kanhaiya kumar begusarai

Interview | Muslims, Bahujans Have Come Together to Protect the Constitution: J.V. Pawar

Dalit Panthers co-founder J.V. Pawar speaks to The Wire about casteism in national parties, political opportunism and more.

J.V. Pawar is one of the co-founders of the Dalit Panthers – a formidable political and social force that emerged in the 1970s as a response to the oppressive caste structures and social injustices faced by marginalised communities.

Pawar, now associated with Prakash Ambedkar’s Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi, speaks to The Wire about his understanding of the national political scene, caste dynamics in politics and the forces that can take the right-wing politics head-on.

Excerpts from the interview:

Do you think the Congress has emerged as a strong opponent to the xenophobic, Hindutva politics of the BJP? Or does the key lie in the hands of the smaller, grassroots-level regional political parties who have a closer connection with the voters?

The history of the Congress party reveals that it also has an Hindutvadi political past. Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar had written a book, What Congress and Gandhi have done to the Untouchables. Their local and village leaders were responsible for atrocities on Dalits. There is no difference between the BJP and the Congress party. Congress was once a national party, but because of its high-caste politics, today, it is dependent on regional parties for its survival.

The Shiv Sena in Maharashtra was a by-product of the Congress party. In these general elections, Raj Thackeray’s MNS party has emerged as a “B team” of the Congress. Congress can no longer win elections without the regional parties’ support.

In Maharashtra’s politics, a watershed moment came last year – after the Bhima Koregaon violence. Balasaheb (Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi’s founding leader Prakash Ambedkar) emerged as a strong anti-caste leader who confronted the right-wing radical groups and the state government head on. Do you see him converting those mobilised forces in his favour this election?

There is no doubt that Balasaheb managed to emerge as a strong anti-caste leader last year, post the Bhima Koregaon violence. He was the first one to have responded to the violence. His call for the bandh (shutdown) on January 3, 2018, got a response from every political party. That success proved that he is the only leader who was able to mobilise people irrespective of their (political) groups.

Also read: ‘I Don’t See Any Anti-Caste Movement Today’: Teltumbde on Ambedkar Jayanti

J. V. Pawar. Credit: RTI

In recent times, Balasaheb has been accused of not willing to accept the Congress’ terms for alliance and fielding all 48 candidates. He has been termed as a political novice and has even been accused of acting as a “team B” of the BJP. What is your opinion of these criticisms?

In no sense can Balasaheb be termed as a political novice. Instead, his political clout is such that, this election, every national party have hovered around him to have him on their side. He was the most contentious political leader in the state. This myth is media generated that he has been working as a team ‘B’ of BJP.

Balasaheb has been continuously criticising the BJP and the RSS. Paid journalists are made to spread false, irresponsible statements against Balasaheb. According to them, VBA contesting in all 48 seats will directly benefit the BJP. I then would like to ask how did BJP get a thumping majority in 2014? Was Balasaheb even in the fray then? Was VBA in existence then? Balasaheb’s dream might not come true in 2019, but he has surely emerged as a force to reckon with in coming elections.

Last elections Udit Raj joined the BJP amid criticism. Five years later, after the BJP denied him a ticket, he joined the Congress. Similarly, Athawale has stuck to the BJP-Sena alliance even after being treated badly. What could the reasons be for the Bahujan leaders sticking with the Savarna leadership even when they seldom get fair deals?

Both Udit Raj and Athawale are working to fill their individual bellies. They have always been in search of their livelihood. For them, their belly is more important than their brains. They are happy to carry the palanquins of their masters. These leaders are self-centred and the fact is that parties with Savarna leadership will never allow them to establish themselves. They will continue to be treated as slaves; it is in their blood.

Also read: No Question of Leaving BJP: Interview with BJP MP Udit Raj

The coming together of the Bahujans and Muslims is not new to Maharashtra politics. We have had instances of Haji Mastan floating his political front experimenting with this social combination and Jogendra Kavade too had tried this in the past. Is it an organic coming together or a forced alliance, in your opinion, given the fact that caste is a reality among the Muslims too and it seldom gets addressed?

The alliance of Bahujans and Muslims should be organic, which hasn’t happened yet. Mere political requirements can never bring in the true alliance. Forced alliances can never survive. The issue-based alliance will be able to earn something. And post-2014, protecting the Constitution of this country has emerged as a foremost need of both the communities. This one issue has brought the two together.

The north has given strong leaders like Mayawati and Lalu in recent political history. Kanshiram was one such leader in the recent past. Maharashtra, however, has lacked this. What could the reasons be?

