We are at a unique historical moment. Few could have imagined the ubiquitous “BLM” signs being proudly endorsed by mainstream establishments just a decade ago. At the same time, the attack on the U.S. Capitol by the Alt-Right has few historical precedents. These paradoxes are not unique to America. Right-wing populism is on a rise globally, as mobilizations for the “struggle for recognition”, under the banners of nationality, ethnicity, and race have become the paradigmatic form of social movements since the end of the twentieth century. The desire for status is at the heart of mobilizations at both ends of the political spectrum. My book project examines how status politics shapes the politics of redistribution in hierarchical societies through the case of ethnic mobilization at the subnational level in India. The generalizability of the theory is tested through shadow cases of South Africa, Bolivia, and United States, and a cross-national analysis of the relationship between ethnic exclusion and social development.

Drawing on multiple sources of historical data and more than twenty-four months of fieldwork, I argue that redistributive politics in India has been shaped by the competing dynamics of the “politics of dominance” and the “politics of dignity.” The politics of dominance represents mobilization by upper-caste groups that seek to preserve their ascriptive privilege, which makes them more likely to oppose redistributive policies. The policy preference of elites from lower-caste groups, on the other hand, is shaped by their experience of ascriptive discrimination and humiliation. In contrast to the standard left-right ideology, lower-caste mobilization is rooted in a broader notion of social justice that seeks equalization of status across social groups, what I call the politics of dignity. 

The politics of dignity is most concretely manifested through policies on descriptive representation in state institutions – formal quotas in public employment and the appointment of lower-caste officials in the bureaucracy through informal channels. Though such measures are traditionally viewed as patronage or symbolic politics, the book demonstrates that over the long-term, caste-based quotas in state institutions can generate conditions for redistributive politics by weakening elite patronage networks and reducing discrimination in policy design and implementation. Since low-status groups have been historically excluded from institutions of power, representation in the state is not just a source of psychic and material benefits, access to the state itself is a source of status.

Overall, I suggest that status politics arises from the tension in socioeconomic and status inequality between ethnic groups in hierarchical societies, i.e., the relative economic decline of dominant groups, or upward mobility by marginal groups. Much of the emerging research on status politics has focused on high-status-poor individuals, like the white-working-class or poor-Brahmins. Politics of dignity describes the other side of the equation – how status inequality shapes political mobilization by marginal groups. In other words, I ask: who mobilizes, why, and what is their political agenda. Findings of the research challenge mainstream theories of redistribution; I argue that the growth-versus-redistribution paradigm of development is largely silent on a third dimension of freedom – dignity. This is especially true in hierarchical societies where long histories of ascriptive discrimination present a distinct set of challenges to social opportunity that mere investment in public goods cannot capture.

The project relies on a multi-method research design, combining a nation-wide longitudinal analysis of public spending and caste quotas in all major states over five decades, with a paired comparative historical analysis of three states – Bihar, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala, going back to late nineteenth century. The statistical analysis allows me to test the theory at the national level while controlling for a range of competing explanations. The qualitative cases provide evidence on causal links between the identity of the political elite and nature of state policy by tracing the debates on major policy decisions. In doing so, I rely on a range of original sources, including public spending records, content analysis of political speeches, data on legislator identity and voters, and primary surveys of the bureaucracy. I also conducted over one hundred and fifty interviews with civil servants and politicians across the country. 

A large part of the project is based on my doctoral work, "One Nations, Many worlds: Varieties of Developmental Regimes in India,” at Brown University. The dissertation is under embargo, but a summary (my job market paper) is available here. I test the theory with additional data on caste-based quotas in a recent  paper. The data section of this website includes some resources collected for this project that may be useful for other researchers.