Part of the answer lies in the symbolism of B.R. Ambedkar, chairman of the drafting committee of the Constituent Assembly. Mayawati’s speech on Sunday was peppered with “Babasaheb Dr. Ambedkar’s” role in guaranteeing rights to “the weaker sections of society”. But the answer also lies in Mayawati’s ability to interpret the Constitution to suit her political strategy. Most legal commentators view individual rights as being the core of the Constitution, group identities as mere political concessions. Mayawati subscribes to the inverse idea — of the Constitution being a power-sharing agreement between groups.

This is not to say that Maya is right. It can equally be argued that B.R. Ambedkar — and the rest of the Constituent Assembly — did not consider the Constitution to be a mere power sharing arrangement. For instance, article 330, which he helped draft, called for legislative reservations to lapse after 10 years — something that Mayawati doesn’t account for. He also helped draft the all-powerful article 14, whose emphasis on the equality of the “person” seems an express rejection of Mayawati’s theory.

But viewed Behenji’s way, the Constitution’s many provisions for Dalits (the phrase used is ‘Scheduled Caste’, technically different from ‘Dalit’, though colloquially interchangeable) are the product of a political compromise, stemming from the Poona Pact of 1932. In return for renouncing separate electorates and perhaps even a separate nation, Dalits enjoy group rights including provisions that prevent discrimination, and those that provide for affirmative action. Mayawati herself was studying to be an IAS officer (15 per cent of all IAS seats are reserved for Dalits) before she dashed the ambitions of her father — Prabhu Das Dayal, himself a central government employee — by joining Kanshi Ram in his ambition to capture political power.

... contd.