Caste cannot be ignored in the social system and to some extent, it cannot be denied in politics either. However, the bigger question is whether governance too should be viewed through the lens of caste.
In a state like Uttar Pradesh, with its vast and diverse social structure, this question shapes governance priorities. To answer it, we must examine governance styles before and after 2017 comprehensively. These two periods of governance matter because the line between them is clear.
On one hand is the politics of Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav, which made caste identity the central basis of governance; on the other is the model of the Yogi government, which, along with establishing the rule of law, opens the doors of government schemes to everyone. Here, the government treats every citizen equally.
Crores of people from different castes, communities, and regions live in Uttar Pradesh. In such a state, a government's success cannot be measured by how much political representation a particular caste receives. The real questions are: what is a citizen's identity before the law, what is their eligibility at the door of opportunity, and how much space do they have in the journey of development?
If we look at the government led by Akhilesh Yadav, a clear pattern of the arithmetic of caste, religion and votes can be seen. Inclusive development cannot be conceived through politics based on the names of backward classes, Dalits and minorities. Jobs, police postings, reservation and even matters of law and order were viewed and presented through the lens of caste.
When every issue is repeatedly placed within the framework of caste identity, division, and the gulf of distrust in society continues to deepen. If we look only at the incidents of this year, why did the SP chief raise the cases of Pawan Kumar Yadav in Prayagraj, Shashidhar Yadav in Rae Bareli, the Lallai Yadav murder case in Jaunpur or Saurabh Yadav in 2023, or the death of Dharampal Yadav in police custody?
Why did matters related to minorities alone remain his priority? This strengthens the perception that even in administrative and legal matters, the interests of a particular community were being favored. In this context, a report published in newspapers in 2014 is also relevant, stating that preference was being given to a particular caste in appointing police station in-charges in districts such as Badaun, Kanpur, Kannauj, Farrukhabad and Etawah.
Some incidents during Akhilesh Yadav’s tenure also indicate the extent to which law and order became a victim of political pressure and selective action.
Whether it was the decision in 2013 to withdraw cases involving sensitive terror matters or the Jawahar Bagh incident of 2016, where a parallel system of power was established after government land in Mathura was occupied. Both examples can be presented as instances of a lack of administrative will.
The Muzaffarnagar riots of 2013, in which more than sixty people lost their lives and thousands were displaced, are still presented as one of the most painful examples of administrative failure. Serious allegations against Gayatri Prajapati, who was a Cabinet Minister in the SP government, the links of names such as Atiq Ahmed and Mukhtar Ansari with organized crime, the murder of DSP Zia-ul-Haq, the Yadav Singh corruption case related to the Noida Authority, the death of journalist Jagendra Singh, the suspension of Durga Shakti Nagpal for taking action against illegal mining, the Bulandshahr highway case and the communal riots in Bareilly. Taken together, all these incidents present a picture in which the rule of law appears weak and political patronage strong.
In contrast, the principle that Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s government has placed at the center of its governance model is that the basis for action will be the crime, not caste or political identity.
With the slogan of ‘One Law, One Standard’ for everyone, the government sought to convey that this governance would be equal for all sections, regardless of whether someone voted for the ruling party.
Whether it was the emphasis on merit over caste identity in recruitment or the zero-tolerance policy on law and order, everything was presented as a uniform standard.
The biggest feature of this model is that it took action with the same strictness against people associated with the ruling party as it would against the opposition.
Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the Unnao case, Swami Chinmayanand in the Shahjahanpur case, Ashish Mishra ‘Monu’, son of an MP, in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence, Dhirendra Pratap Singh in the Ballia firing case, Akhilesh Pratap Singh ‘Gabbar’ in the Kasganj case, MLA Ravindra Nath Tripathi in Bhadohi, former district president Kanhaiya Lal Mishra in Varanasi, then MLA Ashok Singh Chandel in a murder case, then MLA Indra Pratap Tiwari in the fake marksheet case, Kisan Morcha leader Shrikant Tyagi in the case of misbehaviour with a woman, Narayan Singh Bhadouria for obstructing police work, and Ajay Narayan Singh, a relative of a leader, in the Sultanpur murder case are among the many examples in which the law took its course, even when those involved appeared to have some connection with the ruling party.
Governance cannot be assessed only based on law and order. Another criterion is how the benefits of government schemes are distributed. When schemes related to housing, ration, education, health, and employment are implemented based on eligibility rather than community or caste, only then does that governance truly deserve to be called inclusive. Therefore, the question is not merely about comparing two political models, but about deciding the direction Uttar Pradesh should take in the coming years. Towards identity politics, which divides society into fragments, or towards governance based on eligibility and justice, which gives every citizen equal rights? In a democracy, every community's voice should be heard, and every citizen should be known not by their caste, but by their rights.
This is the very sentiment that defines a true democracy, where the government does not deprive any region simply because a leader from its party could not win there. Whether it is Karhal or Azamgarh, Sambhal or Kaushambi, wherever the BJP suffered defeat, the Yogi government builtroads, opened hospitals, laid expressways, and brought water to every household. This establishes the belief that governance is not the property of any political party, but the right of every citizen. When communities such as the Vantangiya and Musahar, which once did not even figure in vote-bank calculations, received homes and identity, it proved that the criterion of development is not votes, but need. This difference shows that democracy belongs not only to those who win, but to every citizen.
(Views are personal)
Prof. Tej Pratap Singh is HOD, Department of Political Science Faculty of Social Sciences, BHU.