The passing of veteran Dalit and socialist leader Ram Vilas Paswan marks the beginning of the end of an era in Indian politics in general and in the politics of the heart in particular. This era began in the 1960s and 1970s, when a generation of young activists, inspired by Ram Manohar Lohia and Jayaprakash Narayan, sought to create an alternative to Congress. From Lalu Prasad, Nitish Kumar, and Paswan himself in Bihar to Mulayam Singh in Uttar Pradesh, the pillars of what was called the politics of social justice emerged at this time. They were broadly socialist in orientation; they focused on the question of castes as the central contradiction of Indian society; and they promised representation, equity, justice and progress to their constituents within a democratic framework.
To achieve this, Paswan – and other leaders – jumped into the electoral fray, because they were clear that only through political power could justice be done. But this tension, between the politics of power and the politics of justice, was not easy to resolve. It is to the credit of this generation of political figures who deepened Indian democracy and gave a voice to marginalized social groups. They also used power to improve access to justice and provide patronage to newer social groups. But often, power became an end in itself, idealism became cynical political transactions with ideological adversaries and rivals, and the accumulation of resources became a primary goal.
Paswan represented this dichotomy in Indian politics. As the wave of obituaries and messages of condolence from across the political spectrum indicates, he spoke on behalf of the marginalized, and within his limited power, he often lobbied for laws and policies to be changed and tried to bring benefits to his social group. . But at the same time, the fact that Paswan had been an active part of every major political stream in India, from the Bharatiya Janata Party, which he once considered communal, to the Congress he opposed in his early decades in politics (even during the Emergency) the Third Front, of which he became dismissive in his later years, indicates that power often trumps the idea of justice. This was not necessarily his fault. Democratic and electoral politics is about seeking power, but the pursuit of democratic and electoral success often involves compromises, which dilute commitment to social change. Finding this balance is essential if the next generation of politicians committed to social justice is to be successful.
.
