‘Uttarakhand’s Upper Castes Support BJP to Preserve their Domination’—CPI Leader Samar Bhandari

Uttarakhand is one state in India where the upper castes constitute a whopping majority of over 60%. It is they who are the pivot of politics in the state. There are no murmurs here of Dalit or Backward consolidation. No intimations of subaltern assertion. This is the land of gods, dotted with sites holy to the Hindus; of snowy peaks, pristine forests and gurgling streams. From here men join the defence forces—and die fighting on the borders; it is here children come to school at elite educational institutes and scientists to study flora and fauna.

Yet this idyll is also where Hate nests, swooping down on religious minorities in senseless attacks. It is here experiments on building a Hindu Rashtra are underway. This is where ascetics contemplate genocide. You cannot, indeed, be faulted for asking: Is there in Uttarakhand a mysterious connection between its seductive beauty and repelling political ugliness, between the domination of the upper castes and the ascendancy of the Bharatiya Janata Party, between it being the bastion of the Armed Forces and also the new laboratory of Hindutva?

It is to fathom the land of contradictions, NewsClick turned to Samar Bhandari, who has been Uttarakhand’s State Secretary of the Communist Party of India for 18 years. In the middle of our conversation, we were joined by his wife, Chitra Gupta, who heads the Chai Bagaan Mazdoor Sabha and School Class IV Karamchari Sabha. Excerpts from the conversation:

Uttarakhand has been in the news because of the targetting of religious minorities. Has communalism or Hindutva become the principal issue of the forthcoming State Assembly polls?

For the Bharatiya Janata Party, the principal agenda is communal polarisation. The language spoken at last month’s Dharma Sansad in Haridwar, the way a minority community [read Muslims] was targetted and a call given for its genocide, there can be no doubt that those who call themselves sants and mahatmas are pursuing the BJP’s agenda.

It has to be admitted that in Uttarakhand, since 2014, [when Narendra Modi became the Prime Minister] the BJP has been successful in communally polarising the electorate. Its problem is that on the issues of unemployment, price rise and economic backwardness of the mountainous area, the removal of which constituted the very basis of carving out Uttarakhand as a separate state, the situation has only deteriorated.

The Dharma Sansad in Haridwar targetted Muslims—and they constitute about 14% of Uttarakhand’s population. But Right-wing groups have not spared Christians, have they? And Christians are just 0.37% of the population.

They have not spared Christians. For instance, they attacked a church in Roorkee and smashed things around, petrifying women and children. The Uttarakhand police have been brought to their knees. They do not take strong measures against mob violence as they should, the reason why Uttarakhand’s religious minorities feel so insecure today. For the first time, hill towns such as Mussoorie, Satpuli, Augustmuni, etc, where religious minorities are few in number and where communal harmony has always existed, have witnessed attacks on Christians.

But why has the BJP managed to drive a communal wedge in Uttarakhand?

One important reason is that the Congress has been defensive on the secular-communal issue. As the biggest Opposition party and having been twice in power in Uttarakhand (2002-2007; 2012-2017), it has been unable to frame an appropriate ideological reply to communalism. It also has been unsuccessful in taking the battle against communalism to the people. I would say it has not even tried to do so wholeheartedly.

Frankly, the Congress is nagged by doubts that in case it responds spiritedly and vocally to the BJP’s communal agenda, the majority community might turn against the party. I feel the Congress has chosen a wrong path to tread. The Congress is a product of the national movement. Secularism is its ideological inheritance. Such a party should have combated communalism with more gusto or far more boldly than it has.

Why do you say that?

Whether against Dharma Sansad in Haridwar or regarding attacks on religious minorities, the response of the Congress was muted. It lacked the confidence and aggression considered typical of the principal Opposition party. The Congress is reluctant to enter the arena where the battle between secularism and communalism is being fought.

But has the Congress been speaking on the BJP’s governance failure?

