The appointment of tribal leaders to handle tribal affairs is not an act of tokenism — it is a matter of justice. Representation is crucial not just for visibility but for ensuring that policy decisions are informed by lived experiences rather than imposed assumptions.
Published Feb 09, 2025 | 1:00 PM ⚊ Updated Feb 09, 2025 | 1:00 PM
By advocating for an exchange of ministerial roles based on caste, Suresh Gopi flirts dangerously with a worldview rooted in the Chaturvarna system. (Suressh Gopi/X)
Synopsis: Addressing an election campaign rally in Delhi, Union Minister of State for Tourism and Petroleum and Natural Gas Suresh Gopi sparked a controversy, saying, he has been dreaming and expecting that someone from outside the tribal community be appointed for their welfare. “Let a Brahmin or a Naidu take charge. There would be significant change,” adding that tribal leaders should be given the portfolio of the welfare of forward communities. His comment drew strong criticism, especially from Kerala, his home state. In equating caste identity with governance ability, Gopi inadvertently channeled the same ideology that Ambedkar spent his life dismantling.
Union Minister of State Suresh Gopi’s recent comments on tribal affairs have once again exposed the deep-seated casteist mindset that continues to plague Indian governance and socio-political discourse.
His assertion that so-called “upper caste” individuals should handle tribal affairs to ensure “real change” is not just a relic of regressive thinking but a direct affront to India’s constitutional and moral ethos.
His later attempt at backtracking, claiming his words were spoken with “good intentions,” does little to mask the unmistakable undertones of caste arrogance and the patronising attitude toward marginalised communities.
Gopi’s remarks betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the structural realities of caste oppression in India. To suggest that the upliftment of tribal communities necessitates the oversight of those from the so-called “upper strata” of society is to reinforce the paternalistic notion that oppressed communities cannot lead their destinies.
This echoes the colonial-era justifications used to perpetuate social hierarchies under the guise of governance and reform.
Dr BR Ambedkar, in ‘Annihilation of Caste’, eviscerated such patronising attitudes, warning that social change led by the privileged often serves to reinforce their dominance rather than dismantle injustice.
In ‘The Hindu Social Order’, Ambedkar wrote, “It does not recognise individual merit; it privileges birth over ability.”
To argue, as Gopi does, that an ‘upper caste’ leader would be better suited to represent and serve the interests of tribal communities is to reinforce the very structures of exclusion and hierarchy, such as the construct of kula, that India’s Constitution was designed to dismantle.
By implying that leadership and effective governance for marginalised communities must come from outside those communities—particularly from dominant caste groups—this argument entrenches asymmetrical power relations. Such reasoning undermines the foundational principles of social justice and self-representation, both enshrined in constitutional provisions for affirmative action and political reservation. It dismisses the political agency of tribal leaders and upholds the paternalistic assumption that marginalised groups require caste-privileged leadership for their progress.
One of the oldest justifications for caste-based leadership is the myth of meritocracy—the idea that ‘upper castes’ are inherently more capable administrators due to their supposed historical access to knowledge and governance. However, history repeatedly shows that caste privilege has seldom translated into social justice. Instead, it has functioned as a mechanism of exclusion, ensuring that Dalits, Adivasis, and marginalised communities remain on the periphery
of power structures.
The assertion that a Brahmin or Naidu minister would bring “real change” to tribal affairs is, at best, naive and, at worst, insidious. India’s tribal communities have long been denied agency in policymaking, and their issues have often been addressed through a lens of paternalism rather than empowerment. The appointment of tribal leaders in charge of tribal affairs is not a “curse” but an essential corrective measure against centuries of exclusion.
History offers damning evidence of the failure of ‘upper caste’ dominance in tribal governance. From the colonial-era policies that dispossessed Adivasis of their land to post-independence laws that prioritised industrial expansion over tribal rights, the so-called ‘upper strata’ have repeatedly prioritised their interests over genuine tribal welfare.
By advocating for an exchange of ministerial roles based on caste, Gopi flirts dangerously with a worldview rooted in the Chaturvarna system—the ancient fourfold caste hierarchy that reserved knowledge and governance for Brahmins and Kshatriyas while relegating the majority to subservience.
In equating caste identity with governance ability, he inadvertently channels the same ideology that Ambedkar spent his life dismantling.
His comments represent an attempt to normalise caste-based power distribution under the pretext of “progress,” which is nothing but an effort to reassert caste dominance in governance.
That a sitting Union Minister in 2025 can make such a statement without immediate dismissal speaks volumes about the deep entrenchment of caste pride within Indian political and bureaucratic circles.
However, this is not an isolated incident; it reflects a broader ideological project championed by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and its Hindutva affiliates. These organisations have consistently attempted to repackage caste hierarchy in the language of “harmony” while resisting substantive structural reforms.
The RSS’s vision of Samajik Samrasta (social harmony) does not challenge caste oppression but seeks to reinforce graded inequality under the guise of an organic social order. This ideological framework is evident in the statements of other BJP leaders—ranging from Mohan Bhagwat’s insistence that caste is a social reality that must be “harmonised” rather than abolished, to comments of leaders implying that reservation policies should be reconsidered.
Therefore, Gopi’s statement is not an anomaly but a symptom of a deeper ideological commitment within Hindutva politics—one that seeks to maintain upper-caste hegemony while using the language of “nationalism” and “inclusive development” to mask its regressive core.
Such rhetoric not only betrays the principles of representative democracy but actively undermines the emancipatory vision enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
The appointment of tribal leaders to handle tribal affairs is not an act of tokenism—it is a matter of justice.
Representation is crucial not just for visibility but for ensuring that policy decisions are informed by lived experiences rather than imposed assumptions. Adivasi leaders understand the nuances of land rights, forest conservation, displacement, and education policies in ways that ‘upper caste’ administrators, no matter how well-intentioned, cannot.
For decades, Dalits and Adivasis have fought for political agency, often facing violent backlash for their assertion. The victory of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) in creating Jharkhand as a separate state, the grassroots activism of the Narmada Bachao Andolan, and the resistance movements against land acquisition in Odisha and Chhattisgarh are all examples of self-led tribal struggles for justice.
Gopi’s remarks, while outrageous, provide an opportunity to confront and dismantle casteist assumptions that continue to influence governance. Political parties and the people must take a firm stand against such casteist rhetoric and ensure that ministers who indulge in it face real consequences.
Further, there needs to be a broader push for structural changes that enable marginalised communities to access positions of power without having to prove their competence repeatedly.
Ambedkar’s words remain relevant: “Turn in any direction you like, caste is the monster that crosses your path.”
As long as caste pride dictates political appointments and policy decisions, India’s democracy remains incomplete. If India is to be a true democracy, caste must be exorcised from governance, not glorified within it.
(Amal Chandra is an author, political analyst, and columnist. Views are personal. Edited by Majnu Babu).
