(a) What is identity politics ? Discuss the main trends in Dalit movements in India. (20 marks) (b) Is Indian society moving…

Identity politics refers to political mobilisation based on shared socio-cultural markers—such as caste, religion, language, or gender—wherein groups demand socio-political recognition, dignity, and a redistribution of power. Theorised by thinkers like Charles Taylor as a "politics of recognition" and Nancy Fraser as a struggle for status parity, in India it primarily manifests as collective claims on state resources and democratic representation.

Main Trends in Dalit Movements

Dalit mobilisation in India has evolved through distinct ideological and tactical phases. In the early and anti-colonial phase, spearheaded by B. R. Ambedkar, movements focused on civil rights, temple entry (such as the Mahad Satyagraha and Kalaram Temple entry), and radical anti-caste emancipatory goals, culminating in mass conversion to Buddhism.

In the post-independence era, especially by the 1980s, the movement shifted toward electoral assertion. Under Kanshi Ram and the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), the Dalit agenda transitioned from social reform to capturing state power, forging a broad "Bahujan" identity.

The post-Mandal era accelerated competitive identity politics. The movement gradually shifted from an overarching emancipatory frame seeking the annihilation of caste toward an identity-recognition frame focused on state patronage, quotas, and symbolic empowerment (such as statues and memorials).

Contemporary Dalit assertion is marked by cultural and digital politics. Youth-led groups like the Bhim Army, alongside vibrant Dalit literature, music, and social media networks, articulate globalised human rights narratives. Concurrently, internal differentiation has surfaced; sub-caste cleavages (such as Mala versus Madiga in Telangana/Andhra Pradesh, or Jatav versus non-Jatav dynamics in Uttar Pradesh) have produced demands for internal sub-categorisation within the Scheduled Caste quota, highlighting regional and structural fragmentation.

From "Hierarchy" Towards "Differentiation"

Louis Dumont characterized traditional Indian society as Homo Hierarchicus, rooted in an overarching, ritual opposition between purity and pollution that organized social groups into an immutable vertical hierarchy. In contrast, "differentiation"—drawing on Niklas Luhmann’s concept of functional differentiation and M. N. Srinivas’s analysis of horizontal mobilization—refers to a shift where autonomous secular spheres (economic, political, legal) operate independently of ritual ranking.

Evidence of differentiation is visible across modern institutions. Market expansion, urban anonymity, and the growth of private corporate employment have enabled occupational mobility decoupled from hereditary status. Caste associations now act as horizontal interest groups competing for political power, transforming caste from a ritual hierarchy into a vehicle for political differentiation.

However, this transition remains uneven. Hierarchy persists intensely in the private and relational spheres. Endogamy remains virtually intact across communities, as seen in matrimonial practices; caste-based residential segregation persists in both villages and modern urban enclaves; and ritual untouchability and caste-based atrocities continue. Indian society has therefore not fully transitioned to differentiation; rather, horizontal differentiation in public, political, and market domains coexists with persistent hierarchical structures in social and private life.

Salient Features of the 'New Middle Class'

The Indian 'new middle class' emerged prominently in the wake of the 1991 economic liberalisation and the post-Mandal assertions. Unlike the 'old middle class' of the Nehruvian era, which was anchored in public-sector employment, civil services, and state-led developmentalism, the new middle class is rooted in the private corporate sector, information technology, and transnational service industries.

First, it is heavily consumption-driven and aspirational. Its identity is defined through lifestyle choices, shopping malls, private gated communities, and private investments in elite healthcare and education.

Second, it exhibits a "caste-skipping" yet not caste-less character. Composed disproportionately of upper and dominant castes, it claims a casteless, secular identity through the discourse of "merit", thereby naturalising historical social capital while opposing affirmative action policies.

Third, it is politically ambivalent. As Leela Fernandes observes, its visual hegemony constructs a "politics of forgetting," actively excluding the urban poor and marginalised from public spaces. Arvind Rajagopal identifies a resulting "split public," where this globalised middle class dominates the English-language media sphere and champions technocratic governance, while mass democratic politics remains driven by vernacular, subaltern identity assertions.

To conclude, contemporary Indian society reflects a complex interplay between enduring caste structures and market-driven modernity. As Dalit movements navigate internal differentiation and the new middle class redefines social power through consumption and meritocratic rhetoric, the democratic process continues to mediate between traditional hierarchy and emerging forms of social differentiation.