Why Dalits have slammed Mayawati’s Sarvjan Rule? S.R.
Darapuri Recently on the declaration of the results of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.) Assembly Ele ction 2012 Mayawati claimed that although her party Bahujan samaj Party (BSP) h as lost the election but her Dalit vote ban is in tact. But if we analyze the e lection results her claim is found to be false and misleading. Let us first of all loo at the total population of Dalits in U.P. and the votes secured by Mayawati . Dalit population in U.P. is about 21% of the total popula tion and they are divided into 66 sub castes. Out of these sub castes Chamar/Ja tavs – 56.3%, Pasis- 15.9% Dhobi, Kori, and Balmi i- 15.3% , Gond, Dhanu and Khat i - 5%, 9 sub- castes e.g. Rawat, Bahelia, Kharwar and Kol- 4.5% and remaining 49 sub castes are about 3% in number. Chamar/Jatavs are dominant in Azamgarh, Agra, Bijnor, Saharanpur, Gora hpur and Muradabad districts. Pasis dominate in Sitapur, Rai Bareilly, Hardoi, and Allaha bad districts. The remaining groups li e Dhobi, Kori, and Balmi i are in good nu mber in Bareilly, Sultanpur, Partapgarh, Behraich, A barpur and Faizabad distric ts. Based on the population figures of Dalits in above districts it will be appropri ate to analyze the number of reserved seats won by BSP. If we loo at the result s of 2007 Assembly Election it is seen that BSP had won 62 out of 89 reserved se ats whereas Samajvadi Party (SP) - 13. Congress- 5 and BJP – 7 seats. In this ele ction BSP had secured about 30% votes. During 2009 Lo Sabha election out of 17 reserved seats BSP had won 2, SP- 10 and Congresss-2. In this election BSP’s vote share had declined to 27% thereby showing a fall of 3% over 2007 election vote share. The main reason for this downfall in vote share was caused by the disli e of Mayawati’s Sarvjan formula by Dalits. It was a warning signal for Mayawati bu t she did not heed it. Now if we loo at the results of 2012 Assembly Elections the main reason for th e fall of Mayawati appears to be the decline of her Dalit vote share in addition to the loss of Muslim, Most Bac ward Classes and general category votes. This t ime out of 85 reserved seats Mayawati could win 16 seats only whereas SP has gra bbed as many as 54 seats. Among these 85 reserved seats winners 35 are Chamar/J atavs and 25 Pasis. Out of these 21 Pasis belong to SP and only 2 belong to BSP . Among 16 reserved seats won by Mayawati 13 are Chamar/Jatvas and only 2 are Pa sis. From the analysis of reserved seats it transpires that the factor respons ible for Mayawati’s defeat is fall in dalit votes in reserved constituencies. The failure at general constituencies is also due to decline in dalit votes. This ti me Mayawati could garaner 26% vote share which was 4% less than 2007 vote share. If we analyse the reserved seats won by BSP it transpires that she has got these seats mostly in western U.P. where her own sub caste Jatav is in majority. May awati could win very few seats in Pasi and Kori dominated districts. In eastern, central and southern (Bundel hand) U.P. where Chamar sub- caste dominates Mayaw ati’s share in seats has been very limited. From this election result it has becom e clear that whereas on the one side Mayawati’s Pasi, Kori, Dhobi, Khati and Balm i i vote has shifted away, on the other side out of Chamar/Jatav vote ban which comprises of 70% Chamar and 30% Jatavs, the Chamar votes have also moved away f rom her. That is why Mayawati could win seats mostly in western U.P which is dom inated by Jatavs, her own sub- caste. The main factors responsible for decline in Mayawati’s Dalit vote ban are her cor ruption, misgovernance, lac of development, neglect of Dalit atrocities and he r autocraticstance. Most of dalits have also not relished Mayawati’s excessive id olization by ignoring Dalit issues. In an attempt to eep her Sarvjan voters in good humour by neglecting dalit atrocities, Mayawati made the Dalits suffer dou bly. In order to eep Dalit atrocity crime figures low, under the pretext of mis use of this Act (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989) she diluted it in writing in 2001 and later on through oral hints. Th is too a heavy toll of Dalits. The result was that neither the culprits were pu nished due to non registration of cases nor Dalits could get monetary compensati
on admissible under the rules of this Act. A notion developed among dalits that all the benefits of her government have bee n grabbed by Chamar and Jatav community’s which is though not wholly true. This no tion made the non Chamar/Jatav sub -castes to move away from BSP. Now if we loo at the reality of this notion it comes out that only those Dalits have benefit ed from BSP rule who were a party to the personal corruption of Mayawati. It is seen that during her regime those Dalits were also persecuted who had not voted for BSP. Their atrocity cases were not registered at police stations. There is a general allegation that Mayawati has created a corrupt, lumpen and exploiter ca dre who did not spare even the dalits. This very class is very vocal in justify ing Mayawati’s corruption, opportunism and anti- dalit acts. Corruption of dalit c adre is the biggest disservice of Mayawati to the dalit movement. An