FOR the political parties hoping to dislodge the Samajwadi Party (SP)-led government headed by Mulayam Singh Yadav in Uttar Pradesh in the assembly elections, due in April/May this year, the abysmal law and order situation in the state will, undoubtedly, be the top campaign issue. Confronted with the onslaught unleashed by opposition parties which remain united only on this one issue, SP activists and supporters, and indeed, some political analysts too, scoff at the possibility of this issue working against them: they argue that caste still reigns in Uttar Pradesh and it is this factor, rather than any specific concern such as law and order, that will ultimately decide the electoral outcome in the assembly elections.

While the dominance of caste in elections is undeniable, the fact is that in today’s Uttar Pradesh, the Yadavs – Mulayam Singh Yadav’s caste fellows and his core constituency – are perceived to be the main patrons, perpetrators and beneficiaries of crime, big and small. This belief has resulted in the growth of a common fellow feeling among those affected and created a superficial ‘coalition of victims’, as it were. My contention, therefore, is that if a political party – or group of parties – can consolidate the votes of this temporary, not necessarily cohesive, non-Yadav coalition, it could well emerge the victor at the hustings.

As many people in the state believe the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) could: For of all the opposition leaders in the state, it was BSP supremo Mayawati who was the first to realize the potential of pursuing this line. Over the past two years or so, she has, therefore, been assiduously wooing Brahmins and Banias, recalling her record of keeping major crimes in check during her tenure as chief minister. Indeed, even her critics say that there is a general impression that when she was in power, the mafiosi were either in jail or had been driven out of the state.

Mayawati has presented her party as the only one capable of ousting Mulayam Singh Yadav’s SP from power as, of all the opposition parties in the fray, she alone has a solid unshakeable vote bank that can be counted on – that of the Scheduled Castes (SCs). BSP’s national spokesman and MLC Sudhir Goel says, ‘Mayawati is hoping to unite the other trading castes who are OBCs, like the Telis, Sahus, Halwais, Sonars etc, who make up another 10 per cent,’ and then stresses, ‘The trading castes are the first victims of extortion and kidnapping – security is of paramount importance to them.’

 

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Congress, the number three and number four parties in the state – since it is virtually a foregone conclusion that the main battle in Uttar Pradesh will be between the SP and the BSP – realized this much later. They also suffer from another major disadvantage: neither of them can count on the votes of any specific social section or sections. (The BJP, of course, while drawing attention to the poor law and order situation in the state in its campaign, is not averse to disturbing the peace itself: in parts of Uttar Pradesh, it is whipping up communal passions, hoping that the polarization it could lead to will see Hindus abandoning their caste loyalties and flocking to it.)

For the people who have been at the receiving end of crime and violence, the forthcoming elections represent an opportunity for change. In caste terms, those adversely affected include large sections of the upper castes, particularly the Brahmins and Banias at the upper end, victims of kidnapping, extortion, murder; and non-Yadav Other Backward Castes (OBCs) and SCs at the lower end, victims of the sort of atrocities common in villages – rape, land grab, killings. In class terms, both the urban middle class and the rural poor have taken a beating. It is, therefore, how those who have borne the brunt decide to vote that will determine the results.

Of course, a ‘coalition of victims’ which unites a majority of non-Yadav castes is only possible if a significant section of the perpetrators or beneficiaries of crimes are Yadavs.

 

But not all SP activists are necessarily Yadavs. Nor are all those with criminal records, who have been patronized by the SP leadership, Yadavs. For instance, Raghuraj Pratap Singh alias Raja Bhaiyya, who was jailed under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), along with his father Uday Pratap Singh, during Mayawati’s rule, and thereafter lionized by Mulayam Singh Yadav, is a Thakur; Amarmani Tripathi, dropped as a minister in Mayawati’s government after he was held for the murder of a young poet, Madhumita Shukla, and who was shortly thereafter accepted into the SP, is a Brahmin. And Mau’s notorious Mukthar Ansari and Allahabad’s equally well-known Atiq Khan, long patronized by the SP, are both Muslims.

Indeed, the Yadavs can boast of very few top-ranking mafiosi in their own community of the calibre of a Raja Bhaiiya or a Harishankar Tiwari. (In eastern Uttar Pradesh, the Brahmins, Thakurs and the Muslims dominate the mafia; in the western parts, along with the Jats and Gujjars, there are Yadav dons.) Of course, there are the two Yadav brothers from Azamgarh, Ramakant and Umakant, who can compete with the best. While Ramakant Yadav won his election to the Uttar Pradesh assembly from jail, Umakant Yadav, a Member of Parliament, has been charged with murder.

 

And yet, as the tenure of the Mulayam Singh Yadav government – which came to power in September 2003 after toppling the BSP-led government by luring away 40 BSP MLAs – draws to a close, there is a perception that the ‘jungle raj’ in Uttar Pradesh is really ‘Yadav raj’. Why is this so?

