To secure long-term success, they must cater to broader social sentiments as voters increasingly reject traditional caste-based power structures

The recent election results in Haryana have overturned pre-poll predictions and ground reports by YouTubers, sending a clear message for future elections, particularly in key states like Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. For leaders such as Tejashwi Yadav and Akhilesh Yadav, who belong to the dominant Yadav caste, the outcome holds lessons. Their political scenario mirrors the situation of the Jats in Haryana, where social dynamics are shifting away from dominant caste politics. In this evolving landscape, they face the challenge of addressing broader social sentiments and responding to the concerns of marginalised groups who feel overlooked or disadvantaged in the traditional caste power structures.

In Haryana, the Jats, a politically influential community, faced a consolidation of other social groups against them, as seen in the election results. This trend is significant for Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, where the dominant OBC groups, particularly the Yadavs, have held power for decades but are now struggling to maintain their influence. The once-powerful Yadav-led governments lost their grip on power partly because of growing resentment from other communities who felt sidelined.

The political history of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh is marked by the rise of leaders like Lalu Prasad Yadav and Mulayam Singh Yadav, who gained initial popularity by championing anti-Congress sentiment and social justice. Their “M-Y equation” (Muslim-Yadav alliance) was a powerful electoral strategy that secured their dominance, but it also instilled fear in other communities. The consolidation of their caste base came at the cost of alienating non-Yadav OBCs, Dalits, and upper castes, creating a sense of marginalisation. Over time, their politics of exclusion backfired, as disillusioned voters began to seek alternatives, leading to the emergence of leaders like Nitish Kumar in Bihar and the BJP in Uttar Pradesh, who promised clean governance and development for all.

The memories of the 1990s and early 2000s, when the Yadav-led administrations were perceived as using caste power to consolidate authority, still linger. While the Yadavs continue to be an important electoral bloc, the rest of society—especially the non-Yadav OBCs, Dalits, and upper castes—often recalls those years as an era of exclusion. The BJP, with its “subaltern Hindutva” narrative, has effectively capitalised on this sentiment, attracting marginalised groups by offering a sense of inclusion and an alternative to Yadav-centric politics. Akhilesh Yadav, upon coming to power, made efforts to bridge the gap between his caste and others. He distanced himself from the old guard, symbolised by his uncle Shivpal Yadav, who represented the traditional power dynamics of the Samajwadi Party. However, incidents involving unruly behaviour by some of his caste members toward other communities made it difficult for him to secure a second term. His attempts to modernise and adapt the party’s image were undermined by persistent social tensions.

Similarly, Tejashwi Yadav faces challenges in Bihar, where his efforts to step out of his father Lalu’s shadow have been hampered by his own caste groups' oppressive behaviour toward Dalits and upper castes. His political journey involves grappling with the legacy of Yadav dominance, which is often perceived as being dismissive of other communities' aspirations. To succeed in the future, Tejashwi must navigate these entrenched social dynamics with greater inclusivity.

The lesson from Haryana is clear: caste dominance can become a liability if it alienates other social groups. The Jat experience shows that when other communities consolidate against a dominant caste, it can significantly alter the political landscape. For Akhilesh and Tejashwi, this means urging their caste members to adopt a more accommodative stance, rather than projecting dominance. Effective leadership in this context involves advocating for social harmony and cooperation across different segments.

Both Tejashwi and Akhilesh must understand that lasting political success cannot be achieved by relying solely on their traditional caste bases. They need to expand their appeal beyond the Yadavs and reach out to other communities that have felt marginalised. Their strategy should involve building broader alliances that include marginalised communities, addressing their socio-economic needs, and promoting an inclusive vision of governance.

The political landscape in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh is undergoing a shift. The BJP’s ability to attract non-Yadav OBCs and other marginalised groups has weakened the impact of traditional Yadav-centric politics. Leaders like Tejashwi and Akhilesh must shed the image of their parties as “Yadav-centric” and instead emphasise inclusive governance that addresses the aspirations of all communities.

(The writer is a senior journalist; views are personal)