one, how caste affects politics, and two, how politics affects caste.
The Awareness:
The interest and awareness of various castes in politics may be studied in terms of four factors: interest of castes in politics, political knowledge and political awareness of castes, identification of castes with political parties, and influence of castes on political affairs.
Analysing the political interest by taking all castes together, he found that about 25 per cent castes had high interest in politics, 45 per cent had moderate interest, and 30 per cent had no interest at all.
The Relationship:
Rajni Kothari (1970) examined the relationship between caste and politics by analysing the issue as to what happens to political system because of the vote of castes. He found that three factors—education, government patronage, and slowly expanding franchise (including 18-21 year old young persons in electorate)—have penetrated the caste system because of which it (caste system) has come to affect democratic politics in the country. Economic opportunity, administrative patronage, and positions of power offered by the new institutions and the new leadership drew castes into politics.
This involvement (of castes in politics) resulted in two things: the caste system made available to the leadership the structural and the ideological basis for political mobilisation, and two, leadership was forced to make concessions to local opinion and organise castes for economic and political purposes.
The use of caste in politics was analysed by Rajni Kothari (1970) in two different stages.
The first stage involved intellectuals, and antagonism and resentment between high entrenched castes (like Reddi in Andhra Pradesh, Pattidars in Gujarat, Lingayats in Karnataka, Bhumihars in Bihar, and Rajputs in Rajasthan) and high ascendant castes (like Kayastha in Bihar, Jats in Rajasthan).
The second stage involved factionalism and fragmentation within the competing (entrenched and ascendant) castes as a result of which multi-caste and multi-factional alignments develop. The lower castes also are brought in to support high caste leaders and to strengthen a faction.
In the first stage, only three components of caste are involved—the power structure of caste, distribution of economic benefits, and caste consciousness. But in the second stage, other components of castes like caste consciousness, client loyalties etc. also come to be involved.
Further, three sub-stages are pointed out by Kothari in the first stage. In the first sub-stage, the struggle for power and benefits is at first limited to the entrenched castes, i.e., those which exercised preponderant influence economically and politically but not necessarily numerically. In the second sub-stage, ascendant castes (i.e., unsatisfied castes wanting higher roles) also start competing for power.
In the third sub-stage, there is not only competition between entrenched and ascendant castes (for power and benefits) but also within these castes. In the second stage, called as the stage of caste fragmentation or factionalism, the leadership cleavages are created and multi-caste and multi-factional alignments come into being. This also creates the problem of rival caste leaders in politics. These leaders come to involve masses too because they (leaders) want to appeal to wider identities. There is also change in leadership in this stage.
Kothari has talked of the third stage also in relationship between caste and politics. While in the first stage, ‘entrenched’ high castes are first politicised and ‘ascendant’ high castes respond with resentment and feeling? of relative deprivation (e.g., entrenched caste of Brahmins and ascendant caste of Marathas in Maharashtra) and in the second stage factions emerge within the competing (entrenched and ascendant) castes and lower castes are also brought in for support, in the third stage, identifications other than those of caste are likely to become more important with advancing education, urbanisation and adoption of modern achievement orientation. There, thus, emerge cross-cutting alliances.
The process of fusion of castes is illustrated by the DMK in Tamil Nadu and Republican Party (consisting of Mahars and other untouchable castes) in Maharashtra. The former party is politically powerful but the latter party has not yet wielded much political power.
In panchayats at the village level these days, elections are often contested on cross-cutting votes. Large landless castes now have the power of voting strength; so they challenge the traditionally dominant caste which has power derived from land control. Dominant castes as well as ascendant (higher) castes are usually tied in with the important political parties of the region and upward mobility through the political party organisation takes place. Thus, today on the one side caste ceases to be an exclusive political support-base and on the other it greatly affects politics.
Kothari draws four conclusions from the present relationship between caste and politics:
(1) New elite structure has emerged in politics which is drawn from different castes but shares a common secular outlook and is homogeneous in terms of some values.
(2) Castes have assumed new organisational form Thus (i) caste associations are now functioning at various levels (universities, hostels, clubs, government offices, and so forth; (ii) caste conferences have become broad-based; and (iii) caste federations have emerged.
(3) Castes have started functioning on factional basis. These factions divide not only political groups but also social groups.
(4) The caste identifications have given a new relevance to the electorate system. It is not only the large castes which affect politics but also the smaller castes which have become important in seeking votes.
Caste and Voting Behaviour:
Voting provides an opportunity to castes to assert their influence. Scholars like Rajni Kothari (1970), Lindzey Gardner, Miller (1950), Key (1955), Campbell (1960), and Norman Palmer (1976) have referred to caste as a voting determinant. Just as in Britain, voting is class-determinant, in United States, it is race-determinant, in India it is caste-determinant. For those castes which are at the bottom of the hierarchy, voting right serves as a powerful activity. The lower the social and economic status of a caste, the higher the importance of the vote.
Political Elite, Political Parties and Caste Mobilisation:
Caste has become a determinant factor of ‘political elite’ status. Studies conducted on political elite by scholars like Sirsikar, Sachchidananda, Ram Ahuja, S.K. Lai, etc., have all pointed out that in the emergence of elite, higher castes have an extraordinary advantage over the middle and the lower castes. Before independence, generally the upper caste groups occupied the centre of the political stage in the Congress party engaged in the freedom struggle but after independence, individuals from the middle and the lower castes also entered political power field.
The reservation policy enabled individuals from the lower castes to emerge as leaders, while elite from the middle castes emerged due to their improved educational and socio-economic status. Thus, caste system which had only ritualistic function (including determining occupation and social status) assumed the new role of regulating political behaviour of the people.
In villages also, caste has assumed great significance in emerging power structure. In offices, universities, secretariats, etc. we hear of Jain lobby, Rajput lobby, Brahmin lobby, Yadav lobby, Kayasth lobby, Reddy lobby, etc.
If activists operate as casteist in social and occupational life, how can they think in terms of operating as non-casteist in political life?
Our political elite, thus, may talk of secularism and denounce caste and casteist politics but in practice they function under the pressure of caste, since their own emergence as leaders has a caste background.
Political parties also mobilise caste support. In fact, the problems of mobilisation of masses today (1999) are the same as they were four decades ago. Just as in the 1930s and the 1940s social reformers believed that without the enlightment of masses, their organisation for political activity was not possible, similarly today also politicians try to get support from the caste leaders and at the same time drive home to them the utility of political means in achieving their goals.
Conclusion:
Since in India social system is organised around caste structure, therefore, caste and politics can never be separated. Thus, casteism in politics is nothing but politicisation of caste. As regards the second view, politics is seen as an instrument to consolidate or raise its position. As such, politics does not affect the structure of society. Kothari has criticised this view also. He says, there is always mutual effect of caste and politics on each other. As regards the third view, this includes progressive economists, indologists and political and social anthropologists.
They want to protect caste and free caste from politics and politics from caste. Kothari has criticised this view too, holding that all these scholars have failed to see that there never was a complete polarisation between the caste system and the political system. A.R. Desai, K.M. Kapadia, G.S. Ghurye also held the same view. Politics has used caste and will continue to use it for socio-political purposes.