Ok Sadhvi was wrong, but what about blasting a Saffron Dalit?
Union minister Sadhvi Niranjan Jyoti shocked every audience of the Indian republic when she made a distinction between the Ramzaades and Haramzaades at an election rally in Delhi a couple of days ago.
The Opposition has sought criminal action against the minister in relation to Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code which holds accountable anybody who promotes enmity between different groups on religious grounds and do something detrimental to harmony.
Sadhvi Niranjan Jyoti's words can't be supported but what about the other conservatism?
What the Sadhvi said is by no means fit for a healthy polity and the BJP can not allow such language to flourish even if it has absolute majority in the Parliament. Such hate speeches and the subtle reflection of the ‘Hindus versus the rest' theory in those remarks are extremely dangerous for a pluralistic society in India.
But keeping aside the hate speech episode, there was also a display of conservatism of another kind in this issue and that is how the elitist media avoided the Sadhvi's Dalit identity while attacking her saffronic being.
How conveniently the Sadhvi's Dalit identity was concealed?
Or putting it in another way: How conveniently did the elitist media evade the Sadhvi's 'Dalit' identity and treat her as the worst 'Saffron' thing to have happened on the earth. Do Dalits belonging to the 'secular' camp of Indian politics also get treatments at par? Or do then the word 'Dalit' becomes bigger than the crime committed?
OBC tea-seller Modi also had a similar experience before the polls
The same had also been seen with Narendra Modi, an OBC, in the days before he became the prime minister of India and was an outsider in Lutyen's Delhi. The Congress and a section of the elitist media had hurled the most humiliating of expletives at him when there was clearly no way of stopping him advancing towards the national capital.
The problem is that the so-called secular voices engage in a complicated game of identity politics when it comes to dealing their right-wing political opponent.
The elitist circles prioritised the Sadhvi's saffron identity over the Dalit
In
case
of
Sadhvi,
the
identity
of
‘Saffron'
became
more
important
than
that
of
the
'Dalit'
unlike
cases
in
the
past
where
a
leader
uttered
shocking
speeches
and
yet
found
a
shelter
under
the
umbrella
of
backwardness.
But
for
a
Saffron
Dalit,
it
is
difficult
to
avail
that
avenue
just
because
the
colour
is
different.
When
a
secular
Dalit
says
something
unwanted,
there
are
more
escape
routes
available
It would be interesting to note that the secular and elitist political forces or the media don't speak in the same volume when a Dalit fails to find empowerment either in the Parliament or on the roads. The Congress president chose to empower women in various capacities when the UPA was in power at the Centre for a decade but how many Dalits did the party really empower during this time?
Ok,
Meira
Kumar
was
an
empowered
Dalit
but
she
was
more
a
darling
of
the
elite
than
the
masses
Okay,
Meira
Kumar
was
one
but
then
again,
the
woman
who
served
as
the
Speaker
of
the
Lok
Sabha
is
more
a
darling
of
the
elite
than
the
masses.
It was certainly her identity as the woman which felicitated her empowerment and not the Dalit identity. And moreover, even if the case of Meira Kumar is considered, history is witness to the fact how the dream of her father Jagjivan Ram, a popular Dalit leader was shattered in the 1970s after his son's sex scandal was made public.
Jagjivan was considered as a powerful opponent to Indira Gandhi then and the scandal was enough to derail his ambition.
Hence, it all comes down to political expediency when ‘secular' forces execute their 'liberal' plan of action.