But this explanation is not compelling either. Mayawati is not the first leader in Indian politics to present herself as being above her followers, or to favour an authoritarian style of functioning. Indira Gandhi comes to mind as well. So does Jayalalithaa, or Bal Thackeray for that matter. Indeed, one could argue that authoritarian leadership on a grand scale is the norm in Indian political parties rather than the exception. But authoritarianism, even megalomania, in other figures in other political parties has not resulted in statue building on this scale.

A different — and to my mind a more compelling explanation — is the opposite of the “megalomaniac” thesis. Mayawati may be building statues to herself not because she is convinced of her own grandeur, but because she is preoccupied by her own fragility. These statues are a means to strengthen her position within and outside her party, not monuments to a strength that already exists.

It is hard to spot delusions of grandeur in Mayawati’s career. She has had more than the usual number of challenges, and seems far more conscious of those challenges than of grandeur. The earliest and perhaps most enduring challenge, given the routine social discrimination against Dalits, was simply to establish and maintain a healthy self-esteem. The second challenge came from within her own movement and party. Mayawati’s position as Kanshi Ram’s closest confidante and successor was not initially taken as a given, perhaps not even by him — it had to be established and re-established several times over, amid splits and defections in the BSP, and its parent organisation BAMCEF. A third set of challenges comes from the unstable coalition environment of Uttar Pradesh politics. Although she has been chief minister multiple times, her hold on power was not truly assured until 2007, when she won a majority in the state legislative assembly for the first time.

... contd.