Akhilesh Yadav has called for a total boycott of Dainik Jagran, a newspaper owned by the Gupta family. He also declared that the Samajwadi Party will no longer participate in any panel discussions organized by a media channel allegedly controlled by the family or relatives of the omnipresent Rajiv Shukla.
Akhilesh Yadav and the Samajwadi Party are well aware that Dainik Jagran has long been antagonistic to Dalit-Bahujan interests. The newspaper represents a Bania-Brahmin corporate and ideological enterprise. Unfortunately, this duopoly of two castes dominates not just media, but also the judiciary, academia, politics, and other vital institutions across India. Unlike Tamil Nadu, where Periyar ideologically countered the Brahminical system’s oppression of Dravidian communities, North Indian political parties have rarely challenged this dominance. Parties claiming to represent the Shudras often remain comfortably aligned with the Brahminical elite, who excel at manufacturing narratives and shaping political discourse through their immense control over power and institutions.
In recent years, the Samajwadi Party in Uttar Pradesh has focused disproportionately on vilifying Rajputs—merely because Yogi Adityanath identifies as a “proud Rajput.” Pride in one’s identity is not an issue; what is needed is a conversation that transcends caste binaries. Unfortunately, Rajput or Kshatriya voices on social media have retaliated by targeting Yadavs. Political disagreements are natural, but when these disputes devolve into caste-mocking and historical revisionism—as noted by Ramji Lal Suman—they undermine both truth and the contributions of countless women who fought for India’s freedom.
The current nationalist vs. anti-national debate is a smokescreen—an intentional distraction from the real challenges facing Indian society. The BJP continues to pursue temple-building and legislation targeting Muslims. But what happens after that? Akhilesh and his party now seem focused on Rajputs, perhaps because they perceive them as electorally unreachable. This mirrors a strategy once employed by Mulayam Singh Yadav, who sidelined Jatavs and Chamars under the assumption that they belonged firmly in BSP’s vote bank. Instead of building bridges, his policies aimed at alienation.
That is not how inclusive politics is supposed to function. We have to coexist. While Yogi Adityanath may appoint Rajputs to key positions, let’s not forget the unchecked dominance of Brahminical elites in the PMO, judiciary, and other top institutions—Tripathis, Dubeys, Mishras continue to hold sway. Yet no one audits or questions this dominance, not even leaders like Rahul Gandhi, who romanticize the “Garib Savarna” narrative.
Akhilesh Yadav should ask his advisers for a detailed caste-wise audit of powerful figures in the bureaucracy, judiciary, media, stock markets, banking, and industry. Will Rahul Gandhi or Akhilesh Yadav ever dare to name the castes monopolizing India's economic infrastructure? It's unlikely. Vilifying Rajputs is a convenient scapegoat, allowing the Brahminical monopoly to remain unchallenged.
It’s worth recalling that Mulayam Singh Yadav once led protests against Dainik Jagran and yet later sent its owner, Mahendra Mohan Gupta, to the Rajya Sabha on a Samajwadi Party ticket. Despite this favor, the newspaper continued to promote Hindutva and spread communal misinformation. Another individual Mulayam sent to the Rajya Sabha was Virendra Bhatia, who later became the state’s Attorney General. His son now vocally supports even the most irrational and unconstitutional positions of the Samajwadi Party.
Every community in India harbors prejudices. Many feel historically wronged. But we must also acknowledge the inter-caste marriages that have occurred—often out of love, sometimes for political alliance. These deserve support, not ridicule. Akhilesh Yadav himself married outside his community, and their partnership should be celebrated. Similar alliances between Rajput kings and Muslim rulers were strategic, meant to protect broader interests, not just those of royal families. Unfortunately, historical figures like Raja Man Singh and Jai Chand are vilified, despite their significant contributions. My journey along the Ganga—from the Himalayas to the Bay of Bengal, including into Bangladesh—revealed numerous temples and mosques built by these very rulers. History must be reassessed with nuance, not through vilification or romanticization.
Groups like Karni Sena threatening dissenters like Ramji Lal Suman are acting against democratic principles. Peaceful protest is a right, but threats and intimidation are unacceptable. The administration must act firmly against any violence, ensuring that democratic expression is protected.
History is complex. We cannot compress centuries of incidents into a single narrative. Yes, we should speak about history—but let’s move beyond mere rhetoric. We need ideas and methods that foster unity. We’ve seen the politics of division; now it’s time to build consensus. Politics is, after all, the art of managing contradictions. Communities will form coalitions, and that is healthy. But parties must avoid fanning further polarisation. Political discourse should include engagement with intellectuals, artists, and activists—not just party loyalists. Don't invite thinkers just to listen to grand speeches. Engage with them meaningfully.
Not everything in our past was glorious, nor was it all regressive. Let’s at least bring people together intellectually, focus on real issues, and tone down the noise. Loud announcements and threats don’t build a movement—they marginalize the saner voices and elevate the rabble-rousers. We must reject this trend.
Why haven’t North Indian leaders focused on cultural and literary contributions? Why is there still no significant Bahujan or Samajwadi media space? Learn from Periyar's movement. Study Baba Saheb Ambedkar, who emphasized education and critical thinking. Centrist parties have dismissed intellectuals as irrelevant for too long. It's time to change that—not by empowering job seekers from a specific caste, but by involving a broad spectrum of voices.
Leftist parties may have lost mass appeal, but their intellectual depth remains valuable. Rather than turning communities into villains, let’s engage with them. No caste or community thinks uniformly—each has its own internal dissent. Identify allies and focus on the real contradictions. Don’t pick fights with everyone who looks or thinks differently. For a stronger, democratic India, we need unity. That is what makes the idea of a secular, socialist, democratic republic truly powerful.
Comments