This is for a variety of reasons: First, there is the undue influence wielded by immediate members of Mulayam Singh Yadav’s own clan in promoting crime and corruption. Second, there is virtually no police station in the state without a Yadav, thereby creating virtual SP ‘cadres’ within the constabulary who have been given free rein in the districts, in many cases marginalizing the young IAS and IPS officers who serve as district magistrates and superintendents of police. For instance, investigations into the brutal extermination of children from Noida’s Nithari village have shown that many of the policemen who appear to have been willing accomplices of Mohinder Singh Pandher and Surinder Koli, the two main accused in the case, are Yadavs. (In a recent recruitment drive in the state, of 3000 constables given jobs as many as 2400 were Yadavs.)

Third, the SP leadership has routinely patronised ‘goonda’ elements within the party, many of whom are Yadavs. In the Yadav-dominant pockets of Etah, Etawah and Mainpuri, local Yadavs are known to be quick to beat up anyone who may have led a protest demonstration against the government. Finally, low-level SP activists – again largely Yadavs – have been permitted to harass fellow-villagers with impunity. Indeed, as one Congress leader said, ‘Earlier, poor villagers tended to be terrorized by members of the Thakur community. Now it is the Yadavs. Darana, dhamkana, ghar barhana, gram sabha zamin kabza karma – yeh sab ab Yadav karte hain. At the tehsil and village levels, much of the interference and the pressure emanates from the Yadavs. And there are now oral instructions to all district magistrates that if a Yadav applies for a gun licence, he should immediately be obliged, no questions asked.’

Swayamprakash Singh, the Thakur ex-pradhan of Banbirpur on the Lucknow-Barabanki Road, told this writer in 2006, ‘Anti-social elements in my party, the SP, are increasing... the common man is the victim of the state’s growing gun culture.’ Of course, when the SP leadership has attempted to foster communal polarization, it has made use of mafioisi from that other community on which it has claims – the Muslims.

 

And while all political parties in Uttar Pradesh have their share of criminals – 205 of the 403 MLAs in the state assembly have criminal cases pending against them – the SP tops the list with 81 of its MLAs making the cut. Of the other parties, the BSP boasts of 49 with criminal records, the BJP of 39, the Congress of nine, the Rashtriya Lok Dal (RLD) of eight and Independents of 16.

Thanks to the variety of crimes committed in these five years – and these are only the ones that have hit the headlines – the sense of lawlessness has been all-pervasive. There has been communal violence in Mau and, more recently, in Gorakhpur; there was the murder of Meher Bhargava, the wife of Congress activist Luv Bhargava, in broad daylight on a street in Lucknow and that of a college lecturer, Kavita, in Meerut, both in 2006; there was the madrasa rape case in Allahabad not so long ago; there were the recent attempts by R.P. Singh, vice chancellor of Lucknow University, to cleanse his campus of trigger-happy students; and then, of course, the notorious Nithari killings in Noida, discovered at the end of 2006. And there was widespread violence during local body elections in 2006.

 

In all these incidents, it is more than evident that elements within the SP or within the Mulayam Singh Yadav-led government, and those patronized by party leaders have either been directly involved in crimes or have colluded with the perpetrators. And this list does not include the hundreds of cases of kidnapping and extortion in which it has been the traders – i.e. the Banias – who have been the main victims. Ambarish Gupta, a wealthy businessman in Varanasi, born into a traditional Congress family, who shifted allegiance to the BJP in the 1990s like many of his fellow Banias, told this writer, shortly after bombs shattered the serenity of his city on 7 March 2006, ‘The Congress and the BJP are finished in Uttar Pradesh. Mayawati is our only hope to restore law and order in the state.’

For instance, in the two cases of communal violence in Mau and Gorakhpur, while it is widely believed that BJP MP from Gorakhpur, Mahant Yogi Adityanath, and his Hindu Yuva Vahini played a significant role, even SP sources admit that the party leadership deliberately allowed the Vahini to grow unchecked in eastern UP, as communal riots lead to communal polarization – something that most benefits the BJP and the SP, helping the latter to consolidate its Muslim following. Meher Bhargava was shot dead by SP activists when she objected to their harassing her young daughter-in-law. The murder of 29-year-old Kavita, a temporary lecturer of Chaudhry Charan Singh University in Meerut, was followed by the resignation of two ministers in Mulayam Singh Yadav’s government who are believed to have inspired the killing. Though the two men, Chaudhury Babulal and Meerajuddin, were from Ajit Singh’s RLD, it was seen as one more instance of those in power misusing their position. In the madrasa rape case – where the victim was a young Muslim woman – the general allegation is that those involved are supporters of the local SP MP, mafiosi-turned-politician Atiq Ahmed. The editor of an Urdu paper once closely aligned to Mulayam Singh Yadav’s SP told this writer, ‘The incident has provoked a great deal of anger in the Muslim community. The chief minister did not even visit the madrasa. Instead, a photograph of him taking a dip in the Ganga during the Kumbh Mela was much publicized, apparently to draw in the Hindu votes.’

