Uttar Pradesh : Time to think for a post poll scenario

By Vidya Bhushan Rawat

The UP political situation have brought sharp differences between yesterday's friend who have now becoming bitter foes. People are posting things on Facebook and whats app abusing their former comrades just because one is on the side of Samajwadi Party while other on the Bahujan Samaj Party. I will make certain observations with my own understanding of the two and the legacies they claim to inherit. BSP emerged from a big movement that late Kanshiram started by mobilising the grassroot Bahujan masses, though it was existed earlier too in the form of splintered Ambedkarite followers all over the country. BAMSCEF that time was more an organisation for social change which look the society from very understanding of an Ambedkarite thought. The Samajwadi Party inherited or claim to inherit Lohia legacy which talks of caste identities and their participation in political structure but also glamorised village economy. At the end of the day Lohia remained a staunch Gandhian and countered Nehru for his 'western' thought.

Both SP and BSP were the parties of late eighties in technical terms though Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav was leader of opposition in Uttar Pradesh and built up his party from the ground. Kanshiram Ji's work was more of developing a staunch cader on Ambedkarite political philosophy. He was able to give voice to all those people and communities which remained hitherto unrepresented in political structure. Unlike RPI in Maharastra which Baba Saheb wanted to be party of diverse groups, BSP was able to attract diverse Bahujan communities even though opponent blamed it party of one community. There may be some truth in it but then every party has a core constituency which is important to nurture and on the basis of that strength, you can build better alliances with like minded groups.

When Samajwadi Party came to power in UP in the last term, one of the jokes that they started was related to Ambedkar Park which was definitely not a good taste. Akhilesh Yadav changed the names of all the district that Ms Mayawati has done in the name of great saints and Bahujan leaders. That was the worst decision on his part. In fact Akhilesh threatened to demolish Ambedkar Part too. Akhilesh with all good intention has limited social understanding but probably he feel that in politics you need to be goody to all but why that goody not extended to Dalits. It was under Akhilesh government that the state government openly encouraged the anti reservationists to campaign against reservation in Promotion. It was a sad spectacle. When thousands of OBC students had conversed in Allahabad for their genuine demands, they were called to Lucknow and when the talks failed, they were chased by the police and brutally lathicharged.

As a person who has followed Mulayam Singh Yadav's politics, I had only described the alliance between SP-BSP in 1992 bemel as Mr Kanshiram came from radical Ambedkarite movement while Mulayam Singh Yadav's emerged from mainstream socialist politics which actually legitimised RSS in 1975, the first time when Janata experiment happened.. The faith in social justice is essential for any alliance and I personally feel that even the Mandal Report in Uttar Pradesh was not implemented properly. There are many OBCs who are absolutely landless and Mandal recommendations are not just for job quota but for land reforms too. What happened ? Nothing.

When Akhilesh broke away from his father and allied with Congress, I termed it pragmatic decision. Political decisions are pragmatic and for survival too. Akhilesh is young and he will need to invest more time in the politics of social justice too rather than commenting on BSP and Ms Mayawati in contemptuous way.

Intellectuals should speak openly. They cant be devotees. They have to speak up for society and inform those in power where they lack. The battle today in UP is of a great national importance. I would always wish Uttar Pradesh to go Tamilnadu way where two 'national'' brahmanical parties become redundant but at the same point of time, it is essential that we learn from Tamilnadu where the Dravidian politics actually marginalised the Dalits further.

Let me make it clear that Ram Mamanohar Lohia was a great political leader but whenever India's Bahujan masses look for socio cultural emancipation they will have to go to Ambedkar Phule and Periyar. It is here, I wish Akhilesh could have invested time to understand all these revolutionaries. When I am reading comments here on facebook, it pains me. Some say, we are Phulewadis and not Ambedkarites. How is this possible ? Every Ambedkarite is a Phulewadi too. Every Ambedkarite is essentially a Buddhist too, not just in term of religion but in terms of philosophy. Some days back many çommentators'' wrote that Periyar, Phule and others are OBC icons and not Dalit warriors which may be technically true but who is carrying them further ? Who brought them to political discourse in Uttar Pradesh. The Janata Dal or the Samajwadis ? It is the BSP which brought to them in political discourse and that is essential. Uttar Pradesh need Ambedkar Phule and Periyar otherwise the brahmanical elite will always distort the political changes here.