other factor responsible for Mayawati’s defeat is that she has been often boas ting that her vote ban is transferable. With this confidence she has been sel ling Assembly and Lo Sabha election tic ets to the highest bidder. As a result many dalit oppressors, mafias, criminals and moneyed persons were able to get B SP tic ets and Mayawati ordered the Dalits to vote for them. But this time Dali ts refused to obey Mayawati’s dictates and did not vote for BSP candidates. Second ly these MLAs and ministers of Mayawati did not do any thing for dalits and were involved in corruption and anti-dalit activities. Many of her MLAs and minister s were involved in rape, murder and corruption cases. Dalts were angry with BSP MLAs as they did not do any thing for dalits and hence this time they were deter mined to defeat them. Thirdly Mayawati centralized every thing in her hands and her MLAs became helpless creatures and were not in a potion to do any thing. Th is also resulted in their defeat. Mayawati’s opportunist and corrupt politics has resulted in blurring the vision of Dalits who are now unable to ma e a difference between their friends and foes. The fight against the so called Manuvaad (Brahmanism) and casteism has been wea ened because BSP phenomenon has given birth to a corrupt and lumpen class who us e caste label for personal gain only. They have no concern with Dalit issues. A ccording to one analysis U.P. dalits are far behind the Dalits of all other stat es on development parameters. Only Bihar, Orissa and Madhya Pradesh Dalits are a bit bac ward than U.P. Dalits. About 60% of U.P. Dalits are below poverty line (BPL) and 60% of Dalit women suffer from malnutrition. According to a recent sur vey by CRY 70% of dalit children suffer from malnutrition. A majority of U.P. Da lits are agriculture labourers and they face unemployment and lac of means of p roduction. In order to eep her Sarvjan partners in good humour Mayawati did not carry forward land reforms which would have been the best means of Dalit empowe rment. Due to all pervadive corruption all the welfare schemes li e MNREGA, Anga nvadi scheme, Indira Avaas Yojna, various pension schemes for widows, old and di sabled persons fell victim to corruption and dalits along with others were depri ved of their benefits. Mayawati detached herself from the public and the people had no opportunity to tell their vows to Mayawati. On account of thee reasons Dlits rejected Mayawati as is reflected in election results. Some people, ta ing Mayawati as a sole representative of Dalit politics and Dali t movement, raise a question about the future of Dalit Politics and Dalit Moveme nt. In this connection it should be clarified that Mayawati does not represent t he whole Dalit Politics and Dalit Movement. Mayawati is just one Dalit politicia n whose influence is limitd to U.P. only. She does not have any significant foll owing in other parts of the country. There various dalit outfits are carrying on political activity in their own way. Punjab has got the highest percentage of D alit population but BSP has no place there. As regards Dalit movement it has got social and religious facets. Mayawati has g ot no role in it. Conversion to Buddhism as initiated by Dr. Ambed ar is being c arried out by Dalits themselves. Mayawati has got no role there. Dalits and som e Buddhist organizations are carrying on this activity on their own. Mayawati he rself is not a Buddhist. Even her mentor Kanshi Ram did not believe in the effic acy of religious conversion in Dalit emancipation. No doubt Mayawati has tried t o allure the Dalits by constructing one Buddha Vihar in Luc now. She has been u
sing the Buddhist religious symbols for political purpose. Actually Mayawati an d Kanshi Ram believed in using caste identity for politicalmobilization. They di d not believe in brea ing the caste. Dr. Ambed ar had said that establishment of a casteless and classless society should be our national motto. But Kanshi Ram and Mayawati did not believe in it. Actually they stand for using caste against caste in politics and thereby perpetuating it. From the above brief analysis it is clear that Mayawti’s claim of her Dalit vote ban remaining in tact is false and misleading. Perhaps Mayawati is still suffer ing from the illusion that her dalit vote ban is in tact. Mayawati seems to be following the Congress policy of claiming the Dalits and Muslims as her committe d vote ban . Congress blac mailed the Muslims by giving out that only Congress can save them from the tyranny of Hindu majority and they should never thin of moving away from it. Similarly Mayawati has been blac mailing the Dalits so that they don’t move away from her and other parties also should not try to allure the m. She has cleverly distanced the Dalits from mainstream political parties an d declared them to be fully committed to her. But now Dalits have freed themselv es from Mayawati’s spell. It is now expected that Dalits will ta e a lesson from B SP experiment in U.P. and opt for a radical, Ambe arite, issue based political a lternative and will move out of casteist, opportunistic and unprincipled politic s. Only this approach can lead to their political, social and religious emancipa tion and empowerment.