 

Then when R.P. Singh, in his capacity as VC of Lucknow University, the country’s largest residential university with 38,000 students on its rolls, decided to hold student union elections according to the recommendations of the Lyngdoh Committee, and cracked down on gun-toting student leaders affiliated to the SP, he clashed directly with Mulayam Singh Yadav himself, who wanted to protect them. His statement that the university was ‘a hub of crime where narcotics, arms and prostitution rackets thrive,’ earned him the displeasure of the SP leadership though his action in expelling over 60 students, including all office bearers of the students’ union, and declaring a year’s moratorium on holding student elections won him widespread appreciation among the general public.

Even as investigations into the Nithari killings in Noida continued, Mulayam Singh Yadav’s brother, Shivpal, who is also a senior minister in his government, and credited with the day-to-day running of the administration, tried to come to the rescue of the two main accused, Pandher and Koli, by describing the killings as a ‘small, routine incident’. This last sent out an unequivocal message that the Mulayam Singh Yadav government was unfeeling and uncaring: this sense was heightened by the fact that the victims were largely, poor children, progeny of migrant workers.

 

On the issue of violence during last year’s local body elections, an extract from a ruling of the Allahabad High Court on a petition filed by a Karan Singh against the State of UP and others, makes for interesting reading: ‘In a case where the allegations were that in the Hamirpur Zila Panchayat elections, all the elected panchayat members who were supporting the losing candidate and who belonged to one party were abducted, and the candidate of the other party was elected by a 7-0 margin, we had called for a counter-affidavit from the respondents by our order dated 9.5.2006. Looking to the disturbing criminalization of the political process, by the same order we had also called for a report from the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of UP, the Chief Election Commissioner and the State Election Commissioner, about the criminal antecedents of MPs and MLAs, and Block Pramukhs and Chairpersons of Zila Panchayats (hereinafter referred to as Chairpersons) in Uttar Pradesh.

‘A counter-affidavit of the Special Secretary, Home, Civil Secretariat, UP, Lucknow dated 11.7.06 (hereinafter referred to as the CA 1) has been filed which gives a list of criminal cases against the aforesaid category of public representatives which runs into 206 pages. In paragraph six of the counter-affidavit it has been clarified that there are a total number of 128 cases, (118 pending in court, and 10 under investigation) against 24 Members of Parliament (hereafter referred to as MPs); 271 cases against 110 Members of Legislative Assembly and Members of Legislative Council (hereinafter jointly referred to as MLAs), which include 226 cases pending in court and 45 cases which are being investigated; 270 criminal cases against 89 Block Pramukhs, including 250 undertrial, and 20 under investigation; 9 cases against six Chairpersons of Zila Panchayats (hereinafter referred to as Chairpersons), seven of which are pending in courts, and two are pending investigation.’

 

Ironically enough, on 10 October 2003, Mulayam Singh Yadav, speaking at the inaugural session of the 27th All India Criminology Conference in Lucknow, lambasted the nexus of organized crime, terrorism and communalism. A Uttar Pradesh government website said: ‘The UP CM very categorically remarked that his government would support, promote and accept every such attempt to rejuvenate the society to attain peace, progress and prosperity. He asked the intelligentsia to promote an environment to prevent criminals from entering politics. In his detailed and analytical address, Mr. Yadav stressed upon many factors influencing the promotion and protection of crime in society. Expressing his concern, he said that diminishing moral values of honesty, humanity, truthfulness, patriotism and simplicity have caused the rise of criminal activities in the system. The UP CM reiterated that his government would cooperate with the judiciary in every possible manner to evolve a system of effective, quick and powerful system of criminal justice administration. In his speech the Chief Minister Mr. Mulayam Singh Yadav touched almost every aspect of critical issues related with crime and terrorism and expressed a deep concern that in countless cases influential criminals roam around scot-free because they somehow engineer to destroy or weaken evidence, pressurize witnesses to turn hostile and buy freedom.’

 

A senior UP cadre IAS officer told this writer, ‘The Brahmins and Banias at the top end and the Dalits at the bottom are coming together to take on OBC – specifically Yadav – criminalisation. There are criminals among the Muslims and the Thakurs but they are more easily taken care of, the first because of a general mood against the community and the second because they are divided. This is why Mayawati is on the rise.’ To convert that into a majority in 2007, he adds, ‘the only option is to join hands with the Congress... that will consolidate the Muslim vote in its favour. Right now, the BSP remains the second choice of the community.’ Of course, it seems unlikely that the BSP will team up with the Congress before the elections. So while it may stop the BSP – or any combination from winning a majority – the law and order issue could well prove to be Mulayam Singh Yadav’s Achilles heel, and ensure a quick exit from power.