Almost all the political parties somewhere allied with RSS and perhaps we have to differentiate when Congress was the main brahmanical party. But in today's context, it is essential to be unambiguous about our relationship with Hindutva when the Hindutva forces are up in arm using their 'saam-daam-dand-bheda'' to bring the manuwadi varna system. Akhilesh Yadav rarely spoke on violence against Dalits. He did not speak on Una incident. He had not time to see what was happening in JNU. It is important now for the Samajwadi Party, if it wish to look sincere to broaden its social base.

Miss Mayawati in recent years have been very vocal on these issues and was a welcome step from her earlier polity of isolation. She made it clear that in no way she is going to ally with BJP. Let us not bring history as every one has a history including Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, the founder of Hindu Maha Sabha, being member of Nehru cabinet and prior to that part of Muslim League Ministry, in Bengal under Fazal-ul Haq. So politics many time need associations and links but in today's time you can not be an opportunist in the name of running the government when the country has seen Hindutva's hate propaganda and anti people activities.

The attempt to put Lohia against Ambedkar must be condemned as done by many. I met many of those who knew it that Dr Lohia was in constant touch with Dr Ambedkar. It is open secret that Lohia Admired Ambedkar a lot and wanted him the leader of opposition and both were working for building up a party that represent India's wider oppressed masses. In fact, I am told, Dr Lohia was supposed to be joining the Republican Party of India when it was to be formed. Unfortunately, the demise of Dr Ambedkar left the entire legacy in bad hands and RPI became one community party which Baba Saheb never wanted. On December 5th, 1956 Dr Ambedkar had written two letters to veteran socialist leader N G Gore and Atre. He was in touch with Mr S M Joshi too to form a bigger alliance against the Congress Party which was the main political party during those years. Obviously, if Baba Saheb and Lohia were alive today, they would have joined hand to defeat the communal fascist forces represented by the Hindutva forces. The anti congressism of 1950s and 1960s is not valid today when the Hindutva's brahmanical forces have unleashed their anti people propaganda so ruthlessly.

Friends, political parties will not implement the socio cultural agenda that we wish. They have to be part of the political structure and we can only use their good will in propagating things and also getting things done.It is the social movement which force them to do so. Be part of these movements that compel political leaders to listen to them. While there is no doubt that BSP will have to improve its working and Ms Mayawati will have to be more accessible to people, it is time we understand that SP and BSP are rivals in Uttar Pradesh hence there is bound to happen some bitterness among their fans but those who call themselves íntellectuals' and activists have to come out of this fan mania and think of a larger perspective. I hope the rivalry does not give the brahmanical manipulators chance to blackmail them in the aftermath of the elections. People in constituencies know who is better and who is not. Uttar Pradesh will vote on community lines as it is happening and I must say, there is only one wave in Uttar Pradesh which is against #notebandi and Narendra Modi. We hope people give the BJP a good lesson.

Uttar Pradesh can bring huge political change in political history of India. That time has come now. Can the Bahujan forces respond to it positively ? Remember 21st century is that of Baba Saheb Ambedkar's enlightened vision which is meant for all Indian across diverse communities as it has ways and means to overcome hurdles and built an egalitarian society. Those who want to put Ambedkar into a particular category do a great damage to his tremendous work to unite India and its havenots. Hope people will understand it in the greater interest of strengthening Bahujan movement in India

