So what, some argue: at least she represents a radical critique of the system, a rejection of where it’s taken us; that’s valuable and necessary in itself, isn’t it? Well, firstly, probably not; and secondly, she doesn’t. That’s precisely what the BSP doesn’t stand for, and, again, never has. It wasn’t founded for social transformation on the ground, it wasn’t set up to aid the individual aspirations of the excluded; it was set up to capture the existing system. Other than her blunt acknowledgment of economic and caste

dynamics in politics, there’s little that’s radical about Mayawati.

So, regardless of ideology, she doesn’t represent your hopes the way you think she does. She isn’t so easily categorised. More problematically, and also regardless of ideology, there’s every reason to be genuinely deeply doubtful about a Mayawati premiership. Not necessarily for her conspicuous accumulation of wealth; our prizing of self-denial and austerity in our leaders could do with a bit of challenge, frankly, before it becomes so set in stone that conspicuous lack of consumption becomes a substitute for genuine leadership virtues. But the way she runs her party should give us pause. Nobody within it has any freedom of manoeuvre; their every public interaction — and there are precious few of those — is subject to approval and control. There’s absolutely no challenge and dissent permitted; no second-rung, or even third-rung leadership is groomed. (Hence her approach to handing out nominations: you pay your money, you can stand as a BSP candidate. Franchising doesn’t work to expand political parties.) Her fear for her security is perhaps justified, but a private, uniformed militia probably isn’t. Statues that change the skyline to reflect Dalit assertion might be understandable, but her insistence on appearing larger-than-lifesize is somewhat disquieting. And to make a virtue of not thinking big, of avoiding discussion of programmes and claiming that it is all about “implementation”, is

... contd.