There is a difference between North India and Maharashtra. Maharashtra is a land of great revolutionaries like Jotiba Phule, Shahu Maharaj, and Babasaheb Ambedkar. The north Indian leaders can’t be remembered for their contribution beyond 3-4 decades. They are all politically oriented and politics can’t be a permanent feature.

People have almost forgotten Kanshiram. Mayawati and Lalu Prasad will be remembered so long as they are in active politics. This is not the case with Phule and Ambedkar.

Also read: Examining the Evolution of Dalit Politics

So, as far as the politics of Maharashtra is concerned, the state has lacked leaders only in the recent past. But it is proud of Phule and Ambedkar and the land has cultivated many such personalities.

Kanhaiya Kumar campaigning in Begusarai. Credit: Facebook

What role do you think the left parties of India have played in the process of the annihilation of caste? Leaders like Kanhaiya Kumar, who have got great support and recognition among liberal forces too refuse to accept his caste privilege, do you then see him or any newly emerging left leaders as leaders of the masses?

Left parties of India have always been caste parties, their leaders have always been upper caste. They have not played any crucial role in the struggles of the annihilation of caste. Karl Marx is there be all and end all. But Marx was not aware of the caste realities of this country. Had the Marxists of this country paid attention to the caste realities and the struggles faced by people, this country too would have made a lot of progress.

Also read: Debate: Kanhaiya as a Symbol of Much-Needed Alternative Politics

Instead of annihilating caste, they have worked towards strengthening caste. Even the prime minister of democratic India is unable to forget his caste. This attitude has only killed the democracy of this country.

Having said that, I think Kanhaiya Kumar is still right on track. He wants to forget his caste and not accept the benefits he has reaped due to his caste. That is fine.

But he has still emerged as a leader of the masses. I think he is ready to look beyond caste and work in public. He will get support and recognition from liberal forces. Even if he doesn’t gain politically, society will consider him a successful leader.

Kanhaiya Kumar Breathes Winds of Change in Begusarai

Kanhaiya’s biggest achievement is that he has forced people to focus on ideas instead of identity; to focus on the candidate instead of the party.

Begusarai goes to vote today in the fourth phase of the 17th Lok Sabha elections. This year, the constituency has been in the spotlight all because of one name – Kanhaiya Kumar.

For a long time, Begusarai’s politics has been dominated by money-power and muscle-power. Caste, religion and regional equations have largely determined how people vote. The stories which earlier used to undergird elections in Begusarai were centred around which criminal was contesting and how polling booths were being captured.

This time, however, Begusarai has stolen the nation’s attention for other reasons.

Despite being colloquially known as ‘Bihar’s Leningrad’, Begusarai has elected only one CPI member of parliament – in 1967, but continues to be strongly influenced by the political left in assembly elections. In the 16 general elections the constituency has witnessed, MPs have been chosen from the Congress eight times.

In 2014 – for the first time – a candidate from the BJP won from Begusarai. The BJP’s decision to field Dr Bhola Singh – a veteran of Bihar politics, who was also interestingly a part of the CPI, Congress and RJD before joining BJP – paid its dividends.

However, Singh’s sad demise in October 2018 left the constituency without a representative.

But this time, it’s not party loyalties that dominate people’s concerns. Kanhaiya has compelled those who lost faith in the CPI to focus on him as an individual candidate instead. The intense media scrutiny under which he has been has only added to his fame.

A number of known faces, including lyricist and singer Javed Akhtar, actors Prakash Raj and Swara Bhaskar, and comedian Kunal Kamra have made their way to the narrow lanes of Begusarai’s villages, bringing with them conversations and appeals.

Spending a week here in the run up to polling day offered this writer a number of insights.

Pitted against the BJP’s sitting MP from Nawada, Giriraj Singh, and the mahagathbandhan’s popular face, Tanveer Hasan, Kanhaiya has fought on the slogan: “Neta nahi beta (son, not politician.)”

Indeed, posters splashed across the constituency reflect this too. A billboard welcoming travellers into Beehat, a village in Begusarai, reads: “Kanhaiya Kumar ke gaon mein aapka swagat hai! (Welcome to the village of Kanhaiya Kumar.)” Even ads in the local dailies read: “Notetantra ke khilaaf, loktantra ke sath! (Against money power, in support of democracy!)”

The result has been heartwarming. The question on everyone’s mind this time has not been “which caste does he belong to?” or “which village he hails from?”

The question this time has been: “Do you agree with him? Do you know what he stands for?”

Win or lose, I think this is already Kanhaiya’s biggest achievement: that he has forced people to focus on ideas instead of identity; to focus on the candidate instead of the party.

Men, women and children have been huddled over cups of chai, animatedly discussing ideas of the nation and development. The women have started to disagree with the men. The children, peering over their data-enabled cell phones, have started forming opinions of their own.