The opening of a Pandora Box By Vidya Bhushan Rawat Uttar-Pradesh state assembly in its shortest ever session of eleven minutes only passed a resolution for carving out four states from Uttar-Pradesh. The resolution has now gone to the Central government for their perusal. However, we all know, that this is not going to happen that easily for which our political pundits are making noises and parties going for and against it. Let me be clear in the very beginning that I have no objection of Ms Mayawati raising the issue for political purposes. In politics you raise the issue in the people’s court and it is up to them how they react. Rajiv Gandhi went for a national poll immediately after Indira Gandhi’s assassination in October 1984 and won with a landslide majority. Gujarat Chief Minister used the same anti Muslim card for his comeback. Ayodhya’s issue raised by Advani and company finally help BJP to take its tally from 2 to 120 in Parliament and converted it to India’s main opposition party. So, political debate in India has stooped so low that we must not expect too much from them. Now let us examine the issue of division of Uttar-Pradesh. One may ask this question as why should we only divide Uttar-Pradesh and reduce it to nothing. Politically Uttar-Pradesh is an important state for every political party and today, if we are witnessing the assertion among the DAlits and OBC political leadership all over the country, the credit goes to Uttar-Pradesh. In fact, Bihar comes second to Uttar-Pradesh as far as Dalit assertion and political understanding is concern. Today, BSP is the only party based on Ambedkarite principals (whether they work on it or not is not the question here but they claim to follow it), which is in power. In Maharastra, the RPIs failed and that too miserably forcing many of them to even form alliance with Shiv Sena. Can we ever imagine a party formed by Ambedkar and on his principals forming alliance with rabid anti dalit and anti Muslim party like Shiv Sena or MNS? Have we forgotten how Shiv Sena opposed violently the naming of Marathwada University in the name of Baba Saheb Ambedkar in the 1980s? For us who have seen the danger of majoritarian politics, secular polity of India is thankful to Uttar-Pradesh and Bihar for successfully able to thwart the designs of communal fascist forces in the country. We all know that the Sangh Parivar and its offshoots are completely helpless in Uttar-Pradesh and Bihar at the moment as their hegemony has completely destroyed at least politically. The Dalits, OBCs and Muslims are building alliances and coming close. Uttar-Pradesh is the biggest laboratory for that. The second phase of Mandalisation process has already begun in Uttar-Pradesh. It is the reemergence of MBCs and Maha Dalits or excluded dalits. Nitish Kumar played a card in Bihar to gain from it but fortunately in UP, it is the emergence of these segments and they can play their own politics. So, it is second phase Mandal process where even the Mahadalits, MBCs and Pasamanda Muslims are joining hand for their political participation. With BSP increasingly tilting as Chamar-Brahmin alliance, the excluded Dalits and MBCs have no other option than to form an alliance and look for their future. In this background comes the news of division of Uttar-Pradesh. There is no proof that smaller states are better governed or bigger states are worst. Why should then we have a huge country which is ungovernable? Should not we say that India is an unmanageable country? But then, every small identity that merges with India also gets benefit of its strength. It happen same to the states. Question is not whether a state should be big or small. The real question is whether the people in the state want to live together or not. Whether there is a cultural difference or a feeling of isolation by one segment of people or not? We all know when Uttarakhand was created, I protested against it for the fear that the majoritarian upper castes will not allow the Dalits and OBCs to live peacefully. We all know how the condition of Dalits in Uttarakhand where no government till date have been able to spend the SCP meant for SC-STs. The money goes unspent. The job quota is not filled adequately and the social ostracisation of the community is enormous even when there is no physical intimidation in the hills. The conditions in Harit Pradesh or Paschim Pradesh are different. This is the fiefdom of the Jats and Gujjars. The Dalits here are predominantly depended on agricultural work. Ofcourse, they have also grown up but the relationship between them and the upper castes is well known here. In the Bundelkhand region Kurmis, Brahmins and Thakurs dominate. Violence against Dalits particularly the Kol tribal go unreported. The Poorvanchal is the region where BSP remained stronger but that too with the help of ‘poor’ ‘brahmins’ so we can understand how will it help them. It is equally important to see how the state of Uttar-Pradesh can merge Faizabad, Pratapgarh and Sultanpur in the Poorvanchal State though historically they have been part of Avadh. In fact, before the capital of Avadh moved to Lucknow, Faizabad was its capital. Is not it a travesty of truth? Similarly, Agara, Kanpur and Allahbad should be nearer to Bundelkhand rather than Avadh Pradesh or Pooravanchal Pradesh. It would have been great if the serious issue had discussion in the beginning so that people are well equipped with knowledge about the act. Secondly, do we hate Uttar-Pradesh that much that we want to eliminate the very name of Uttar-Pradesh itself. Third, why should only Uttar-Pradesh be divided? Why not other big states like Madhya Pradesh, Maharastra, West Bengal, Jammu and Kashmir, Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat and Bihar? It is important to understand the dynamics of our political class. Even when the state can be divided for administrative reasons, let there be a state