It has been a process in academics and sociology. And you are both sides.

Frankly, I am just a political worker, political activist, and yes, political activists should think as well. There was a time in our country when political activists used to write and think. That time has gone. And we are much the worse as a country for that. Because unlike the West, where most political thinkers and writers have been in academia, in our country, much of the political thinking has been done by activists, those who are involved in politics. That distinguishes India from the West. And with the decline of that tradition, I think our country has lost something of political imagination, understanding, judgement.

The shifting of political thinking from the world of political leaders to the world of academia has been a bit of a disaster. It is a serious cost for India because our political judgement is shockingly poor today. Politics is bereft of political vision. So while we all comment on the loss of morals in politics, which is of course true, we do not sufficiently comment on lack of imagination, thoughts, ideas. And this is not just ideas of my liking, ideas that I dislike, say, even in the RSS, which I stoutly stand against. If you look at the RSS, there is a very serious loss of imagination and vision within the RSS. So look at the right, look at the left. There is a very serious decline of political imagination.

What vision do you think we should have in India?

I call it India’s swadharma. I am trying to develop that further. Now most of us balk at the idea of dharma. The word tends to suggest religions, Hinduism; because we know so little about that universe that we have simply turned our back to it. My argument is this that the Indian Constitution is sacred because it happens to have inscribed the values from our freedom struggle, which were not accidental. Values of our freedom struggle are values that are drawn from our civilization of the last 3,000 years. So the Indian Constitution’s preamble in many ways is a condensed version of the civilizational values. For me, those three critical civilizational values are karuna, maitri and shila. What we today call ‘equality’ and ‘socialism’ is actually based on karuna. Maitri is friendship, fraternity.

Something that Ambedkar really brought into discussion is the basis of what we call secularism. And shila is virtuous conduct that underlies what we today call democracy. So democracy, socialism, secularism, the three pillars of our Constitution actually draw upon three absolutely central values of our civilization. That is the idea of India. I think we are criminally guilty because we took our Constitution for granted. An ordinary Hindu, educated Hindu thinks that secularism is an unnecessary concession made for Muslims.

We never managed to explain to an ordinary Indian that every one of us is a minority in this country, either in terms of religion, caste, ethnicity, language, at the State level, national level, or in your mohalla. Every single Indian is a minority. You want to crush minorities? Be prepared. That is your turn. Most educated Indians harbour such deep, deep resentment about it, which only reflects our lack of compassion. Today we are politically free. Culturally we are much less free than we were 70 years ago. A certain culture of imitation, of not being aware of our values, has created a vacuum. And BJP has walked into that vacuum. It is a vacuum that people like you and me have created. A cultural vacuum of a modern Indian.

You have taken a clear position on the controversial subject of the Supreme Court’s recent judgment allowing subcategorisation of quotas. You have provided reasons and data, showing that groups such as Musahars in Bihar are getting nothing. You have discussed categories within the Dalit community. However, there are opposing views. Given these recent developments, have you had any rethink on your position, or do you fully stand by it?

I am and have been an ardent supporter of social justice and caste-sensitive affirmative action policies, including reservations. As someone who has supported these, I see absolutely no reason why we should not take this one step forward. We have reached a point where we have to advance the politics and policies of social justice. There are many components to that, and sub-quota happens to be one such thing. It is not just the SC/ST sub-quota that I support. I also believe that within the OBC category, at the national level, there is no sub-quota.

Bihar has it.

At the State level they have quotas for State government jobs. But for Central government jobs, there is no sub-quota. I have been arguing for quite some time that we need a sub-quota within that as well. Within the OBC, you have dominant OBC communities, landed OBC communities. And then there are artisanal and service communities that get nothing. Similarly, in the case of Scheduled Castes, there is a very clear difference. In terms of educational opportunities, there is a huge gap between some communities that could take advantage and others who have not been able to. The reason is not that these communities of the first category were edging someone out. When the doors of reservation were opened, some happened to be standing there, they walked in. They have not pushed anyone out, they are not oppressors of the others. It is just a differential access which has done so.

And Punjab has a 32 per cent Dalit population.

Yes, a large Dalit population with such huge disparities. How do you address it? One way of addressing it is to say, okay, let us make two slices within that. If it is 30 per cent, let us say we make it 15-15. In the top 15 per cent, you put this half of the population, who have benefited a little more, and in the bottom, you have the other half. The reason I support the basic decision of the Supreme Court is that the order simply says the States can subcategorise. The order does not say you must sub-classify.