The Congress has been speaking out on the deteriorating economic situation, no doubt about it. But the problem is that the BJP’s governance deficit is overshadowed by its communal or Hindutva talk. The print and electronic media focus on sensational issues, essentially communal issues. Hindi newspapers particularly have played a major role in fanning communalism in Uttarakhand.

In other words, what you are saying is that because communalism is not confronted head on, the economic agenda gets drowned in the shrillness of Hindutva rhetoric.

This is precisely what is happening. The Sangh Parivar has been exploiting religious emotions to rally people. This is, unfortunately, yielding gains for them. Unless this is countered, unless people are educated that the Sangh Parivar is opposed to the Constitution, to secular democracy, I think the dream of building a better Uttarakhand, a new Uttarakhand, will remain unfulfilled. This dream can only be realised by taking up both the economic issues and the political challenge posed by Hindutva.

It is generally believed as well as repeatedly shown empirically by opinion surveys that the upper castes are strongly inclined towards the BJP. Now, in no state are the upper castes as numerically dominant as in Uttarakhand. They are nearly 60% here. What is the impact of this demography on Uttarakhand politics?

The upper castes are extremely sympathetic to the BJP.

This means the BJP starts with a huge advantage weeks before the elections?

I think the economic problems have had an adverse impact on the upper castes as well. In case the Congress is able to divide the upper castes and take away a significant chunk of them, the BJP’s problems would mount. Economic dissatisfaction is there. But what needs to be seen is whether the Congress can, organisationally and ideologically, rally the dissatisfied among the upper castes behind it.

Why is it that the upper castes are tilted towards the BJP?

The upper castes think the BJP’s Hindutva is their own agenda.

Why?

This is because the upper castes think their age-old domination can only be kept intact by the BJP. They also think the Congress is soft on Dalits, Backward and minorities. The interests of these two segments of Uttarakhand’s population are in contradiction. Thus, the upper castes feel only the BJP can only preserve and perpetuate their domination.

Since the upper castes are 60% of Uttarakhand’s population, would not there be a greater class heterogeneity among them here?

Yes, if you survey the hilly parts of Uttarakhand, you will find the middle and upper class among the upper castes would be very thin. The unsustainable system of agriculture and the paucity of employment opportunities militate against people acquiring economic mobility. But the middle class among the upper castes has tremendous ideological influence on those in their social group who are lower class. The middle class is vocal and also controls the media. It is their world-view that gets projected to the lower classes of the upper castes.

But does this not also create an opportunity for the Left to build class solidarity, by combining lower classes of all castes?

Yes, the Left’s role in building class solidarity has weakened over time. The Left should have had a far more visible role than it has had on influencing the popular consciousness or economic policies. Either we lack the restlessness visible in the larger society or we are unable to mirror it through our political action.

Given both the rhetorical and actual violence against Muslims and Christians, will it be right to say that much of Uttarakhand has been converted to Hindutva?

I can say with certainty that Uttarakhand’s silent majority does not appreciate what the BJP is doing. But when the BJP is othering the minorities and publicly conveying it will look only after the interests of the majority community, the silent majority should have come out to oppose the BJP’s communal agenda. Unfortunately, the presence of the silent majority has not been felt because it has not spoken out.

Why has not this silent majority acquired a voice?

This is because of the atmosphere of fear that has been created. Anyone who protests has cases instituted against him or her. To speak out is to court danger, people feel. Believe me, a substantial number of people are deeply disturbed as well as disapproving of the ongoing attempts to shatter Uttarakhand’s communal amity.

[At this point of the interview, Chitra Gupta, Samar Bhandari’s partner, joins us.]

Environment issues such as the all-weather Char Dham road and the proposed construction of a new Dehradun-Delhi highway by cutting 11,000 trees have been grabbing national headlines. Why have these not become election issues?

Even Opposition parties do not make these as issues. Uttarakhand’s environment has been degraded, leading to natural disasters. Thousands of trees [estimated to be 56,000 in number] have been axed to build the Char Dham highway. This kind of development is not in consonance with the physical features of Uttarakhand.