reorganization commission. There are a lot of unfulfilled agenda of the past. A place like Belgaum creates violence on the issue of Marathi verses Kannada in Karnataka. Why should a Marathi speaking town such as Belgaum be part of Karnataka? Similarly, the issue of Abohar and Fazilka in Punjab became bone of contention between Punjab and Haryana. We all know the issue of Naga areas in Manipur for which the state is still facing the blockade. Jammu and Ladhakh have nothing in common with Kashmir valley and have distinct cultural identity of their own. India needs small states to govern efficiently. Ofcourse, India needs to increase its size of parliament too. India requires radical changes including that in our parliamentary structure. Problem is not just with the governance of state. Our states or parliament is not really representative of our communities. Despite sizeable presence in Uttar-Pradesh and Uttarakhand, the Tharus, one of the most celebrated tribes of our country, have just one member of assembly in Uttarakhand. Communities like Balmikis, Khatiks, Kols, Doms, Nais remain unrepresented. Many of the most marginal communities remain outside the realm of our parliamentary politics. So what will these new state offers to them? Frankly speaking, the new state might reduce the already diminishing Dalit-OBC representation so chances for the most marginalized one would be difficult to come. It needs to change India’s parliamentary system. If we see the state of Chhatishgarh and Jharkhand, both are Adivasi dominated yet have been dominated by the non adivasis in political leadership. The least said about Jharkhand’s political leadership the best. In one night, Madhu Koda signed more than 300 deals which could never have happened in a state like Bihar. A big state is a challenge for officials as they fear mass protest if the political leadership is sidelined. A state like Uttar-Pradesh is bigger than many countries and therefore the chief minister of the state is respected and is relatively powerful. No official or bureaucrat can take her for granted but all these small states are being run by the coterie of bureaucrats or the chamchas of the political class. The experience shows that they are ruthless in tackling dissent and opposition. Economically, most of these states are dependent on the Centre for financial support. Creation of new state poses great economic stress. Not only does it need new infrastructure, legislative assemblies, governor’s houses, bungalows etc. Our political class will not live in ordinary areas. In the fifties it was easier for new states to be developed as places like Lucknow, Hyderabad, Madras, Banglore, Thiruvnanathpuram had already had infrastructures for everything. But now the new states will be more burdens to people. Most importantly, in the new state, we will not have new leaders but the same old ones who have been sucking our blood all the time. Example from Uttarakhand, Jharkhand, Chhatishgarh and north east clearly indicate that they have become police state. It is also true that big corporate find is easier to tackle the political leadership in these states easily than in the bigger states. While, I do not believe in the argument whether smaller states are better or big states are useful. The question should be addressed according to local demands, cultural issues and most importantly economic viabilities of such states. It would be better if Centre comes out with a specific time frame for a State Reorganisation Commission which should look into all aspect such interstate issues such as Bundelkhand and Poorvanchal which cannot be created just out of Uttar-Pradesh but will have to be carved out of Madhya Pradesh too. Lot of issues but if the petty politics takes over then the whole exercise would be too dangerous for the unity of the country. A country like India can accommodate more state and bigger parliament but for that we need serious discussion and a time found agenda and framework of SRC so that we can address the issue in the utmost national interest. Let the political parties not whip up passion and create a frenzy in the name of ‘small is best’, as it could prove contrary also because at the end the political leadership as well as the working class of each state in India will emerge from ourselves only. Hence , whether it is small or big, at the end of the day, it is we the people of India, who will provide leadership to these states. It is not going to come from anywhere else. There is no denial of fact that people today aspire for more decentralized power structure but at the same point of time, also look for safe guards of communities who have never got representation. So, India need a reorganization of not only its state, but its political system in entirety otherwise, these so called new states or small state will have the same elite dominating with much bigger brutality over minorities as they have been in the past. The issue of creation of states have to be based on demands of people and should not be imposed by the political leadership from the above. An empowered State Reorganisation Commission should be asked to look into it and till then we can make a moratorium on the issue, except the already decided issue of Telangana which need to be created based on popular demands of the people of the region. Denying that in the name of unity and integrity of Greater Telangana will be an injustice to the entire struggle of the people. Such generalization can damage the cause of unity of people. Uttar-Pradesh government’s issue is different as there is neither a mass movement nor a public revolt for creating so many states out of Uttar-Pradesh. Ofcourse, it is good that Ms Mayawati has given it a serious thought but it is equally important that the issue be debated widely and should not be resolved without a State Reorganisation Commission as the stake holders are not just in Uttar-Pradesh but also in other states.

