Q1(b). Caste Domination, Factionalism and Political Power (10M)

•A dominant caste is one that combines numerical strength with economic and political resources.

•Its power rests on:

oLandownership (control over agrarian resources).

oNumerical size (capacity to mobilize votes).

oSocial status (ritual position and prestige).

oAccess to modern education and jobs (which ensures upward mobility).

•Marathas in Maharashtra controlled land, sugar cooperatives, and politics.

•Jats in Haryana and Western UP mobilized their agrarian dominance into political clout.

•Reddys in Andhra Pradesh dominated Congress politics for decades.

•At the village level, dominant castes often control decision-making bodies like the panchayat.

•Lower castes are incorporated into politics through patron–client relations. They depend on dominant caste leaders for:

oEmployment on farms,

oSecurity in conflicts,

oAccess to state resources.

•As a result, elections often reproduce the traditional hierarchies, though lower castes gradually gain voice through assertion movements and reservation policies.

•Dominant castes extend their influence beyond the village by entering party politics.

•For instance:

oReddys and Kammas in Andhra Pradesh structured the rivalry between Congress and TDP.

oMarathas in Maharashtra formed the backbone of the Congress Party for decades, controlling cooperatives, colleges, and state politics.

oVanniyars and Thevars in Tamil Nadu have been critical to regional caste-based mobilization.

•Caste thus links local power bases with regional and state-level politics, ensuring continuity between traditional dominance and modern democracy.

•Factionalism refers to splits within a community or party, often organized around caste lines but also extending beyond them.

•Factions are less ideological and more about loyalty to leaders who provide resources, protection, and opportunities.

•In villages, competing factions often emerge from rival groups within the dominant caste, or between dominant and subordinate castes.

•Dominant caste leaders act as patrons, distributing benefits like jobs, loans, or protection to their clients (often lower caste individuals).

•In return, clients provide political support during elections.

•This creates vote banks, where large groups of people vote as directed by their patron leader.

•Such networks ensure political loyalty, but also reinforce dependence and inequality.

•In modern democracy, political parties aggregate caste-based factions into broader coalitions.

•For example:

oCongress Party in the 1950s–60s created an umbrella coalition of upper castes, OBCs, Dalits, and Muslims.

oIn Bihar and UP, caste coalitions like Yadav–Muslim alliances or Dalit–Backward combinations became key to electoral victories.

•Thus, local caste-based factionalism scales upward, shaping regional and national party strategies.

•Bihar: Rivalries between Yadavs, Kurmis, Koeris, and upper castes structured the rise of leaders like Lalu Prasad Yadav.

•Andhra Pradesh: The Reddy–Kamma split structured the Congress vs. TDP competition.

•Kerala: Factions within Nairs, Ezhavas, and Christians shaped party alignments.

•(a) Shift from Ritual to Political Hierarchy

oTraditionally, caste hierarchy was ritualistic based on purity, pollution, and religious ranking.

oIn democracy, caste is redefined in terms of political mobilization, access to resources, and numerical strength.

•(b) Rise of OBC Politics – After the Mandal Commission Report (1990), caste became central to affirmative action and political representation.

oOBC castes such as Yadavs (UP, Bihar), Kurmis (Bihar), Vokkaligas (Karnataka), and Patidars (Gujarat) mobilized politically, often forming regional caste-based parties.

•(c) Dalit Assertion – The Dalit movement, particularly through the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), demonstrated how caste can be used as an instrument of resistance.

oDalits, once politically marginalized, now mobilize around their collective identity and demand for social justice and representation.

•(d) Coalition Politics – In contemporary times, electoral success depends on managing caste arithmetic.

oExample: Samajwadi Party in UP relies on Yadav–Muslim alliances; JD(U) in Bihar builds Kurmi–Koeri–Dalit coalitions.

•Girishwar Giri in his work “Transforming Caste Domination and the Challenges of Consciousness: Towards an Integral Socio-Cultural Praxis” (2024) critically examined how caste domination functions not only through political, economic, cultural, and ideological structures but also through human consciousness. He argued that dismantling caste requires both structural reforms and self-transformation, drawing inspiration from Ambedkar, Shankara, Aurobindo, and Buddhist traditions. Giri emphasized that a combination of systemic change and consciousness-building is essential for breaking caste oppression and building an egalitarian future.

•Nikita Sunandan in her article “Caste, Knowledge and Power: Colonial-Brahmanical Modernity and the Invalidity of Other Ways of Knowing” (2022) analyzed how caste domination in modern India extends into epistemology. She argued that colonial and Brahmanical systems combined to establish the supremacy of “scientific” knowledge linked to upper castes, invalidating alternative knowledge traditions. Sunandan showed how this knowledge–power nexus reinforces caste hierarchy in academia and politics, calling for the decolonization of knowledge systems.