“Write short note on Identity Politics.” (2010)
Identity politics is political mobilisation around a shared social identity, such as caste, religion, ethnicity, language, gender or sexuality, rather than around class interest or a universal programme. The members claim that they suffer injustice as members of that group. The term was popularised by the Black feminist Combahee River Collective Statement (1977), which argued that the most radical politics grows out of one’s own identity and oppression.
Theoretical bases
- Charles Taylor (“The Politics of Recognition”, 1992): identity is formed dialogically, so misrecognition by others inflicts real harm. Groups therefore demand recognition of their equal worth.
- Nancy Fraser separates claims for recognition (status, dignity) from claims for redistribution (resources). She warns that recognition politics can push redistribution aside.
- Manuel Castells (The Power of Identity, 1997) distinguishes legitimising, resistance and project identities. Resistance identities are built by the stigmatised and may grow into projects that aim to change society.
- New social movement theorists, such as Alain Touraine and Alberto Melucci, link the rise of identity politics to the decline of class politics in post-industrial societies.
Features
- Grounded in lived experience of a group, with claims to speak for it.
- Seeks dignity and representation as well as material benefits.
- Uses symbols, memory and history, such as icons, commemorations and “our” past.
- May be emancipatory when used by the marginalised, or exclusionary when used by majorities.
Indian forms
- Caste: Dalit-Bahujan assertion inspired by B. R. Ambedkar; OBC politics after Mandal (1990). The Bihar caste survey (2023) and the counting of caste in Census 2027 have renewed it. The Supreme Court’s permission to sub-classify SCs (State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, 2024) opened claims by sub-castes.
- Religion: communal and majoritarian mobilisation, and minority claims for protection.
- Ethnicity and region: Dravidian, Naga and Bodo movements; the Meitei-Kuki conflict in Manipur (since 2023).
- Gender and sexuality: the women’s reservation law (106th Amendment, 2023); LGBTQ+ claims after Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018).
Assessment
- Positive: It gives voice to groups that universalist ideologies ignored. Yogendra Yadav’s “second democratic upsurge” of lower-caste participation in the 1990s was largely identity-led.
- Negative:
- Amartya Sen (Identity and Violence, 2006) criticised the “illusion” of a single, fixed identity, which can prepare the ground for violence.
- Marxists argue that it splits working people along cultural lines.
- Francis Fukuyama (Identity, 2018) argues that competing demands for dignity weaken shared citizenship.
- It can essentialise groups and silence differences within them, such as those of Dalit women.
Conclusion
Identity politics is neither simply divisive nor simply emancipatory. In a society where disadvantage follows group lines, as in India, it is often the only language in which demands for equality can be made. The sociological task is to keep identity claims intersectional and linked to citizenship, so that recognition leads to justice rather than to closed groups.