Politics of rape or rape of politics ?

Rape as an instrument of Politics

By Vidya Bhushan Rawat

UP Congress is on a high these days. After Congress Chief Rita Bahuguna’s infamous words on rape, the debate started that chief minister Mayawati said the same things to the then chief minister Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav after she visited the Maderasa in Allahabad where some Muslim women’s were raped. Why were the channels running it for the whole day. Was it an effort to douse the flames created by the brahmanical sophistry? Is it just a slip of tongue or the very psychology of our political class which use victim as a tool to score a political point?

Well, if you have seen some surveys on these channels, then a majority of Indians have send roses to Rita Bahuguna. I think this is there way of doing Gandhigiri on channels and feeling happy that ‘some one’ had the guts to take their ‘cause’. Justifications are there that Ms Bahuguna meant something else but if you see the whole social history and later on the post independent India’s socio-political climate, then one should not wonder that word rape has become a political instrument and the person who is victimized is tortured more by our actions and deeds.

And I call it mindset of a pervert society. A society which is full of fear from openness and which shows its strength through masculinity. Is not it strange that the victim of rape violence is asked to cover her face and live in indignity and hide while the perpetrators roam around with shouting slogans and taking shelter under various taboos. And this is what I call brahmanical mind beautifully exposed by Dr Mulk Raj Anand in his epic novel ‘Untouchable’, as how a priest of temple try to allure a girl Gulabo who is a sweeper in the temple to enter into the sanctum-sanctorum of the temple where she is normally prohibited to enter and then try to molest her. As soon as the girl retaliates and condemn him, the Brahmin priest shouts ‘polluted... polluted... blaming the girl for polluting the temple by entering into its sanctum-sanctorum.

The responses of both the UP government and the rival political party are according to their power base. But the way the whole script is being played showed that the even the women politicians play the script largely written according to the code of Manu Dharm Shastra, a code which degraded them and made them an object of ‘pleasure’.

No one knows the plight of those women who become victims and in whose name these political dramas are enacted. The script changes and politicians takes over and make it like a Bollywood scene where the aim of the director is not to really show injustice but to give more ‘material’ to our bruised and unsatisfied male egos, something to watch.

Our responses have been crude and humiliating and when this rhetoric comes from women then it become more painful. So, it is a country where the laws are made in such a way where the victim is more victimized and those who do it walk with their head high.

