The Rajput rally and the trap of crowd politics

In India, history is a battleground of conflicting narratives, shaped by caste, class, and social location. When intellectual discourse fails, political parties often resort to crowd mobilization, tapping into raw emotion rather than reason. Crowds, by nature, are neither rational nor reflective—they thrive on a sense of empowerment, especially when backed by ruling powers. We’ve seen this at Anna Hazare’s Ramlila Maidan protests, the outpouring at India Gate after the Nirbhaya tragedy, and even the chaotic gherao of Delhi by Mahendra Singh Tikait. But since the 1990s, the character of crowds has shifted, with Hindutva politics emerging as the biggest beneficiary. The brandishing of swords, a hallmark of Hindutva’s defiance, signals an open challenge to dissenters, emboldened by the assurance of impunity.

The recent massive gathering called by Karni Sena in Agra, demanding an apology from Samajwadi Party leader Ramji Lal Suman, exemplifies this trend. Suman’s remarks—about which he found support and criticism alike—sparked a firestorm, not because of historical accuracy but due to political opportunism. The real target wasn’t Rana Sanga but Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, a self-proclaimed Rajput icon. The Samajwadi Party’s decision to keep the issue simmering, rather than defending or correcting Suman while avoiding community-wide vilification, reflects a deeper failure of political strategy. Alienating an entire community serves no one.

Rajputs, like other farming communities, are flexing their muscles amid political marginalization. When mainstream parties like Congress or BJP—dominated by Brahmin-Bania elites—offer no space, many Rajputs turn to Hindutva’s emotive rhetoric. Yet, a growing number are waking up to this trap, joining Bahujan movements led by groups like Backward and Minority Communities Employees Federation (BAMCEF). This shift signals a yearning for authentic representation, not just symbolic posturing.

The Agra rally’s vulgar attacks on Suman and Akhilesh Yadav deserve unconditional condemnation. Rajputs have indeed been unfairly vilified by certain historians, but the answer isn’t sword-waving or lathi-wielding. It’s intellectual and political engagement—writing their own histories, building institutions, and forging alliances with like-minded groups. Democracy thrives on coalitions, not nostalgia for a “golden past” that may or may not have existed. Clinging to such myths guarantees neither a golden present nor future.