ORGANIZED LABOR AND THE POLITICS OF RIGHT-WING HEGEMONY IN INDIA by Smriti Upadhyay A dissertation submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Baltimore, Maryland February 2021 © 2021 Smriti Upadhyay All rights reserved Abstract In recent years, there has been an explosion of interest in the right-wing’s ability to attract the support of workers around the world. Right-wing movements are generally conceived as movements that mobilize and represent the interests of dominant ethnic, racial or religious groups. Oftentimes, these movements are accused of evading issues of class inequality; in many cases, they are accused of directly supporting elite classes at the expense of lower classes. While the working class’ numerical majority makes it an obvious target for any political movement seeking popularity, questions remain as to exactly how they appeal to workers’ interests and attain workers’ trust. This dissertation draws on twenty-one months of ethnographic observation and seventy-seven interviews with rank-and-file members and leaders of India’s largest labor union, the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS), which is part of the right-wing Hindu nationalist movement. I use the BMS as a lens into how right-wing political actors secure the support of workers by mobilizing them along economic and cultural dimensions of workers’ identities. I theorize Hindu nationalism as a right-wing hegemony that is comprised of two analytically distinct historical phases: building and maintaining hegemony. In the “building phase” of hegemony, I find that the BMS appeals to workers in a progressive manner: it vigorously organizes labor at the grassroots and supports workers in militant collective actions as a way to secure economic benefits for them in defiance of Hindu nationalist strictures against class conflict. In the “maintaining phase” of hegemonic consolidation, the BMS has a regressive orientation that does little to address the economic grievances of its rank-and-file members and uses Hindu nationalism to coerce workers into complying with the imperatives of economic growth. The very union that acted as a vehicle for consent and for legitimizing the hegemonic claims of Hindu ii nationalism in the building phase becomes a vehicle for coercion and for subordinating workers’ class interests in the maintaining phase of hegemony. My dissertation thus demonstrates that right-wing hegemonies are harder to sustain than they are to build due to the contradictions that arise between class and nation. First Reader/Advisor: Professor Rina Agarwala Second Reader: Professor Beverly J. Silver Third Reader: Professor Michael Levien iii Acknowledgements Towards the final stage of writing this dissertation, I found the greatest pleasure in mentally drafting this section during my spare non-writing moments. Thinking about the various individuals who supported me during my nearly decade-long stint in grad school helped me get through the solitude of dissertation writing, which was especially pronounced due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It was also a welcome enticement away from the careful and concise prose that I so painstakingly tried to articulate by day, as I dipped into to the delectable dil ki baat, that oh-so-dramatic and unrestrained expression of emotion that enchanted me in India, a country so bewildering and beautiful that I am lucky to be have been able to fill the pages of this dissertation and so many of my days learning from and thinking about. I would like to acknowledge the generous financial support of the Charlotte W. Newcombe Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship and the Department of Sociology at Johns Hopkins University. A very special thank you to Terri Thomas, Jessie Albee, and Linda Burkhardt who not only ran the smoothest of departmental ships, but also made my time at Hopkins, fun, festive, and filled with the sweetest treats and warmest hugs. The faculty members in the department have offered me a rigorous training in sociology, which for a relatively small department has certainly been mighty in the diversity of fields and methodological traditions that now inform my ways of knowing the world. Even smaller and mightier, the PGSC program has taught me how to engage in a powerful practice of social scientific inquiry that can widen the, sometimes narrow, halls of the US academe. I was lucky to have a dissertation committee that offered me mentorship, intellectual guidance, and empathy as I found, lost, and then rediscovered my way through the end of the PhD. Rina Agarwala offered me unwavering enthusiasm for my project from its earliest stages. In my first days at Hopkins, she offered me invaluable advice to ground my navigation of sociology with an intellectual curiosity that simultaneously drew from my existing perspectives but also fearlessly put them up for interrogation as I gained a deeper and more nuanced perspective of the social world. I hope this spirit comes across in the pages that follow. Throughout the various stages of this dissertation, Rina pushed me to clarify and make more concise long-winded and sometimes sloppy arguments in a way that was sociologically rigorous and responsible—as in able to respond—to the discussions and debates taking place outside of academia. Her mentorship has inspired me to aspire to the same standards that she so elegantly exudes in her advising and in her scholarship. I was also fortunate enough to have had Beverly Silver as a mentor and committee member. I left discussions and meetings with Beverly with a sense that no matter how half-baked or awkwardly communicated my ideas might have been, she always met them with a sense of respect and recognition of their potential wisdom. Her support is steady and her standards for research and writing exacting, and for these reasons I feel so lucky to have learned sociology under her guidance. Beverly also infused the usually lonesome iv and isolating undertaking of grad school with a sense of community and care as an anchor and organizer of exciting collaborative research projects, stimulating speaker series, and as a most gracious host of so many memorable dinner parties. Michael Levien came to Johns Hopkins in 2013, and this could not have been better timing for me. I was ready to abandon my TRP, the beta version of this dissertation. Mike offered me both his thorough critique and thorough conviction of its potential. Mike helped me navigate the unstructured brilliance of Gramsci and guided me in channeling the unwieldy magic of ethnographic fieldwork for the extension and reconstruction of social theory. Being in conversation with Mike and receiving his scrupulous feedback vastly improved the quality of my writing and thinking. The diligence and generosity with which Mike offered his feedback has also provided me an exemplary demonstration of the type of scholar and mentor I also strive to be. I’d like to thank Robbie Shilliam and Christopher Nealon for their generous engagement with my dissertation as the external members of my committee. Their feedback has given me much to think through and will help me see this project through to its next stage of life. PGSC underwent a most fortuitous expansion during my time there, which among other things, brought Ryan Calder to Johns Hopkins Sociology. Ryan so generously facilitated several seminars and writing groups that gave us the opportunity to workshop our ideas and push our drafts further. I feel so much gratitude for his encouragement and guidance, especially in my efforts to formulate my contributions to the sociology of religion. I feel fortunate to have been surrounded by a group of friends so incredibly precious, that I often wonder how those in this world who have not yet known the joy of their friendship are able to go on with their lives. I was lucky enough to have Yige Dong as my cohort-mate. Yige shone her brilliance on me in our classes and as she helped me wrestle my research. She also delighted me with her friendship and side-splitting sense of humor which lightened the load of even the longest work sessions or the most arduous of cycling trips. So many of the friends I met during graduate school were not only intellectual partners in discovering the discipline of sociology, but from them I also became captivated by the poetry and promise of “the revolution.” Suchi, Sefika, Sahan, Ricado, Rishi, Sam, and Sonal: not only did you enchant me with your genius, but your friendship offered the most potent of antidotes to the bleakness that can sometimes creep in when our sociological lenses so thoroughly expose the enduring nature of structural inequalities. Valentina, Franziska, and Purvi, I feel so grateful to have been able to share a home base with you and that I could find my way back to Baltimore, and to the end of the PhD, in the guiding light of your love and support. My beloved Valentina, you lit up my life when you first moved to Baltimore for grad school. In the years since, you have ignited so much learning and love in me. Even though I am growing impatient to see and be in the presence of your fiery heart, it energizes me every day. Thank you for bringing this fire all the way to India. And to my northern lights, Tamara, Laura, and Eden, thank you for imparting your luminosity on me. Although in the past year, I could only v experience your friendship at a “social distance”, I have felt held so closely by you as we read, dreamed, and puzzled together about what other future worlds are possible. My friends, I look at all of you and see living, breathing, laughing embodiments of everything that is, and can be so beautiful, in this world and the worlds beyond.