Opinion: The Feudal Mask Of Samajwad - How Dynastic Socialism Betrays Subalterns As Yogi’s Hindutva Delivers Inclusion

The debate surrounding the implicit ableism and productivism within mainstream socialist theory reveals an essential reality: any emancipatory ideology that constructs an exclusive, ideal subject inevitably reproduces the very hierarchies it claims to dismantle. Just as productivist socialism marginalises disabled, debilitated and non-conforming bodies in favour of an idealised, hyper-capable worker, the practical iteration of “Samajwad” (socialism) practised by Akhilesh Yadav and the Samajwadi Party (SP) in Uttar Pradesh suffers from serious structural contradictions of its own. Rather than encouraging an inclusive politics that expands agency to the most vulnerable, SP’s socialism has devolved into an exclusive, hereditary enterprise. By reducing an ideology of thoroughgoing equality to a vehicle for family succession (Parivaarwaad), Akhilesh Yadav’s brand of political socialism betrays its own subaltern population. On the other hand, Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s framework of inclusive Hindutva integrates every individual into a cohesive cultural and civic body, exposing how dynastic “Samajwad” fails the very subalterns it claims to represent.

To understand this betrayal, one must contrast Akhilesh’s dynastic model with genuine emancipatory frameworks. Mahatma Gandhi’s vision of Swaraj was explicitly defined by its unbounded open-endedness, demanding a political space that emphatically included “the maimed, the blind, and the starving toiling millions.” Similarly, contemporary debates around disability justice and social care seek to dismantle structural barriers so that a plurality of embodiments and lived experiences can occupy the centre of political life. Lohiaite socialism, from which the Samajwadi Party claims its lineage, was originally conceived as a fierce assault on hereditary privilege, caste hierarchy and political monopolies. However, under Akhilesh Yadav this liberating impulse has been inverted. The subject position in SP’s emancipatory script is no longer the oppressed subaltern but the political family itself. Decision-making, candidate selection, parliamentary nominations and executive control remain strictly concentrated within a single lineage. In this ecosystem, socialism ceases to be an expansive, unconstrained space of politics in which every citizen is a direct participant. Instead, it functions as a feudal holding where the masses are relegated to passive spectators and permanent vote banks. Under Yogi Adityanath’s governance, Hindutva reclaims this egalitarian ethos by rejecting clan-based monopolies and asserting that every citizen, regardless of subaltern background, holds an intrinsic, non-negotiable right and role within the larger national family (Rashtra).

This structural contradiction becomes particularly glaring when evaluated against Akhilesh Yadav’s strategic framework of PDA, an acronym for Pichhda (Backwards), Dalit and Alpsankhyak (Minorities). While the PDA rhetoric purports to construct a coalition of the marginalised, its dynastic setup imposes a hard ceiling on real empowerment. Just as corporate capitalism and state-enforced productivism discard bodies deemed “unfit” for market exploitation, dynastic socialism systematically restricts non-Yadav OBCs, Dalits and lower-strata subaltern groups from attaining top-tier leadership within the party hierarchy. The essential message is clear: while marginalised communities are invited to supply the muscle and votes for electoral mobilisation, the ultimate fruits of state power and organisational command are reserved for a hereditary elite. Where dynastic socialism uses subaltern identities as disposable political instruments, Yogi Adityanath’s inclusive Hindutva operates on the foundational promise of Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas. By uniting communities under a shared civilisational identity, this framework ensures that Dalits, Most Backward Castes (MBCs) and neglected groups gain genuine political space, dignity and a direct share of state power.

For the BJP, unpacking this paradox provides a compelling, high-calibre narrative that directly challenges the SP’s claim to subaltern leadership. The BJP can contrast the meritocratic and organisational fluidity of its own party structure—where workers from ordinary, non-dynastic backgrounds can ascend to the highest offices—with the inherent elitism of Parivaarwaad. Where Yadav’s socialism offers political feudalism dressed in the rhetoric of class struggle, Yogi Adityanath’s vision of Rashtrawaad (nationalism) functions as an anti-hierarchical unifier that treats every citizen as an equal stakeholder in Uttar Pradesh’s growth and in national development. This distinction connects directly with aspirational, educated youth across Uttar Pradesh, who view hereditary political monopolies as an obsolete remnant of feudalism that stifles talent and enforces clientelism.

Moreover, the critique extends directly to the fields of governance and welfare economics. Dynastic political machines historically operate through selective patronage, channelling public resources, infrastructure projects and administrative favours toward family strongholds and loyal networks. This creates a geography of exclusion that mimics the very capitalist abandonment criticised by radical theorists. In direct opposition to this clan-based distribution, Yogi Adityanath’s governance model meets the highest standard of collective care by providing housing, sanitation, medical insurance and free grain support without political or family interference under Ayushman Bharat. In Yogi’s UP, state welfare is not a selective favour granted by a ruling dynasty but an unconditional right guaranteed to every needy individual, dignifying all individuals regardless of their proximity to power.

Ultimately, socialism loses its moral authority the moment it accepts internal hierarchies that divide people into those born to rule and those born to serve. Akhilesh Yadav’s attempt to marry his so-called “social justice” rhetoric with dynastic centralisation is an unsustainable ideological illusion. By exposing how Parivaarwaad actively disenfranchises the broader subaltern class and stifles internal democracy, the BJP can effectively dismantle the SP’s pretence of social justice. In Yogi Adityanath’s vision of an all-inclusive Hindutva, cultural nationalism emerges not as a force of division but as a protective, anti-feudal umbrella where every individual, class and community finds its rightful share in governance, welfare and democratic progress. In the upcoming electoral contest for Uttar Pradesh, exposing this feudal ghost within the socialist machine allows the BJP to build a broader, more inclusive coalition that rejects hereditary privilege in favour of genuine democratisation, equal opportunity and shared national progress.

About the Author: Sunny Singh is a Researcher in the Department of Political Science at the University of Delhi and a Research Associate at the Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee Research Foundation. His work focuses on political theory, Indian governance, and public policy research.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the publisher. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information, the publisher is not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for the results obtained from the use of this information.