And then you should have a caste census.

Yes, you would need a caste census for these things. You already have some information. I can understand why some people oppose it because, in the case of at least some political leaders, unfortunately, it is directly linked to their vote base.

And Mayawati is a Jatav Dalit.

That makes me sad because Mayawati has been a Dalit icon, not just a Jatav icon. But when on such a critical issue, she comes out appearing to defend the interest of one subsection within Dalits, it is disappointing.

What about Anand Teltumbde?

Anand’s case is completely different. It would be completely wrong to say someone like him is reflecting the interest of an upper crust of the Dalits. I take Anand very seriously. He is a reflective person. Anand is not closing his eyes to real and serious issues. Instead of subclassification of Jatis, we should actually identify every family. Families should be subdivided based on their access to education and jobs. Anyone who acknowledges it is an issue and proposes a way to address it, I am willing to speak to. Sub-classification is one way of doing it, but there can be other ways we can discuss. Having said that, there is one aspect of the Supreme Court judgment that I have opposed from the beginning the creamy layer application.

But that is not in the judgment, that is an opinion of the judges.

The trouble is, if four judges out of seven give an opinion, then high courts all over the country will cite that opinion and it will become de facto law. I think it is time that somebody went to the Supreme Court and asked for clarification is that your order or not? It should not become a legal precedent. And honestly, this is not the stage to talk about creamy layer within Dalits.

The government is committed to outsourcing anything possible.

This began with the previous government and has been practised by non-BJP governments at the State level as well. These are serious systemic issues. It also relates to the question of the private sector. Why should not affirmative action apply to the private sector? You need not turn it into reservation; use other instruments. There are multiple instruments available to the state.

But BJP has suggested it might do it in this budget, right? Well, they have given some hints.

I would welcome any government that takes steps towards extending the ambit of affirmative action beyond the public sector. Then there is this artificial constitutional cap at 50 per cent that the Supreme Court is willing to relax for EWS but not for anyone else.

So that has to be removed. I am thinking of a long-term future, and from that perspective, sub-quota within SC is a legitimate demand. It is necessary, though for me, that is not the centrepiece of my future vision. The centrepiece has to be expanded.

What is the centrepiece of your future vision, and how are you functioning?

Two different things. First, the bigger question of what the centrepiece is. To me, sociologically, the centerpiece is the bottom of the pyramid. Indian society is a pyramid. The top of the pyramid has been captured by the BJP in terms of caste, class, and gender. The bottom of the pyramid is the biggest social force to defend the Constitution, republic, and democracy in the country. So future politics has to be politics of the bottom of the pyramid. BJP’s political strategy has been to capture the top of the pyramid and walk away with a few slices from the bottom. The challenge for the opposition, or anyone who wants to defend democracy and republic in this country, is to consolidate the bottom of the pyramid. While from the top of the pyramid, there would be ideological dissenters who should always be welcomed—there were whites who opposed apartheid, so yes, they should be welcomed—but sociologically, which is the social force that would defend this republic? That is my real concern.

So we have seen a transformation of Rahul Gandhi. You agree with that, right?

Yes, and this is a welcome transformation.

It is a complete transformation because earlier, many of the so-called baba lok that were around him, they are all sitting in the BJP now.

The transformation may not be as big as it appears because I knew Rahul Gandhi 15 years ago, and I know him now. For the last two years, he has remained a very sincere person, connected and aware of the fact that he has privileges and that he needs to be sensitive about that fact. The transformation is he seems to have understood, he has travelled, he has walked, he has met people. The Bharat Jodo Yatra was a transformative moment.

It was also a change in the positions of the Congress on caste. They missed the whole Mandal moment.

Remember, the first big caste upsurge in this country was in the late 60s. Mandal bypassed Congress. The Congress is in the driver’s seat, trying to be so. On the caste question, Congress’s position is principally driven by Rahul Gandhi. I do not think the Congress as a party was so prepared for this. He has personally, with determination and resolve, taken the party in that direction, which is welcome because this actually connects to the politics of the bottom of the pyramid. For me, the real interest is not so much in a political party connecting to and improving or expanding its vote bank. My larger question is how do we defend this republic, which is close to being shut down?

Can the Congress be a vehicle to defend the republic?

You need ideological positions, you need a social base. At the moment, I would say the INDIA coalition in general and the Congress in particular, is a political vehicle. The bottom of the pyramid is the social base. And swadharma of Bharat is the ideology that can defend this republic.