The intense electoral competition has made it imperative for political parties to invent new languages and newer modes of organizing the demos. The interchanging registers of Mandal and Kamandal have so far configured the trajectory to power in the state. A careful reading reveals that both these registers have employed the discourse of ‘identity’ to mobilize people. The popularity of this discourse hinges on the fact that it is dynamic and can touch upon the idea of the ‘political’ of diverse people. However, the appropriation and reappropriation of this discourse has transformed its meaning over time. While caste remains the centre around which it is woven, the way in which caste entities are captured to form alignments has changed over time. While the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) used it for arousing critical consciousness of the Dalit-Bahujan caste to challenge caste hegemony, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) used it successfully for constructing a rightist identity and dismantling the Bahujan politics. BSP strengthened the Dalit-Bahujan identity to fight caste discrimination, turning caste disadvantage into caste advantage. To counter this BJP too engaged in caste-based community mobilization, while simultaneously giving a rhetoric of caste-free developmental politics to consolidated upper-caste–lower-caste Hindu alliance.

Obituaries on the demise of caste politics in India have already been read. It is argued that religious identity has trumped caste as a tool of political mobilization. Underlining that changing terms of political discourse represents a major break from the past; this article finds the coexistence of ‘casteless’ politics and the ascendancy of dominant castes in electoral politics perplexing. The article argues that politics in India is going ‘beyond’ caste but not without caste. The article offers ‘post-caste politics’ as a prism through which emerging political situation could be studied.

What explains the success of the Bhartiya Janta Party in the 18th Uttar Pradesh Vidhan Sabha election? Hindutva gets the due credit but the socio-political dynamics beneath Hindutva is often sidelined in political discussions. What makes Hindutva appealing? Is Hindutva a fixed ideology or an ever-evolving one? How does Hindutva correspond with the lived realities of people? How does Hindutva plug the alternative discourse of Social Justice? How does Hindutva redefine Dalit politics? While exploring these questions, the article seeks to shift the discourse from the site of culture-identity-ideology to the site of social and political-economic changes. While tracking the trajectory and nature of Hindutva politics, the article also indicates some of the trends that emerged during this election. Based on qualitative data, the article argues that it was essentially the dynamic nature of Hindutva that outwitted social justice politics.

In the state of Uttar Pradesh, Dalits have largely been elected only from the reserved seats, and their representation from non-reserved seats has remained negligible. Apart from ensuring political presence, how do reserved seats impinge on the Dalit politics within the constituency? Who determines the election outcome in the reserved seats? The article argues that in the reserved seats of the State of Uttar Pradesh, Dalit votes remain at best adjunct votes, to the core support base of the respective parties. There is evidence of systemic political backlash from non-Dalit voters against Dalit voters in reserved constituencies. Various parties play a significant role in orchestrating this backlash to help their candidates win. The weak position of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), the party of Dalits in the reserved seats, is an indication of such a backlash. This backlash is largely aimed at the dominant Dalit group, the Chamars, who are treated as political untouchables by one and all, across caste and class.

No abstract