Just as section 377 was set aside by Delhi High Court, many of the activists, including those claiming to work for social justice, felt that by allowing the homosexual to do things according to their choices would amount to breaking of our social relations and that we are a society based society and individuals do not matter.

Why individual should do not matter? How can a society be developed by killing an individual. Dr Ambedkar said about Indian society: ‘The Indian society does not consist of individuals. It consists of innumerable collections of castes, which are exclusive in their life and have no common experience to share and have no bond of sympathy. Given this fact, it is not necessary to argue the point. The existence of caste system is a standing denial of the existence of those ideals of society and of democracy.”

Once we understand this feeling of Dr Baba Saheb Ambedkar, we can easily analyse the root cause of our structural problems influenced by the brahmanical social order where for different set of rules and punishment meant for different communities. Therefore a rape committed by a Brahmin would definitely not attract the same punishment as done by some other community.

The atrocious laws and social taboos in our societies have turned against individuals and those who challenge to live according to their own life style face the brutality by the society. One should not therefore be amused about our whole marriage system and how it is an event to ‘celebrate’ and show your ‘strength’ and ‘power’ in the village rather than being an entirely private event of a few. And there are communities and traditions when you celebrate the first night ‘victory’. Also, communities have their way defined how to find the next morning whether the girl was a virgin or not.

It is therefore not ironical that during a mass marriage ceremony in Madhya Pradesh that the doctors were called to testify the girls after two of them developed labor pain. Now, mass marriage customs are very popular in India as it gives the political parties a license to become the custodians of the community. But as my friend Joane Payton referred why marriage can not be a private affair. Why should the state promote dowry by promoting such practices. There are number of other things as pointed out by some people that some marriages were just replayed to extract the paltry Rs 5,000/-. In fact a former Madhya Pradesh minister once said that people lodge false cases of rapes for compensations.

Now, that is the problem with the political parties. They link women’s dignity with compensation. At the same point of time we will have to understand how a woman has to face this violence in our society. Hence, she lives a life of miseries and there are no efforts by the family to revive her. That is why most of the people do not even want to let the incident out in open and file a case in the police. They know that if the ‘truth’ is out the girl would not be able to marry. And hence in many cases the women themselves refuse to accept the charges.




Of course, when rape becomes a male chauvinist debate among different constituent then it is shameful. Rather then condemning the act, we the launch counter offensive about why it was not done with others. Rita Bahuguna’s shameful tongue was the same brahmanical wisdom of challenging another woman. May be she wanted to look more sympathizer then Mayawati. Perhaps, she should remember Khairlanji which happened a few years back in Maharastra.

Rape will always be a powerful weapon in the armed struggles, communal disturbances, social upheavals as long as women’s virginity and purity are the ‘honor’ in our society. As long as we consider them as a matter of our ‘ijjat’, it will be used as a tool to dishonor them. Whether some boy picks up quarrel with another one in the village, it is the sister who has to face the consequences. The villagers will moan, communities will fight but the girl would be destined to live a life in isolation and misery. She can not come out hence even if she receive hefty compensation, unless our families are properly counseled no rehabilitation can take place and the money would go to the parents who would then find out a person for her and she would be tied for marriages but the stigma of being raped would also be there. There are very few cases where the girl would live a life of honor as she will not be accepted by the larger society.

The Supreme Court gave a historic verdict today after hearing a very passionate petition of an orphan girl who was raped by a warden in the Nari Niketan in Chandigarh. This girl is mentally challenged with an age of 19-20 years of age with an IQ of 9 year old. She became pregnant and she does not want to terminate her pregnancy now. It said that the girl has a right to keep her baby. Let us not go into what is right and wrong. Important point is that this girl’s desire to live her life with dignity must be appreciated.

The problem is many times, to save them from an adverse verdict, the lawyers advice the alleged rapist to ‘marry’ the girl and withdraw charges of rape. Law has never been reformative and any person who is different from others, find it difficult to get a good lawyer to present her case. How can the court grant permission to alleged rapist to marry the girl. It is because of the social taboos. Fact is that India may not be officially a Hindu Rastra but the laws of Manu are very powerful in our society and they prevail over a secular constitution.

