Is there a clear North-South divide in Indian politics?

What is the reason that South India votes differently from the North?

KK Kailash: The differences between the South and the North are attributed to the historical, social and economic differences between the two regions. While these elements are important and explain a lot, I think we often miss the political dimension. The language of politics is different in South and North India; The issues, concerns and even their expressions are different. And there is a degree of similarity between the various southern states, which began during the period of Congress dominance. The Congress was seen as “the other”. This gave rise to regional parties on the grounds that the Congress was not representing the specific interests of the state. He also argued that they were better protectors of regional identity, which the Congress did not care about. This territorial claim has been muddled over the years. In the south, there are regular calls to urge the central government to include more subjects in the state list of the constitution. Opposition to the encroachment of the center on the powers of the state government is also common. you can’t use this language [in the north] Because of the relative homogeneity of the region in terms of language, culture, history etc. and this does not allow them to call for separation or create this distinction.

Read this also | With Karnataka loss, BJP is back in first place in South India

Sudha Pai: I agree with what Professor Kailash said about the difference in political language. But there are some underlying historical differences, which we can neither ignore nor overemphasize. Economic, social and political changes in the south and north must also be taken into account. There are clear differences between the North and the South in terms of the emergence and influence of social movements. The claim by both backward classes and scheduled castes was late in North India as compared to South. The South experienced social movements around the caste question during the colonial period. The Veerashaiva movement of north Karnataka espoused an anti-Brahmanical, anti-ritualistic ethic and provided a counterculture to orthodox Brahmanical Hinduism. So did anti-Brahmin movement [in Tamil Nadu] and other movements across the South challenging the caste system. In contrast, there were no anti-Brahmin movements in North India. The Dalit movement started late in the Hindi heartland and disintegrated. BR Ambedkar’s impact was also delayed. In the United Provinces (present-day Uttar Pradesh), the Scheduled Castes movement began somewhere around 1940, but it disappeared soon after independence. The Republican Party of India was strong in the 1960s, but its presence faded due to the dominance of the Congress.

Read this also | BJP will look into the reasons for Karnataka’s defeat; Congress flag hoisted, caste equation changed

KK Kailash: The primary difference is that in the South, we had agitation first and then electoral politics, whereas in the North, it was primarily only electoral politics. In the South, the groups leading the movements sought to be accommodated and accommodated within mainstream political parties. In contrast, in the absence of movements in the north, political parties have often raised issues and concerns. As a result, you have caste groups affiliated with particular political parties. This makes it difficult for these groups to negotiate with other political parties.

How much does the disparity in economic development between the North and the South influence their politics?

KK Kailash: Until the 1960s, there was little distinction between the two regions. If you compare basic indices like per capita income, both were almost at the same level of economic development. In the 1980s there was a change between the two regions and they began to separate. And this difference had to do with the politics of the two regions, which determined the economic strategies. While the South focused on long-term poverty alleviation steps and invested in health and education, the North employed relatively short-term wealth redistribution strategies.

Editorial | Lessons In Loss: On 2023 Karnataka Assembly Election Results

Sudha Pai: I think the economic difference between the two regions goes back further in history. It began in the colonial period when considerable economic change took place in South India. The princely states of Mysore and Travancore invested heavily in education and supported progressive movements. There were British investments in the Madras and Bombay Presidencies in terms of ports, railways, railway lines, schools and other industries. Employment came in the way of army recruitment. By the time the British expanded into the Hindi heartland, the golden age of colonialism was somewhat over. By the time Awadh was conquered, it was 1856. After World War I, Britain was a declining power with the rise of America and investment in Uttar Pradesh was low. As a result, the South had some head start.

Is the political currency of religion the same in the North and the South?

Sudha Pai: One of the primary differences between the two regions is in the context of Brahmanical Hinduism. While in the Hindi heartland, it is still the dominant form, in the south, it does not play the same role, thanks to various movements against the caste system and cultural structures in these regions. This changes the way the religion is viewed in the south versus the north and in a way also creates a geographical boundary for the Hindutva narrative.

comment | Scheme of ‘right of way’ in South India

KK Kailash: There is an additional difference between the two regions – the partition. The Hindu-Muslim rift, which political scientist Ashutosh Varshney calls the “master narrative”, has much to do with Partition and the riots that followed. The impact of Partition was very different on the two regions and had a long-lasting impact on the North.

Do you see this North-South divide narrowing or deepening?

KK Kailash: I don’t see this gap closing anytime soon. In the 1990s, there were green shoots of development in the north, both economically and socially. But there has been no significant jump in three decades. Also, we need to consider one factor – the age pyramid. Southern states have more population than northern states. Over the years, we have seen economic migration from north to south. If they (workers) settle there, there could be a change in profile in the long run. But in the short term, I don’t see the gap narrowing. And as far as the cultural dimension is concerned, no change can be expected in our lifetime. Both will continue to maintain their unique cultural structures.

comment | BJP’s Karnataka defeat – a blow to its myth-making

Sudha Pai: Economically the North-South divide is worsening. In the 1980s, there was a certain hope that the north would improve and the growth rate would go up. In the late 1980s, predictions were made about Uttar Pradesh, that the “sleeping demon was awakening” and that the state’s industrial and agricultural output was surpassing the national average for the first time. But then politics intervened. This period of economic growth coincided with a period of identity politics brought about by the Samajwadi Party and the Bahujan Samaj Party. This was an era of competitive populism. And short-term governments contributed little to long-term policies. The situation worsened to such an extent that in the early 1990s the World Bank had to rescue Uttar Pradesh.

Read this also | BJP wiped out from Dravidian landscape: Stalin pats Congress

The north-south divide is also worsening politically, due to efforts to impose Hindi in the south and the presence of strong lower-caste movements that see the BJP as an upper-caste party. Therefore, the cultural gap between North and South will remain.