A
few days before Nitish Kumar completed one year as chief
minister of Bihar, a routine horse-trading took place
in Sonepur, a sub-divisional town of Bihar famous for
its mega annual cattle fair. The horse was traded between
former chief minister Lalu Prasad Yadav and Anant Singh,
a JD(U) MLA in the Bihar Assembly. The transaction was,
however, not direct; an insignificant intermediary was
positioned in between.
This apparently innocuous transaction did not go unnoticed.
It got front-page coverage in the print media and huge
footage on television. Never during the period of his
electoral invincibility had Lalu Prasad Yadav's consciously
crafted social construct appeared to be in such disarray
as after this transaction. The triumphant ascendance of
Anant Singh, former terror and now law-maker, on the saddle
of Lalu's horse, with elan and nonchalance, possibly indicated
a reversal of the social empowerment agenda that was associated
with the former owner of the horse. He did not stop at
only mounting the saddle, but declared himself to be the
present 'raja' who had vanquished the earlier 'raja' in
an open market transaction.
It is tragic that Lalu Yadav, who emerged on the national
firmament riding a 'social justice' agenda co-scripted
by Nitish Kumar, diluted its core thrust over the years.
He began imbibing all the symbols of neo-feudal authority,
be it in body language or in his acquisition of cattles
and horses. It is a tragic irony for the 'social justice'
movement in the Hindi heartland that its leaders and icons,
with few exceptions, either get co-opted by the feudal
order or themselves embrace its ethos. This indicates
a lack of confidence and self-esteem. In contrast, the
anti-Brahmin movements in south and western India not
only ensured subaltern empowerment but threw up alternative
developmental models and entrepreneurs from marginal social
stock.
For instance, in spite of the larger than life presence
of C. Rajagopalachari, Kamraj never suffered from any
inferiority complex about Brahmin hegemony in the higher
echelons of Tamil life. He never tried to emulate Brahmins,
nor was he eager to get a certificate of approval from
them. He never felt shy to aggressively promote the interest
of marginalised groups and his own backward Nadar caste.
Even with limited educational endowment, he had developed
a clear theoretical construct on how to take the state
and its subaltern groups forward. As a result, in the
last half century, several entrepreneurs from a subaltern
background, specially from among the Nadars, have touched
the pinnacle as market players. Kamraj was conscious that
he could not have choreographed a Tamil resurgence with
the limited knowledge base within the social ranks of
the subalterns. Yet, even though he had a string of upper
caste advisers, he did not allow a superstructural divide
to develop in the state and thus forestalled any contemptuous
descriptions of his regime as a 'Brahmin shasan'. Later,
even a Brahmin leader like Jayalalithaa had to reinvent
herself as a subaltern icon to rule Tamil Nadu for several
terms.
Unfortunately in the Hindi heartland, Lalu and Mulayam
Singh Yadav, after promoting subaltern empowerment, lost
their ideological focus. In the absence of one- or two-party
hegemony, the marginalised traditional feudal forces opted
for the electoral poaching of subaltern icons to effect
a backdoor entry into the power structure. In the absence
of Kamraj-like quality of subaltern leaders in the Hindi
heartland, these feudal and upper caste lateral entrants
started exercising disproportionate hegemony in the governance.
Unfortunately for Bihar, even the feudals here were not
worth imitating. They could not develop themselves as
icons because of their negligible contribution in the
realm of development, culture, art or even governance.
In contrast, some of the princely states had a sterling
track record in those spheres. If the princely states
of Travancore-Cochin had not promoted literacy in Kerala
and that of Baroda had not helped in the education of
B.R. Ambedkar, the education project and subaltern empowerment
in India may have taken a completely different trajectory.
Where Lalu Prasad faltered, Nitish Kumar cannot afford
to fail. Consolidating and promoting the 'social justice'
constituency should be his paramount concern. Lalu Prasad
had taken this constituency for granted which resulted
in his electoral doom. To build Bihar, Nitish Kumar should
continue to nurture that constituency. To succeed further,
he has now added the additional agenda of economic growth.
In the economic sphere, the thrust should be on agriculture
where the state has a natural advantage and, two, knowledge,
the only weapon through which Bihar can overcome its historical
disadvantage. In his one year as chief minister, Kumar
has taken cognisance of the above needs and promoted several
commissions and institutions which will possibly ensure
inclusive growth in Bihar. But dealing with the economic
agenda is easy, because it concerns a limited number of
variables. In contrast, managing the social constituency
is going to be more difficult, not only because it deals
with many more variables, but also because it needs great
empathy to nurture and to give esteem to deprived groups.
Nitish Kumar should understand that the raw brashness
of an Anant Singh or the pretentious politeness of some
others in his new team are both equally injurious to the
state's social and economic health. They are two sides
of the same coin.