Ofcourse, Manu’s Islamic cousins are not left behind. There are hundreds of Imranas and Mukhtar Mais who face these indignities. And what does Panchayats do, which many of our friends appreciate so much in the name of ‘golden’ culture? These Panchayat do not listen to the victim. They victimize them further. Imrana was asked to marry her ‘rapist’ father in law and call her husband as son while Mukhtar Mai was ordered rape by the ‘Jirga’in Pakistan. One need courage and patience of a Mukhtar Mai to face the law which is against her at every step. Therefore most of the women live in indignities as the psychology of rape is just not to kill the girl but to make her virtually a living dead where you are killed many time every time when people pour you with different questions and discuss about your fate. It also creates a psychology of indignity and guilt around her and her family. Laws have never been useful at all and politicians more dangerous than ever. One can find how many time they went to help Imrana. A typical response would be ‘either it is a community matter or ‘we have not read about it or heard it’.

The only answer against such heinous crime is to fight against it and not feel guilty and humiliated. And one woman who challenged it and became an icon was Phoolan Devi. Educated upper castes called her ‘dacoit’, but none ever came forward to encourage her live a life of dignity after she was raped and molested by the Thakurs in rural Kanpur Dehat region. She did not accept the defeat. She did not lead a life in miseries. She decided to avenge it. Many people might not justify what she did and none can justify those violent acts yet Phoolan revolt against the brahmanical system is an example that rather then feeling shame of their misdeeds, it is time to pay back with interest. She did not ask for any brutality or rape. She denied being part of any murder of people in Behmai yet she lived like queen. Whether you call it larger then life image or not, but Phoolan never believed in submitting herself to the fancies of these upper caste thugs. She became a legend in her life time who lived life with dignity and self respect.

But her legendary status was used by political class for their own reasons. She was converted into a docile homely woman who is very caring and very epitome of ‘Bhartiya naari’ i.e. Indian womanhood. She would tie Rakhi to many of these politicians who became her brothers and used her for political purposes. She got married and entered to parliament. Her status was used by the ambitious political class. A strong woman who fought against brahmanical patriarchy was therefore merged in it by the corrupt political class.

Politicians will thrive. The victim and their families will live life of marginalization. For a few days the media will make big stories and politicians know it well. Nothing will happen to them. Their ‘pativrata’ wives will not come for the rescue of bartered woman. They will stand by their corrupt husbands and relatives. That is what brahmanical value system tells us that nothing is bigger than blood relations…’ jis desh jaati main janm liya balidan usee per ho jawaen, which means you must sacrifice your self for your region and caste and defend it at any cost. At the end of the day even if we get out of the political debate of Rita Bahuguna and Mayawati, it is important who is good or bad, just find out who are the people facing charges of rapes in various jails of the country. Who are the victims? May be Rita Bahuguna can find the answer. Many of the shudra critique of Bahujan theory suggest that the violence perpetrated on Dalits are done by the shudras. They ignore the fact that Manusmriti was not made by the shudras. They forget that brahmanical violence may not be physical but more institutional and through knowledge. Rita Bahuguna has added Joshi in her status and her only quality to become president of Uttar-Pradesh Congress was her being a Brahmin. Just by having a Dalit cook at house does not resolve the crisis as she said. What she said was not an outburst but a continuous assumption of our patriarchical political thought that does not want to address the root cause but use the incident for political purposes. A counter social cultural revolution of Dalits-bahujan is the only alternative to brahmanical polity of India in which women are inherent partner in the movement otherwise, rape and molestation of women will always be a tool to not only spread terror among the marginalized sections of society but also used by the very exploiters who use it as a political weapon. Unfortunately, it is the bankruptcy of our political parties that they think to revive their fortune on an incident which is a shame and need a more sensitive approach to deal with.