Leader X, a former deputy CM of the state, had switched parties. The defection cued in a by-election. Our maidservant belonged to the constituency in question. She had made her mind up on who was to get her vote: Leader X. Her rationale was simple. That she had chosen to remain true to the unspoken word of honour drawn forth by a cash dole was refreshing. In a world simmering with mistrust, that fidelity could at least be funded was a hopeful outlook. But, in truth, there was a stronger wind swaying her vote: she shared Leader X's caste identity. Leader X's real constituency was not defined by the re-drawn geographical boundaries, but by the vagaries of birth. The result of this arrangement meant Leader X's performance was not being measured in terms of improved infrastructure. His stature hinged on the regard he showed to his caste, his miscibility with his castemen, and the degree to which the latter gained on genealogy. Apparently, he had played all the right cards, and he reaped his rewards in the form an electoral victory.
Today, these unlisted constituencies have chosen our CM and his two deputies. The ruling party's administrators displayed unusual candor when they admitted as much. Their focus, they say, is the election due in ten months. This open discussion of strategy is a clear indictment of the voters and their priorities (yes, 'their'). An upheaval of these preferences is certainly not on the cards, not while the self-sustaining cycle of benefits, beneficiaries and benefactors is in force. The simple implication, therefore, is that the elections - a much vaunted vital sign of our throbbing democracy - are insidious nourishers of the caste system we seek to eliminate. Then again, I'm probably just green with envy at stakes over which I have no claim. Why else would anyone talk of abolishing the caste system?
Comments