The upper castes have supported Arvind Kejriwal’s Aam Aadmi Party in a big way. The reason, however, isn’t just the issue of corruption
The upper castes make infinite claims to scholarly merit as they traditionally possessed the exclusive rights to education and pedagogy for centuries. The lower castes, on the other hand, were helpless bystanders; in fact, the Dalits were prohibited from even entering the premises of learning. In 1854, lord Macaulay mobilised the Dalits into the arena of formal learning. That, however, led to another problem. In several parts of India, Dalits were attacked for sending their children to schools. In certain regions, their crops were damaged as well. The upper castes boycotted schools that accommodated the Dalit students. Such was the hostility towards them that their own children tended to prefer illiteracy.
Finally, the Hunter Commission in 1880 recommended opening separate schools for them, many of which are still in existence. Historians in general refrained from reflecting upon this atrocity in their narratives. After all, the upper castes enjoy the privilege of manufacturing history. The mismanaged original British records at the Central Secretariat library in Delhi would validate these facts.
The upper castes are expected to be the reservoir of sound political knowledge. let us then test it through their responses to Anna Hazare’s agitation in Delhi. Anna Hazare could only study in a school; so, errors on his part can be understood. In Delhi, he thundered: “MPs Hamare Sevak Hain (Members of Parliament are our servants).” Backed by their parents, the upper caste youths got hysteric and cheered Anna. “Sansad se badi Gram Panchayat hai (Village councils are bigger than Parliament),” he added.
Given their claims over awareness, the upper caste spectators should have seen through these irresponsible remarks. A basic civic sense could remind them that MPs are representatives of the people who elect them and not their servants. These are two diametrically different terms. Their acceptance of the view that village councils surpass Parliament is as implausible.
The more Anna behaved with naivety, the more hysteric the upper castes turned. Anna could be wrong in calling the MPs sevaks. But he duly noted that the forefathers of most MPs were sevaks of the upper castes. Since democracy is largely about majority syndrome, MPs from the upper castes are in a great minority. In 1952, when the lok Sabha elections took place, most MPs hailed from the upper castes. Their successors continue to dominate the parliamentary affairs.
Since there is no way the upper castes would turn into a majority and dominate Parliament numerically, common sense drives the upper caste consciousness to re-designate MPs from representatives to sevaks — a consolation to the upper caste arrogance. In 1947, all crucial spaces such as economy, institutions, culture, opinion were controlled by the upper castes. It was Parliament that dismantled their control over these assets. Democracy ripped apart their hegemony.
In other words, Anna’s agitation was not against corruption; neither were his supporters truly battling it. How can tainted people be relied upon in the resistance against corruptionIJ After all, one of the prominent leaders of Team Anna allegedly tried to cheat the state of a few lakhs of rupees that he had borrowed. Then, there was the son-father lawyer duo who got large plots of land under a suspicious lottery deal. One member of Team Anna was found guilty of underpaying stamp duty on a bungalow deal, while another was absent during his college duties in Uttar Pradesh yet fetched his salary.
Despite such dubious acts, the AAP got the upper caste support in Delhi. Pulverised by democracy and tortured by Parliament, only the upper castes are capable of applying such guile to avenge themselves. Wait for one more week to know why certain members of the underclass too voted for the AAP.