There are no binaries. There are multiple people who want both Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the centre and Kanhaiya at their home.

Yet, in him, they see a voice.

This is not to say that caste or identity politics have disappeared entirely from the minds of voters here – that would be a highly ambitious claim.

It is only to say that if Indian democracy throws up candidates capable of shaping narratives, the public is willing to discuss them too.

Shruti Sonal is a freelance journalist and a poet, who writes with equal fervour about language and politics. Find her on Instagram and Twitter @shruti_writes.

Featured image credit: PTI

Watch | Will Kanhaiya Kumar Win From Begusarai?

The Wire speaks to Kanhaiya Kumar during an election campaign.

Arfa Khanum Sherwani, senior editor at The Wire, speaks to Kanhaiya Kumar, CPI’s candidate from the Begusarai Lok Sabha constituency at one of his elections rallies. She also interacts with the people of the constituency, asking them who they are likely to vote for.

Kanhaiya Kumar is a former JNU students union president, and shot to national fame after the infamous ‘JNU sedition case’ in 2016.

Debate: Being ‘Liberal’ Means Asking Muslims to Spoil Their Best Chance in Begusarai

The onus of defeating right-wing extremists already falls on Muslim voters. Now liberals expect them to abandon a winning candidate in favour of a social-media celebrity, Kanhaiya Kumar.

This ‘fight against fascism’ in the general election has led to bizarre developments. In Begusarai, a section of those who support this fight has put all its weight behind an emerging star, Kanhaiya Kumar, who is contesting for the Communist Party of India (CPI). As the RJD+ refused to share the seat with the CPI, there will be a triangular competition between:

RJD’s upper-caste Muslim candidate Tanvir Hasan,
BJP’s upper-caste (Bhumihar) Hindu candidate Giriraj Singh
CPI’s upper caste (Bhumihar) Hindu candidate Kanhaiya Kumar.

The BJP has received significant vote share from almost all Hindu castes, so the responsibility to defeat the ruling party has been transferred onto Muslim voters. In Begusarai, both the CPI and the RJD are pursuing Muslim votes.

Without the CPI, it would have been a straightforward fight. Muslims would vote for the RJD and Giriraj Singh would likely be defeated. During the last election, Tanveer Hasan secured 3.5 lakh votes, and lost by a margin of around one lakh votes. The CPI+JDU diverted around two lakh votes. This year, presumably, Muslims, along with other communities allied with the RJD, would attempt once again to get Tanvir Hasan elected.

But as in 2014, the CPI is playing spoilsport again, while crying for unity against fascism. The magical presence of Kanhaiya has left even many Muslims confused.

An accidental hero

Mohammad Sajjad, a faculty member at Aligarh Muslim University, wrote an article arguing for Kanhaiya as a viable or even preferred candidate. He chastised Muslims campaigning for Tanveer for their ‘communal’ mindset, and reduced the Muslim demand for representation to ‘identity politics’, asking Muslims to imagine a circumstance where Hindus would vote only for Hindus (as if that needed any imagination).

He also raised the issue of caste fault-lines among Muslims, and how the RJD is fielding upper-caste Muslims candidates, and no one is talking about backward Muslims. Kanhaiya, in his opinion, is a ray of hope and change: Muslims should come out of their shells and vote for him.

Also Read: Kanhaiya Kumar: This Election is About the Struggles of Past and Our Hopes of the Future

Another article campaigning for Kanhaiya, written by Umar Khalid, presented a less-informed version of the same view. It argued that in the face of ‘fascism’, we should rise above our ‘identities’ and vote for Kanhaiya.

There is a lot to unpack and disentangle in this matter, but I will start with the accidental hero Kanhaiya Kumar, who rose to eminence after being found at the wrong place at the wrong time, talking about the wrong issue.

He was elected president of the JNU students’ union in 2015 as a candidate of the AISF after a rousing presidential speech. In February 2016, a protest over the hanging of Afzal Guru and atrocities in Kashmir took place on the campus, which led to a crackdown by the BJP government. Many students were charged, including a number of Kashmiris. Kanhaiya’s arrest was ironic, as he and his party hardly had a similar stand on the Kashmir issue.

After being assaulted by a mob of lawyers in the Patiala court, Kanhaiya became an instant hero for many. On his return to campus, he turned the Kashmiri slogan ‘India se Azadi’ around to make it ‘India me Azadi’. It is worth noting that the sedition case was a reality for those who dared raise such slogans, but it is Kanhaiya who received the bulk of the coverage.

Saquib Salim has discussed the role played by the liberal media in this leader-making process. He contrasts it with the cases of some backward students of Lucknow University, who suffered for showing a black flag to the PM. They were jailed and beaten up, but no one knows their names.

