Has the Congress internalised its message of social justice?

Since the run-up to the Lok Sabha elections, the Congress has been talking about social justice, equal representation, and caste census. We just saw the results of the Haryana Assembly elections. To what extent do you think that messaging has actually gone down with voters, especially Dalits?

Sudha Pai: The sociopolitical context is different in general elections and Assembly elections. The Congress adopted a slightly different strategy this time. It spoke of social justice, Dalit votes, etc., but at the same time, it did not mobilise the Dalits as much as it should have. There were two reasons for this. First, the party depended on Bhupinder Singh Hooda, a Jat, a great deal, and the Dalits did not want to put up with Jat dominance. The second is the manner in which senior Dalit leader Selja Kumari was treated; that affected the Dalit vote.

There was a bit of overconfidence that the Dalit vote would go to the Congress. In the 2024 elections, the impact of the INDIA bloc was different in different States. In Uttar Pradesh, the Samajwadi Party did well. In Haryana, the Congress and the BJP got five seats each. But later, for the Assembly polls, the BJP was able to gear up, mobilise, and use a certain kind of strategy which got it more Dalit votes.

Aditi Narayani Paswan: During the Haryana Assembly elections, the BJP was micromanaging at the block level. In Haryana, there is the Braj belt, the Jat belt, etc. The BJP kept the social composition in mind. While it was working on social engineering, it also made sure that it fully catered to the local people and their representation in the organisation. This was missing in the Congress.

Analysis | Congress frames social justice as an essential step of a policy framework to ensure justice

Also, people are now moving away from dominant representation. The Congress created disenchantment among the Dalits. It played the caste and Constitution card in national politics, which helped it. But at the ground level, Dalits are more concerned about local issues.

The Congress chose to leverage certain movements to consolidate votes. How do you read those choices in Haryana?

Aditi Narayani Paswan: There are 17 reserved seats in Haryana. Of them, the BJP won eight and the Congress won nine. Of the 17, 9-11 seats were given to non-Jatav and non-Chamar Scheduled Castes (SCs). The BJP consolidated the non-dominant Dalit vote by putting up non-dominant Dalit candidates in as many seats as possible. Voters chose the BJP because of this. They felt that they would have a better voice in the functioning of the state machinery. Second, even the Jat vote was split because within Jats, there are three-four fronts: the Chautala front, the Hooda front, etc.

Comment | Ensuring social justice in the bureaucracy

Then there was the geographical factor. The BJP won 18 urban seats and also had a higher vote share in urban and semi-urban seats. Issues such as Agniveer, the farmers’ agitation, the struggles of the wrestlers, etc. were centered around the rural parts of Haryana.

Sudha Pai: I think the Congress made two mistakes: institutional and strategy-related. In terms of institutional, there was public infighting in the party. Apart from the Hooda and Selja Kumari groups, there were other groups within the Congress. This is not a united party. Whereas, in the BJP, we see unhappiness due to ticket distribution, but ultimately everybody settles down because there is very strong leadership.

Also read | From ‘Rohith Vemula Act’ to reservations in higher judiciary, Congress lists out its social justice commitments

In terms of strategy, the Congress did not realise that we cannot now look at Jats and SCs as blocks. Or even farmers, for that matter. There are differences and categories within them; all Jats don’t vote the same way. The BJP mobilised all the non-Jats against the Jats. And the party did this quietly. The Congress did not realise that depending on the Jats is not going to help it because Mr. Hooda has now become unpopular. The BJP targeted the non-Jats and the Other Backward Classes (OBCs). It made Nayab Singh Saini the Chief minister. So, it had a broad strategy of getting support from Dalits, Brahmins, and OBCs, which enabled it to win more seats, whereas the Congress narrowed down on Jats and Dalits alone.

Just ahead of the elections, the Supreme Court cleared the decks for SC sub-categorisation. The Nayab Singh Saini government acted fast, set up a commission, and promised sub-categorisation within a week. On the other hand, Congress was not decisive enough on this. To what extent do you think this allowed for the SC vote to swing towards the BJP?

Sudha Pai: Sub-categorisation has become important. There are a lot of difficulties in doing this. You need data, a caste census, etc. But on the ground, there are two reasons why it appeals to the poorer Dalits. The first is rising aspirations — better education and better jobs in better-paying sectors. The second is rising poverty.

Also read | Congress’ twin plank of OBC outreach and welfarism does not enthuse voters in the Hindi heartland

This was a missed opportunity for the Congress because it has been talking about a caste census. It should have noticed that in Haryana, the SCs are very unhappy because not only is there high unemployment in general, but there is high unemployment among the SCs. The BJP was very quick on the uptake. Although having said that, the BJP has publicly not said anywhere at the national level that it agrees with what the Supreme Court said or that there should be sub-categorisation.

Why then do you think the BJP went hard on this knowing that it could possibly play into the hands of the Congress’ messaging of a caste census?

Aditi Narayani Paswan: First, principally I do not agree with sub-categorisation because in the absence of empirical evidence, it is difficult to define who is a privileged Dalit and who isn’t. Without any data, this is further going to just weaken the national Dalit discourse. Only now people from my community are gearing up to be a part of this national imagination/discourse. Mere tokenism was always there, since 1952.

Also read | Social Justice as a political narrative 

Having said that, the politics of sub-classification played a very important role for the BJP’s victory in Haryana. Because of the message, the non-Jatavs and non-Chamars and Valmikis (also a significant non-dominant SC community) voted for the BJP. The Congress could not understand this. The Congress only spoke about the Constitution, while the BJP went on the ground and did it [set up a committee for sub-categorisation].

As you both said, the heterogeneity of caste groups was key in strategising for Haryana. There was messaging about equal representation from top Congress leaders such as Mallikarjun Kharge, Rahul Gandhi, and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra. So, what went wrong in internalising this social justice messaging that seemed to have worked for the Congress in the Lok Sabha polls?

Sudha Pai: I don’t think it has been internalised by the State units and definitely not in Haryana. The Congress gave a free hand to Mr. Hooda. The same thing happened in Madhya Pradesh with Kamal Nath. You see, then it becomes something that is run by a smaller group. If the top leadership had been more active in terms of strategy and ticket distribution, the party might have been more successful. Yes, Rahul Gandhi did try in the last few days along with Priyanka Gandhi Vadra. But I think it was too late by then. It should have been consistently followed right from the beginning and the party should have had a more broad strategy than just caste. It depended on the caste strategy of getting votes from Jats and the Dalits, but the party did not really work out how it would be able to get their support and what the messaging should be.

Aditi Narayani Paswan: The Congress preaches about caste and it is great to see Rahul Gandhi have caste consciousness. It built narratives around caste, but in practice it was missing. During the Lok Sabha elections, the regional parties were more the flag bearers of the Constitution than the Congress. That is why we saw the INDIA bloc do quite well. With the Congress preaching about caste, Ms. Selja should have been given more respect, right? For two weeks, she could not even campaign. This clearly sends out a message that the Congress was sidelining a tall leader. A bigger narrative then came about that the Congress had ignored the Dalit leadership in Haryana, which led to the party’s defeat.

Listen to the conversation in The Hindu Parley podcast