The Constitution is seemingly at the centre of political rhetoric and symbolism in India right now. Opposition leaders have held up copies of the Constitution while walking into Parliament. They have waved these in the Prime Minister’s face. They have also held these copies while taking oath. Some argue that this is the Opposition’s tip to the mandate that it believes it has received from the country’s marginalised and oppressed communities to “Save the Constitution”. So, did a constitutional conscience drive much of the Dalit and OBC (Other Backward Classes) vote this Lok Sabha elections? And to what extent? Harish Wankhede and Ravikant Kisana discuss these questions in a conversation moderated by Abhinay Lakshman. Edited excerpts:
How do both of you read these developments? Do you think this is a hat tip to the mandate that the Opposition believes it has received to ‘Save the Constitution’?
Harish Wankhede: For a very long time, the Opposition was wondering how it could [pose a] challenge to the Hindutva onslaught. I think this time the Opposition figured it out. Constitutionalism became a very fascinating force for the Congress and its allies. Further, there was, of course, a decline [in the performance] of parties [that are synonymous with] social justice, such as the BSP (Bahujan Samaj Party) in Uttar Pradesh and the RJD (Rashtriya Janata Dal) in Bihar. So, there was a space in which the Congress could create a larger dialogue suggesting that they (the Bharatiya Janata Party) are a threat to the ideals of Indian democracy. The Constitution became a sort of mascot of that larger narrative. There was a very assertive, powerful arrival of the BJP as a dominant hegemonic force (over the last 10 years). Constitutionalism has emerged as a significant and powerful ideological tool to challenge that.
Comment | Constitutional respect should not be reduced to optics
Prof. Ravikant, how do you see the waving of the Constitution in the faces of people?
Ravikant Kisana: I see it in a slightly zoomed out, macro way. In India, especially during elections, we have to keep in mind that there are always immediate issues, but voting patterns are dictated by many different grassroots-level issues. In this election, a series of things came together. There are two main stories: one, the Opposition got its story right; and two, the BJP election machinery did not really get its act together (as much as it would have liked). The kind of model that Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s regime set up fundamentally contradicted the political goods that a lot of his core constituents were voting for. And in States where the BJP was able to do that, that is, deliver the public goods, the constitutional narrative did not work, such as in Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh. There is a national narrative that the Constitution is under threat. Then, this would be the case in Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh too, is it not? Gujarat has seen mass movements where Scheduled Castes (SCs) have been mobilising and OBCs are also mobilising. So, that is another framework we need to see this from. There is a larger narrative, yes, of constitutionalism. And so, when the MPs take oath, they wave it in the Prime Minister’s face. But that is, you know, pageantry. That is what MPs have reduced it to in the last two decades. I understand why they are doing that. But I think the issues are slightly complicated.
Let us discuss the places where this constitutional narrative seemed to have worked. The question is, do you think it was a narrow vision that worked, such as the fear of having affirmative action removed? Or did the narrative also bring together larger principles such as maintaining a secular state and institutional independence and fundamental liberties over duties, for instance?
Ravikant Kisana: If you see U.P., the BSP was neither aligned with the INDIA bloc nor with the NDA (National Democratic Alliance). The last few elections have been very bad for the BSP because the BSP voter is an ideological voter and is constantly being cornered in U.P. to vote out fascism. So, obviously, the Constitution being under threat became a big issue (for the BSP). Despite many BSP voters shifting to other parties, the party retained in U.P. around 9% of the vote share, which is not a small share (though) it is significantly lower than what (BSP leader) Mayawati usually gets. The BSP voter is probably the voter who is most concerned about constitutionalism. Even then, that party has retained a nearly 10% vote share. So, I think these things have to be looked at in a slightly different way.
Also read | Congress’s invocation of Constitution just a pretence: BJP
We don’t know what has worked. There are many theories going around. One, of course, is the Thakur backlash in U.P., especially the rumour that (Chief Minister) Yogi Adityanath was going to get replaced after the Lok Sabha elections. (Samajwadi Party chief) Akhilesh Yadav’s Bahujan coinage, PDA (Pichhda Dalit Alpsankhyak), resonated with some people.
But if you are in U.P., it is not going to be easy for the SCs to trust a Yadav party. So, the Constitution may be in danger and that may have gone down right to the grassroots. But how have people mobilised around it? I think it is too simplistic to say that ‘Oh, because of that slogan, everyone voted for the SP and Congress’. That’s not true; about 9% have still voted for the BSP (which is not part of the Opposition bloc).
Professor Harish, I have heard that you also argued that the large part of this mandate was constitutionalism. How much of it do you think was the development of this constitutional conscience and how much of it were local factors or a multitude of factors coming together?
Harish Wankhede: In the five major States — U.P., M.P., Maharashtra, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Bihar — constitutionalism emerged as a kind of a guiding principle around which the different resentments of the people collided. In these States, BSP-like parties or what is known as Ambedkarite socio-cultural and political movements have been present. These created the base of a political consciousness among the OBCs. Thus, these States already had a strong consciousness about their caste and about the benefits that the political processes had offered the marginalised communities for a very long time. And constitutionalism probably emerged as a kind of force that connected all these issues, which were there at the local level. And there was a possibility of channelising the resentment into a language, which constitutionalism supported.
Also read | Three strands of India’s ongoing constitutional debate and why Modi responds only to one
Of course, there was the failure of the BJP to deliver on substantive issues of economic empowerment, including jobs or social security or mobility in class. And therefore, this national slogan emerged perhaps that the BJP is not keen on delivering justice or social security to the marginalised communities. To deliver those, constitutionalism emerged as a bigger package. You will also find that the issue of social dignity and self-respect was extremely powerful in this discussion.
Prof. Ravikanth, to what extent do you agree with the argument that constitutional conscience significantly drove a large part of the vote?
Ravikant Kisana: If you’re going to talk about constitutionalism in a narrow sense — like, there is a Constitution and the BJP is seen as a party which is against it — I was making the point that it has many dimensions. But I think what Harish is trying to suggest, if I am not wrong, is that it becomes like the lightning rod around which many issues can galvanise.
Also read | Those who imposed Emergency have no right to profess love for our Constitution: PM Modi
In Haryana, Dalits and Jats voted together for the first time in many decades. In many States, that happened. That word or that idea means different things to different communities. For SCs, it is the idea that representation and caste-based affirmative action are in danger. And that, as we have already seen, is a powerful social motivation for their vote. But in landed communities, there was the question of farm laws.
Also read | Demand for pocket version of Constitution surges in aftermath of Lok Sabha battle
One of the other reasons was a splitting of long-established political parties by the BJP. This was the case in Maharashtra. That was also seen as a form of unconstitutional activity: people believe that you’re not supposed to win elections like that or ‘steal’ elections like that. The BJP for a long time has been playing with some of these political process, playing with some of these communities too. So, I think all of that came together in that sense. Many different sections had their own interpretations of what that constitutionalism was. So, as a term, it was a mobilising factor which could be used in different parts of the country in different ways.
Constitution: A site of struggle | Mohan Gopal interview
Many different sections had their own interpretations of what that constitutionalism was. So, as a term, it was a mobilising factor which could be used in different parts in different ways.
Harish S. Wankhede is an assistant professor at the Centre for Political Studies, JNU, New Delhi; Ravikant Kisana is an Associate Professor of Cultural Studies at Woxsen University, Hyderabad. His research looks at the intersections of caste with structures of privilege and popular culture
