The reaction to the latest report of the Karnataka Lokayukta has focused almost entirely on the fortunes of chief minister B.S Yediyurappa, despite the report also indicting several senior ministers and leaders of other political parties. The fuss over Yediyurappa may be designed to catch popular interest but it brushes under the carpet a much more serious concern: the growing conflict between the dynamics of local politics, and political parties as we understand them.
Not too long ago, political parties in Karnataka were held together by some sets of common ideas, mostly presented through individuals rather than manifestos, such as Devaraj Urs being associated with land reforms and Indira Gandhi with ‘garibi hatao’. The consensus about such measures led somewhere along the way to governance being seen as no more than the distribution of state patronage. The purpose of politics was to come to power so that the state’s resources could be distributed among those who brought you to power.
This process was given another turn in Karnataka by the state’s pioneering experience in the latest phase of decentralisation. As local bodies threw up new leaders, the Congress and the Janata parivar had too many old leaders to find place for the new. The BJP, whose influence at one time was confined to a few pockets in the state, was the only major party in a position to absorb them. As the BJP grew rapidly, it exchanged discipline for the overriding principle of capturing the state’s resources to distribute them among their own.
In this competitive search for resources to distribute, the political class went well beyond tapping government finances. Being in government ensured the state machinery looked the other way when iron ore was being illegally mined and exported to China. The Lokayukta’s effort to map this process in his report goes into well over 20,000 pages. And the idea of first notifying land for acquisition and then denotifying it for a price was equally remunerative.
In this ideology-free world, politicians still needed to form alliances. And it is here that caste reasserted itself. It provided a link between caste-driven government machinery and the corresponding sections of the people. One phenomenon in Karnataka—of all the major castes having their own religious institutions—consolidated the process of caste becoming the primary institution of local politics. Even as the role of caste in the social sphere is changing and possibly even diminishing, it is gaining a new life in Karnataka’s politics.
In the caste dynamics of local politics, the political party becomes little more than a formal requirement. Since governments are formed by parties, they are needed at the time of elections. The need being for just any political party rather than a specific one, politicians in Karnataka often shift parties just before polls as they search for the one that promises them the best access to resources. Once a political party gets to power, it can use the anti-defection law to stay there.
The interaction between local caste dynamics and the formality of political parties throws up a number of anomalies that the bsy episode has brought to the fore. Yediyurappa was willing to bow docilely before the party high command as long as what they asked of him was consistent with the requirements of his caste alliance. When it was not, he did not hesitate to act defiant.
Local caste dynamics also typically implies a loyalty to the interests of the caste, rather than to any particular leader belonging to that caste. Yediyurappa has gone out of his way to promote Lingayats, the caste he belongs to. They have benefited from several appointments he has made. He has also used state resources to support caste-based religious institutions to an extent that no other CM has. On the basis of this effort, he is making it clear that the Lingayats have reason to be displeased by the move to remove him. And this may be true if the caste as a whole loses its clout. But if an alternative Lingayat leadership emerges that can put together an alliance of castes with each of them getting significant access to resources, it is possible that the Lingayats will leave bsy by the wayside, as they have done to other leaders of the caste in the past.
Much of the discussion on politics in India is built on the premise that the high command of a national party decides what happens in distant parts of the country. However, politicians in states like Karnataka often treat their parties as a necessary formality. They don’t mind being the tail wagged by the high command in Delhi as long as it suits their interests consolidated through caste alliances. But as Yeddy has shown, there can also be situations where, when local caste dynamics demands otherwise, the tail can wag the dog.
(Narendar Pani is professor at the National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore)
