Anil Anand
How were the yore-years monarchical dynasties different from the present day political dynasties? Should there be a dynastical structure at all in a bubbling democracy like India? Given the developments taking place all around, from Kashmir to Kanyakumari (and in the literal sense), where the so called political or dynastic families are either on the boil or facing transitional turmoil, these questions are desperately begging for answers.
The country took a huge historic step when it ushered into a democratic polity from centuries of monarchical rule with divided principalities via the 200 years of autocratic foreign rule that was everything but people rule. Yes, the seven decades of democracy has done well. Since no system is perfect so there is no harm in admitting that the current democratic structure has its weak-links which need to be plugged from time to time. There are efforts to identify and plug these weak-spots through Constitutional and other measures but these efforts are abysmally slow and tardy.
But one area or issue that transcends beyond Constitutional proprieties and has a lot to do with personal commitments and morality relates to the proliferation of political dynasties that are spread across the country from Kashmir to Kanyakumari. Since most of these political parties, which otherwise swear by democratic spirit and inner-party democracy are currently witnessing a transitional phase, some from first to the second generation while others even beyond that, the vulgar face of the dynastic politics has jarringly come out that immediately triggers a comparison with the monarchical times which is but natural.
The times and the circumstances in which these two systems ushered were different could not be compared. The transitional phases in the two systems are absolutely incomparable and so are the means to achieve the generational shift. The basic principle of transition of power from one generation to the other has remained the same, conspiracies and manipulations, with claimants to the throne unsparingly sniping at each other. The big change or shift is that there are no “bloody intrigues of shahi mahal” as the transitional fight used to be proverbially described during monarchical times.
The intrigues and revolts, either against the party patriarch or the claimants having a go at each other, are at full play even in the current phase for the ultimate claim of political legacy of a particular family or an individual. Even if there is no bloodshed as was associated with the palace intrigues, certain practices being followed either by the patriarchs to handover the baton to their favourite ward or the warring heir apparents to show each other down run against the grain of democratic practices.
The drama that unfolded in the DMK, it began during the life time of its patriarch M Karunaniddhi with appointment of his favourite son Stalin as the heir apparent and concluded on his Marina beach memorial, the happenings in the former deputy prime minister Devi Lal clan’s Haryana-centric family fiefdom of Indian National Lok Dal aka INLD with the current family head Om Prakash Chautala, since convicted and serving imprisonment along with his elder son Ajay Singh in a case of corruption, suspended Ajay’s son from the party to pave way for handing over of the baton to his younger son Abhay Chautala, are the latest and most disturbing instances of the modern day ” shahi mahal intrigues”.
These two latest examples and there are many such happenings in the past, are an indicator of two disturbing facts; 1. The dynastic politics is becoming stronger by the day thereby further damaging the democratic values such as inner party democracy and equal opportunity of growth to all 2. The father-sons and brother versus brother and in cases such as that of the Chautalas, grandfather versus the grandsons conflicts, have led to the basic moral values particularly based on mutual respect and affection going for a toss.
Before coming to the question as to whether dynasties or political dynasties have any place or be allowed to prosper in a democratic set up such as ours, it will be interesting to have a cursory look at the astronomical growth of these phenomena on pan-India basis. The concept has spread its tentacles so fast that it is now resulting in plethora of sub-dynasties mushrooming even within a strong dynast- controlled family fiefdom.
Initially the only party, at least at the national levels, which used to be accused of encouraging are depending on dynastic politics was the Congress. Of course the backdrop for this fact was provided by the strong presence of the Nehru-Gandhi family members beginning with Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and entering fourth generation with the current party president Rahul Gandhi.
“Parivarvad” (nepotism) was once the main plank of the opposition leaders ranging from Ram Manohar Lohia, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, George Fernandes, L K Advani…. and the list is long and unwinding. Gone are the days and ever since the entire complexion of the Indian politics has changed particularly with respect to dynastic politics.
It is unfortunate but a hard fact that barring the Left parties, political dynasties have either taken over the existing political parties are floated new outfits which are entirely run by their family members. This is a disturbing trend which has spread from the national levels to the region and state levels and so the resultant turf wars.
Beginning with Congress, now many regional parties have also found themselves controlled by some political families. Starting from Jammu and Kashmir with Abdullah and Mufti families controlling National Conference and Peoples Democratic Party respectively, Andhra Pradesh’s Telugu Desam Party (TDP), Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) in the newly carved out state of Telengana, Indian National Lok Dal (INLD), Rashtriya Lok Dal (RLD) founded by former Prime Minister Chaudhary Charan Singh and subsequently controlled by his son Ajit Singh with now grandson Jayant entering the arena, the father-son, Prakash Singh Badal and Sukhbir Badal, controlled Shiromani Akali Dal, the Mulayam Singh Yadav-clan controlled Samajdwadi Party, the Lalu Prasad Yadav’s family concern Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), Biju Janata Dal (BJD) and even the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM), the family not only matters, but also calls the shots. How could one go without mentioning the Lok Jan Shakti Party of Ramvilas Paswan, Nationalist Congress Party founded by Sharad Pawar and about to be handed over to his daughter Supriya Sule, Shiv Sena of Bal Thackery which is already preparing to be taken over by the third generation of the family, so on so forth.
Certainly, these political parties provide a deadly mix of caste/religion and dynasties. None of these factors are in consonance with the democratic values but the harsh realities are before everyone to see. Also, behind growth of this deadly mixture is the urgent need of national political parties mainly BJP and Congress, to forge winning alliances. The BJP under Modi and Amit Shah took this experiment successfully to a macro level in 2014 Lok Sabha elections. As a result BJP heads almost a 48-party ruling coalition. The Congress during the 10 years of UPA rule was a poor second on this count.
The dynastic politics has certainly travelled out of the Congress where it was initially confined to only the Nehru-Gandhi family but subsequently the other leaders followed the guiding principle set by the first family. In today’s Congress there is the main dynasty and sub-dynasties galore. Any and every leader worth his or her salt has ensured that their wards or new generations enter the Congress politics.
Coming to the BJP which in its earlier ‘avtar’ Bharatiya Jan Sangh and later BJP targeted the Congress as a party of “parivarvad” with specific reference to Nehru-Gandhi family. It remains a fact that right from Vajpayee, Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi to Prime Minister Modi, none of them had or have family members into BJP politics. But that is not true of the entire BJP which is now not even a pale shade of what it once used to be a party with a difference. There is the Dhumal dynasty in Himachal Pradesh, a Vasundhara Raje family in Rajasthan that extends up to Madhya Pradesh, the Pramod Mahajan, Gopinath Munde and Narain Rane families in Maharahstra among others. This apart the most of the NDA allies are all family-centric outfits.
The vital question arises whether dynasties have any place in a democratic set-up? On the basis of barometer of morality and ethics, the answer is no at least to the manner in which parties are being floated and run by the families and their members. It defeats the basic principle of democracy of equal opportunities to all and not only the family controlling or more befittingly owning the party. Yes, such political parties are being owned by some families, which in itself is an anti-thesis to democratic norms.
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel