Why Mayawati PM could be useful?

A rather non technical /non managerial post.
I've met so many of my friends in India who dread the possibility that Mayawati could become prime minister of India. Why? What's so bad about it? Well, quiet a few things, she is corrupt, biased and definitely does not believe in meritocracy (we are democracy any way:) ) , think of a disaster when she is on a world forum and just can not think strategically, an embarrassment. She will not understand what it takes to make sure India stays competitive in this world and we the citizens will lose out. well, there are many reasons indicating she is not the fit.
Here is one I think, why she could be a blessing, the first and foremost I believe she represents a large section of Indian population that just may realize a sense of power and may be start believing in Indian dream. Being a dreamer is a good thing, you need to be responsible and a believer in the rule of law to realize the dreams. Let's diverse and see what I mean?
Consider this, Indians take pride in their civilization, and believe in a bygone era when they were the knowledge center of the world. At the same time, have a look at the technology, Indians claim they never attacked a country. May be, they couldn't? I may be wrong, but look at Indian sword or a bow and arrow, or a shield, all important accouterments of a soldier. Compare it, with invading army, e.g. Puru had a local advantage over Alexander, and in the battle they lost primarily because
1. The elephants, the Alexander's army attacked the trunks of elephants with spears and arrows, and elephants turned back and crushed their own army.(The elephants caused similar damage to another defending ruler in India against Babur)
2. They had heavy bows and due to the rains last night were not able to hold those properly.
Now think about it, Only people in the world who could tame elephants and use them with infantry lost due to those? On an elephant, u r on a height and if u have a long range archers sitting on elephants, its way too difficult for invading army to get closer to ur elephants and actually use spears against those.
We didn't posses long range weaponery. neither hardware nor skills. Imagine a middle age rajputana sword, compare it with chinese (Chinese BTW had different kinds of flame throwers, bows that could shoot multiple arrows and could be very quickly reloaded with magzines) , almost 6-7 different kind of swords for different styles.
Now why a huge population, that was rich,organized,excellent thinkers, knowledge seekers and also valiant warriors could not make relatively simpler technological upgrades?
could the reason be that a warrior (a kshtriya) who need to use the sword doesn't talk to the iron smith (a lohar) who designed and created it?
An innovation, be it a game changer (e.g. Internet) or simpler one ( a new code idiom) evolves when a lot of stakeholders collaborate, discuss, try, fail, try again and then a new winner comes along. It does not happen when those who understand physics and maths(Brahmins) does not see value in a technique that allows a lohaar to create a more lighter but powerful metal. Either the new technique won't evolve fully or nobody would suggest the man to use a better approach. Resulting into less innovation.
A cast system, that did not allow people to collaborate killed all that could be created only by matching and synthesizing new ideas between different actors.
I believe after a lot of years, a bigger section of the population trusts a leader, even when I abhor her. May be just may be, she give the confidence to these people to come out of their rut and try harder. May be, she realize in order to rule, the leader has to be responsible and honest.
She is street smart, sharp and just may bring a huge population to strive for education, better jobs, better techniques. Well, if she can make that section of India go for enterprise, we may ignore her obvious lack of English speaking abilities.