Why does not the Opposition turn these into issues? After all, this is the place where the Chipko movement began.

This is because all political parties subscribe to the new economic policies. All of them have played a role in changing the nation’s mindset [that ‘development’ is more important than environmental issues.] Political parties feel they will not get votes by raising environmental issues.

Why? I assume the people of Uttarakhand love their mountains and rivers and the clean air.

Chitra Gupta: I think the people of Uttarakhand have nothing to do with the mountains any longer. The hills lack basic necessities—no schools, no hospitals, no roads, no employment opportunities, etc. We have what are called ghost villages. People have simply moved out. As a result, they are least bothered whether roads are built or widened by cutting trees. Mountains no longer have a salience in the lived experience of the people as was the case earlier.

Samar: This is why all Left parties say development policies have to be in consonance with Uttarakhand’s physical features. What is good for, say, Haridwar and Dehradun cannot be good for human habitations nestled in the mountains. The government, however, tempts the people with the image of urbanisation in the plains. This has been devastating for Uttarakhand.

I find it hard to believe that people just would not be bothered what is happening to their rivers and mountains.

Chitra: You cited the Chipko movement. Its leadership mobilised the people. Where are those leaders? They had a great understanding of the link between the people and their environment. It was, as you said, part of the lived experience of both the people and their leaders. I am sorry to say that today’s environmentalists just do not have a clue about this linkage. Should I shatter your romantic notion? All those who leave villages to find jobs in cities do not even wish to return. This is why you have over 300 ghost villages in Uttarakhand. They have been abandoned. No one lives there.

Samar: Also frequent landslides have led to a situation where villages after villages need to be shifted. But the government just pays no attention to them.

Chitra: Why should the government pay attention to shifting villages? They are small villages, some inhabited just by 20-30 families. Electoral politics is about numbers. They, therefore, do not count for political parties. And migration is, anyway, leading to a situation where the need to shift villages will cease, because there will be no one around to shift.

Uttarakhand has been one of the important recruitment areas for the defence forces. What role do defence officers have in politics here?

Samar: They are a good vote-bank. Add their families and they will likely constitute 3% to 4% of the total electorate.

Chitra: The Army people have a very good life. Why should they even bother about politics?

To which party are the defence forces titled—BJP or Congress?

Samar: They are largely with the BJP. Some, though, are with the Congress.

What attracts them to the BJP?

Samar: Nationalism.

Chitra: Plus the BJP’s anti-Muslim plank.

Why are the defence forces attracted to the anti-Muslim plank?

Chitra: I do not think we ever loved Muslims. Earlier, people were anti-Muslim as they were anti-lower castes. But now a picture has been created that if Muslims are not controlled, they will take over India. And if they take over, India will become another Pakistan. Earlier, Hindu merely thought their religion is different from the religion of Muslims. But Hindus have now been made to feel scared of Muslims.

Anyone who visits, say, Dehradun and what are called hill stations can see frenetic construction work underway. To what extent does the builder lobby influence Uttarakhand politics?

Samar: After 2000, when Uttarakhand was carved out of Uttar Pradesh as a separate state, whether the Congress or the BJP was in power, there has always been an unholy alliance between political leaders and big builders, liquor barons and contractors of bajri (gravel). This unholy alliance has the real estate mafia drive a sharp post into people’s chest. Development here is another name for loot. Land is a sensitive issue in this mountainous region. During the tenure of Trivendra Singh Rawat [the first of three BJP chief ministers in the last five years], land policy was relaxed even further. The rich have been buying land. This has triggered anxiety and anger among the people.

Does the builder lobby also back the communal agenda?

Samar: Communalism or secularism does not bother them. They are looking at policies which allow them to make huge profits in the name of development. They are always on the side of the party in power. This is precisely what is happening even today.

(Ajaz Ashraf is an independent journalist.)