Identity Politics is not Evil it is made out to Be

In any democracy the existence of identity politics is an indicator of the health and vibrancy
of politics.

The surge of ‘identity politics’ can be found on several occasions throughout the history of a
nation. The political status quo is seen to be threatened by identity politics in any nation and
hence, the term is frequently used derogatorily. In India the concept of identity politics can be
traced back to the violent history of Partition and the demand for distinct electorates for
religious and caste identities. Since then, whenever an oppressed community has sought room
in government, it has been widely viewed as divisive and a challenge to the nation's equality
and cohesion.

Nevertheless, as a political ideology, Hindutva has managed to remain outside the reach of
"identity politics," despite being based on a specific community identity and pressing for a
political agenda. On the other side, for example, political organization along caste lines was
fiercely opposed, especially by the urban middle class, which often appears to declare that
caste no longer exists.

Over the years, the notion of "identity politics" has been problematized by many academics
and explored more precisely how it can hinder the very emancipatory values it seeks to
achieve. When do these situations arise, and how can they solve these limitations? We
discuss the notion of "identity politics" in this reading list and seek to understand how it can
impact democracies positively.

1) Identity Politics is Necessary in a Democracy

Identity politics in democracies is an inevitability. In reality, if it did not provide room for
identity politics, one could question the legitimacy of a democratic country. The presence of
identity politics is an indication of a democracy's wellbeing because it implies oppressed
groups are aggressively competing for a share of power. As Asghar Ali Engineer said, the
question is never merely the claim by itself of a caste spiritual or regional identification, but
how identity acts as an "instrument" for obtaining access to material in a power set-up.
Democratic process intensifies power struggle, and thus assertion of different identities in a
democratic set-up assumes vital importance. Different identities may be suppressed or
subordinated under the authoritarian regime, but it cannot be done under a democratic
regime.
Democracy is nothing if the power struggle between different sections of citizens is not given
free play.

2) Identity Politics is a Response to Majoritarian Ideologies

In particular, Dalit's political statements were perceived in a derogatory manner for identity
politics. Since the period when Kanshi Ram used it as an agenda to found the Bahujan Samaj
Party (BSP), the use of caste as a political identity to unite under has been seen as divisive.
The allegation of "identity politics" later resurfaced when the question of caste-based quotas
emerged, most notably in reference to the findings of the Mandal Commission. Such caste-
based mobilizations, though, were of utmost importance: Kancha Ilaiah pointed out how
governance remained largely confined to the upper castes in post-colonial India. He said, "So
far, there has been no democratisation in civil society, either in family relations, in economic
relations, or in political relations. The caste system has frozen flexibility in social structures
and socio-economic relations. "It is therefore necessary to read such democratic
mobilizations as efforts to unfreeze the order of things in order to turn the axis of social
mobility.

BSP leader Kanshi Ram placed caste on the political discourse's national agenda in a
completely different way from the one that existed among the political parties. Earlier caste
was a factor in the allocation of tickets and a source of reservation benefits for scheduled
castes, scheduled tribes and other backward groups But there is a growing sense that caste is
becoming an ideology that contradicts the traditional notions of left-wing and right-
wing politics in India Although analysts disagree on whether caste can become an ideology in
itself and whether caste and class arc coterminous in the Indian context as caste points to a
definite economic indicator of people's poverty line.

In addition, Ilaiah argues in his article that the BSP's rise in Uttar Pradesh was in fact a
political response to the rise of Hindutva and the Ram Janmabhoomi movement.
But there is no denying that the more the Sangh Parivar's attempts to portray Hindutva as an
ideology of Hindu nationalism, the greater the likelihood of caste being ideologized in the
Indian context as it is essentially a caste society, and because the Hindutva slogan ' one
religion one nation ' will only provide enough room for the Dalit bahujans to claim their
independence
Kanshi Ram recognized this ground-based fact and used Phule, Shahumaharaj, Periar
Ramaswamy Naicker and Ambedkar's historical legacy.

3) The Limits of Identity Politics

Writing in the context of politics built around North East ethnic identities that also converged
through racism's history, R. K. Debbarma argued that if identity politics emerges from an
uncritical self-evaluation, it is often self-defeating. This is because the oppressed ideology in
some ways reflects the oppressors ' ideologies, which demands obedience to society.

Such an expectation tends to release its own ability to create one's supremacy in identity
politics in the region. As someone from this region as well as in the region, I'm constantly
reminded of being proud of its history, heroes, places and culture. There's no doubt that these
trends have always been in the region, but the obsession is novel. And, late, it has been
largely promoted vigorously by some segments within the region especially on social media.
It is in this distorted sense of self-worth that I want to find racism and discrimination, based
on uncritical acceptance of the experience which animates complex politics of difference; not
ignorance and prejudice.

Debbarma often speaks about a "fossilization of values" that is detrimental to their original
political project of gaining political power for themselves within certain identity groups. He
argues that a colonial structure is imitated by the way this identity politics plays out in the
North East.
What we are seeing today in the region is the fossilization of faith as a political value in a
subordinate group, a community embedded in a specific place. Such societies are granted
primarily political power, a power that emerges from the heart, replicating itself as a colonial
structure. But the tragedy is that societies founded on such expectations cannot become self-
authorizing political forces, able to build and maintain on their own a truly democratic
strategy. The Indian government as the approving authority would always need divine
assistance.

4) The Need for a ‘Tomorrow’ in Identity Politics

If an identification that is supposed to be a community's "center of rebellion" is detrimental to

the very individuals it is seeking to emancipate by replicating oppressor systems, then one
has to re-examine the ideology's own borders. One of identity politics ' greatest critiques was
that it appears to "fetishize" the historical injustices experienced by communities which may
lead to the "fossilization of values" described above. Gurminder K Bhambra and Victoria
Margree, in answer to this, provide a way forward by rethinking how they conceptualize
"identity" in politics. They argue that identities must be historically situated, but with a future
perspective. The aim of organizing in the present under an identity is to resolve a historical
injustice, since in the future, when the goals defined by the present political movement have
been met, identification is no longer needed.

In this way, then, identity politics "needs a future": that the raison d'être of any politicized
culture is to bring about a world in which the current social injustices have been resolved. Yet
identity politics still requires the future – now – in the way which politicized ideologies need
to inscribe the tomorrow into their present self-definition to prevent consolidating action
around the protection of identity rather than resolving the circumstances which produced it.

That the tomorrow to be etched in the self-definition of one's political stance, now, is one in
which because identity will no longer be required, is not a condition to be lamented, as it is
the guarantee of progress for any struggle of freedom.