G-23 rebellion is elitist, mocks Dalits

Charanjit Singh Channi’s elevation was a message not only to Punjab’s 32 per cent Dalits, but also to Dalits countrywide that they can hope to wield power through the Congress

None of the faults of the Gandhis can justify the decision of the Group of 23 (G-23) to renew its demand for organisational elections in the week the Congress sought to acquire ideological coherence and reconfigure its traditional social base. The G-23's clamour overshadowed the significance of the Congress choosing Charanjit Singh Channi, a Dalit, to replace Amarinder Singh, a Jat Sikh, as Punjab's Chief Minister, and inducting into the party two youth leaders, Kanhaiya Kumar and Jignesh Mevani.

These measures were as radical as any centrist formation like the Congress can take. Channi's elevation was a message not only to Punjab's 32 per cent Dalits, but also to Dalits countrywide that they can hope to wield power through the Congress, which traditionally has had the upper castes, particularly Brahmins, dominate its leadership structure.

This implies the Congress has temporarily abandoned hope that upper caste voters, the party's mainstay in north India until three decades ago, will return anytime soon to its fold from the Bharatiya Janata Party. Leaders belonging to socially advanced groups have, in fact, deserted the party, such as Jyotiraditya Scindia, Sushmita Dev, Jitin Prasada, Priyanka Chaturvedi, Lalitesh Pati Tripathi, etc.

Kanhaiya Kumar has mellowed down from his university days. Yet he is still seen as a member of the fictitious "tukde tukde gang", which is malevolently projected as having an agenda of fracturing India's territorial integrity. A communist, Kumar is a feisty opponent of Hindutva. His induction suggests the Congress will shift to the Left and, even more importantly, not feel embarrassed about it. Jignesh Mevani made his mark as a Dalit activist during the protest against the 2016 Una flogging incident. Unlike the Ambedkarites, his politics combines caste and class, Ambedkar and Marx.

These meanings were lost out on G-23 spearhead Kapil Sibal. Or he understood their significance and, therefore, reiterated his demand for organisational elections within 24 hours of the induction of Kumar and Mevani. At one stroke, theirs and Channi's newsworthiness diminished. Only a Brahminical mindset can explain why national newspapers have yet to interview Channi, in contrast to them repeatedly showing this favour to Chief Minister Adityanath, whose ability to spin is nonpareil.
Or take another G-23 leader, Manish Tewari, who tweeted, "As speculation abounds about certain Communist leaders joining @INC it may perhaps be instructive to revisit a 1973 book, Communists in Congress: Kumaramangalam thesis. The more things change the more they remain the same…."

Tewari was referring to Mohan Kumaramangalam, one of the communists whom PN Haksar, diplomat and Indira Gandhi's brilliant Principal Secretary, brought into the Congress. Haksar and communist leaders such as Kumaramangalam were the driving force behind the nationalisation of 14 private sector banks and coal mines, and the crackdown on smugglers and black marketers. These measures revived the Congress, battered by the electoral setbacks of 1967 and the 1969 split.

Perhaps someone pointed out to Tewari the ahistorical nature of his tweet, for he subsequently clarified that since the Congress embraced the "neo-liberal economy in 1991", he wondered whether Kumar and Mevani would subscribe to this "expansive liberal and ideological orientation." Tewari forgot that the term neo-liberal is pejoratively used by its detractors. No one says he or she is a neo-liberalist. Nevertheless, his muddled explanation reflects the disquiet in the Congress over its growing Leftwing tilt.

G-23 leaders latched on to the political instability fomented by the mercurial Navjot Singh Sidhu, whom the Gandhis had chosen to head the party in Punjab, to question its leadership. Yet this G-23 tactic was deplorable: They harped on Punjab being a sensitive State as it borders Pakistan, a subtle attempt to stoke the ever-lurking fear in some segments of Punjab, primarily Hindus, about the return of Sikh militancy.

Then there is Amarinder Singh, who met Home Minister Amit Shah to canvass for changes in the three new farm laws. It does not take much to imagine Singh's gameplan - float his own party, get the Modi government to give concessions to farmers, and then tie up with the BJP or go solo. Farmer leaders have already scoffed at Singh's flirtation with the BJP, apart from insisting that nothing less than the repeal of the three laws will prompt them to call off their agitation. Some of them told me that they will always blame the BJP for over 600 deaths in the ongoing agitation.

Even P Chidambaram appears to have thrown his weight behind the G-23. He has been sharply critical, in his media columns, of the Modi government's disdain for human rights. Yet it was he who armed the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act with predatory claws, ignoring the critique of activists like Ravi Nair. Under Chidambaram, operations against the Maoists led to the ruthless killing of Adivasis in Chhattisgarh, and weakened opposition to corporates coveting their habitats rich in minerals.

This analysis does not devalue organisational elections. But what arouses suspicion about G-23 leaders is that they resurfaced at precisely the time the Congress would have wanted the ideological message symbolised by Channi, Kumar and Mevani to be communicated to the people. This makes the G-23 rebellion elitist and neo-liberalist; it mocks Dalits and their aspirations.

The writer is a senior journalist

Send your feedback to mailbag@mid-day.com

The views expressed in this column are the individual's and don't represent those of the paper