Politics Of Lunch Diplomacy: What Does The Dine-With-Downtrodden Drive Say?

 Who is graced by the sharing of a meal—the host, who prepares and serves the food, or the guest who enjoys the meal and leaves coolly later? The question assumes significance in light of the practice of ‘lunch diplomacy’, a dine-with-downtrodden drive wherein political figures are visiting Dalit homes for meals.

At one time or another, almost every political outfit has picked a Dalit household and ‘dropped in’ for lunch or dinner. This is at least a century old strategy of reformists and politicians, pursued by many including Gandhi. The BJP is only the latest to effortlessly combine that trope with its electoral outreach for new social groups.

By definition the ‘guest’ in such arrangements must belong to, or be accompanied by, a caste ranked higher than the host’s. Else, the meal would lose itspotency. It would no longer send skillfully-crafted signals about the underlying promise of political accommodation for the unequal. Meals with someone of the same or ‘accepted’ caste are, of course, not worthy of photo-ops—those are just meals.

Parties of all shades consider eating with a Dalit family salient enough to woo communities. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi was battered in the press in 2011 after he savoured delectable sweets at a poor Dalit’s home. Recently, he and senior leader Gulam Nabi Azad again visited a poor Dalit family and again faced charges of imposing a great financial burden on their hosts, who apparently borrowed money to receive their powerful guests. Yet, Congress leaders continue to repeat this ‘mistake’.

In May BJP national president Amit Shah ordered party colleagues to vigorously undertake ‘lunch diplomacy’. Soon after, the Karnataka Congress accused state BJP chief B.S. Yeddyurappa of eating food brought from a restaurant during a visit to a Dalit’s home. Telangana Chief Minister K. Chandrasekhar Rao accused Shah of the same after the latter’s visit to Telangana. The BJP though has only stepped up these mealtime activities.

Reasons are not hard to find. A shared meal lets constituents know that a party shuns the age-old practice of untouchability. It lets politicians display, through action, that bhed bhav or discrimination is out of vogue. But dining with Dalit households also unintentionally transmits the message that it is something abnormal to do. Co-dining unwittingly acknowledges that in large parts of India castes still do not eat together. The public gets the full memo: It is quite alright to dine with Dalits as part of politics and thereafter forget it ever happened. It is why, seventy years after independence, parties continue with a strategy that has clearly not worked.

Today’s politicians infuse these meals with humdrum ordinariness, perhaps as insurance against charges of casteism. Hence UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath ate with 500 Dalits in Gorakhpur and later stressed that caste discrimination is all in the past. In Rajasthan Shah and Chief Minister Vasundhara Raje ate at a Dalit’s home and later described him as an especially diligent party worker who might have belonged to any caste.

Even this way, politicians convey that it is their host, not they, who were honored by sharing food. So does the Dalit gain stature after offering food to party seniors or those higher on the caste ladder than he? Or is it the guests who are dignified? No doubt breaking social taboo is a worthwhile cause, elevating all participants on a moral plane. The question is whether the cause is marred if these breakfasts and lunches originate in party diktat and are replete with political considerations.

Take a recent instance. Last Sunday Adityanath, Shah and several others visited Madan Yadav, an OBC, for lunch in a UP village. To make it to this lunch they had to cancel, at the last minute, a lunch previously arranged for them at a Dalit’s home. Commentators described the sudden change of plans as a sure sign that the BJP is out to woo the Yadavs.

Other political parties in UP might have questioned the BJP for clubbing Yadavs with the Dalits. Instead, BSP chieftain Mayawati settled down after calling such visits mere gimmickry. Even Yadav politicians of the Samajwadi Party did not care to oppose the BJP’s apparent focus on ‘samrasta’ or social harmony as opposed to ‘samanta’ or equality.

Harmony among castes would retain everybody’s relative position on the caste/varna scale. Equality would imply giving all a share in power and eliminating caste hierarchies. Yet, none pointed out that dining with Dalits lacks an emancipating touch if the food served suits only the visitor’s taste (or caste) and—as often happens—is preceded by a cleanliness drive in the host’s neighbourhood.

Perhaps other age-old practices mirror the political habit of eating ‘simple meals at a poor Dalit’s home’. Many Hindus consider it noble to feed poor Brahmins, an act said to earn brownie points for the donor in life and afterlife. To respectfully feed a poor Brahmin can thus boost the giver’s dignity. This differs from when a poor Dalit feeds uninvited political visitors of a higher caste. Here the host gets a ‘one-up’ in the dignity stakes . The notion that such co-dining might remind the Dalits of their actual status does not seem to cross the minds of their guests.

Visits from noblemen to a commoner’s home are another parallel. The run-of-the-mill citizen gets a status lift while the visiting bluebloods, naturally, share their charm and allow some of it to rub off on those being offered benediction.

Many may feel lunch is just lunch and that there’s ‘no point reading into it’. But, remember when people read a lot into Bihar CM Nitish Kumar skipping lunch with Congress chief Sonia Gandhi?