The BJP chose the narrative, and the liberal media valorised the ‘villains’ constructed by the Sanghi media. Kanhaiya’s greatness lies in being arrested accidentally, and then being assaulted by lawyers. Some argue that he is a decent speaker, but that is true for hundreds of student leaders in Begusarai alone. It does not make him eligible to become an MP.

If he is really a national figure, then he should contest from a symbolic seat, like Kejriwal did, rather than ensure the defeat of a Muslim candidate in Begusarai.

RJD’s Begusarai candidate Tanvir Hasan. Credit: Screengrab

The CPI’s performance on Muslim issues

As far as the CPI is concerned, it received Muslim votes for decades in West Bengal (along with the CPI(M)), and kept the Muslims there in a state of deprivation. This has been noted in the Sacchar Committee report, which names West Bengal as having some of the worst development indicators for Muslims in India.

The Left Front also kept almost all Muslims in the general category, even though most are from backward classes. It was Mamata Banerjee who included the majority of Muslim castes in the OBC list, within the last decade.

Another feature of the CPI has been its reliance on upper-caste leaders as articulate speakers on Marxism. Kanhaiya is just the latest in a long list of upper-caste Hindus who have risen as CPI leaders. Interestingly, the BJP expects the bulk of its votes from the same caste as Kanhaiya Kumar. This says a lot about the ‘revolutionary’ nature of the upcoming contest.

Also Read: Kanhaiya Kumar’s Victory Will be the Victory of the ‘Big Indian Dream’

Tanveer Hasan, meanwhile, is an MLC and a veteran leader who has been involved in socialist movements since the 1970s. He is the most suitable choice for backward castes and Muslims seeking to defeat the BJP.

The choice should have been clear.

On one hand you have Kanhaiya, a social media phenomenon, from a community that supports the BJP, representing a party whose record on Muslims is questionable.

On the other hand, you have Tanvir, a Muslim candidate, from a party famous for making Bihar free of communal violence – as well as for seeking affirmative action for backward Muslims.

Yet his supporters have left no stone unturned in swaying Muslim votes to Kanhaiya, and defending the CPI’s ill-advised step of fielding a candidate against Tanvir Hasan.

Kanhaiya Kumar, Umar Khalid and Anirban Bhattacharya Credit: PTI

Identity politics and ‘Muslim communalism’

Their first argument goes like this: ‘Imagine if Hindus vote only for Hindus. What will happen to the Muslims?’ We do not need to imagine this scenario: it is the reality of Indian politics. In 1952, even Maulana Azad had to contest from Rampur as it was the only Muslim majority seat of UP.

Mohammad Sajjad himself writes about another such example: in the 1962 elections, when Maghfoor Aijazi contested from Muzaffarpur as an independent against Congress.

Indira Gandhi had to make special campaigns for the Congress in Muzaffarpur, with speeches to polarise the votes along communal lines; consequently, Aijazi lost it even though he did secure as many as 58,000 votes.

What changed in the past three decades in Bihar was that caste fault-lines helped create an alliance between Muslim and backward communities, allowing Muslim candidates to gain Hindu votes against Hindu candidates. But invoking the picture of Hindus voting only for Hindus is of no use in the Bihar of 2019.

The second charge is of Muslim communalism, and it is the one most repeated. Scholars and researchers have been conditioned by the Congress’s use of this word to the extent that even Muslims are embarrassed to ask for representation. Next, the Leftist phrase ‘identity politics’ is added in, ignoring the fact that Muslims are a besieged minority, and like Dalits, it is their right to use their identity to mobilise. When Dalits rally around their caste identity, our liberals become ‘casteless’; similarly, when Muslims seek redistribution, liberals become ‘secular’ and accuse us of ‘identity politics’.

Finally, the issue of lower caste Muslims in Bihar politics. There is no doubt that upper-caste Muslims have had the greater share of representation. But that has changed slowly over the past three decades, as Lalu, and to a greater extent, Nitish Kumar, sought lower caste Muslim representation.

This year, the RJD is fielding 19 candidates, of which four are Muslims.

Two of them belong to the Sheikh community, one to Sayyid, and one is Pasmanda (from the Kulhayya community). According to the 1931 caste census, around one-third of Muslims in Bihar called themselves ‘Sheikh’; making this the largest block among Muslims.

It is true that another backward Muslim candidate should have been fielded, but the RJD cannot be criticised to defend the CPI. It is comical to ask Muslims to vote for a Bhumihar against a Muslim candidate, just because the latter is a Syed. Yet this is the extent to which liberal Muslims can go to avoid being called communal.

Sharjeel Imam is a graduate from IIT Bombay. He is currently a PhD scholar in modern history at JNU, studying Muslim politics in late colonial India.