Is this the End of Dynastic Politics in India?

By Deepak Parvatiyar

July 30, 2014

Why are we so eager to write the epitaph of dynastic rule just because the Congress lost the elections this time? Didn’t the torch bearers of India’s foremost political dynasty – the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty, who contested the elections, actually won? Whether it was Sonia Gandhi, her son Rahul (both Congress), Maneka Gandhi and her son Varun (both BJP) all of them tasted victory at the hustings.

Can Dynasties be Devoid of Conflicting Ideologies?

I have another poser. It may be a wild assumption but suppose Varun rises in the BJP to become the prime minister of the country, would we call him carrying the legacy of a Nehru or a Gandhi?

Would we make a distinction because of the ideological differences between Nehru’s centrist and Varun’s right wing politics?

Yet there are instances in Indian politics where fathers (even mothers) and sons (and daughters alike) have nurtured political aspirations based on conflicting ideologies. The BJP’s iconic leader and the Rajmata of Gwalior late Vijayaraje Scindia and her son late Madhavrao Scindia, the flamboyant Congress leader, were the foremost examples. But despite their differing views or political affiliations, weren’t they qualified to represent a political dynasty? Don’t Vijayaraje’s daughter and present Rajasthan CM Vasundhara Raje of the BJP, and her nephew (Madhavrao’s son) Jyotiraditya, who is a Congress member of Parliament and a former minister at the Centre, represent the Gwalior dynasty?

Let’s explore further. Sons of former President Pratibhasinh Patil and President Pranav Mukherjee too have entered the fray and won elections. Aren’t they promoting a family bequest? In Kashmir, the Abdullah family has ruled for decades. Sheikh Abdullah’s son Farooq’s party is in power and grandson Omar is the chief minister. They are perhaps the most talked about political dynasty after the Nehru-Gandhi family in the country. In Tamil Nadu, the DMK leader and former CM Karunanidhi, his sons, daughter, grandnephew (Dayanidhi Maran) – they all represent a huge family dynasty. Isn’t former chief minister Mulayam Singh’s son and present chief minister Akhilesh Yadav, the bell cow of a dynasty?  In Odisha, Navin Patnaik not just floated a political party that is named after his late father and former chief minister Biju Patnaik, but has been the Chief Minister of the state since 2000. Isn’t he a bellwether of dynastic politics?

But why should we stop at them only? Figures show that in the 2014 general elections sons/daughters of politicians were fielded by various political parties in at least 50 parliamentary constituencies. The Congress – considered an epitome of dynastic culture by its detractors – had a majority of such candidates with political lineage.
Do Political Dynasties Reflect our Slave Mentality?

Can we blame the Congress alone? Isn’t it true that we create heroes, worship them and are extremely protective about them and their surroundings? Have we ever explored why our bureaucracy – the supposed iron frame of our democracy – crawls if politicians ask it to bend?

History tells us that we have been ruled over for thousands of years and that democracy is still in its nascent stage in comparison. So, can we say we are still a victim of slave mentality? (How can one explain the obeisance to Sonia Gandhi by Manmohan Singh, who was the prime minister in the UPA government?).

Isn’t eulogising our rulers and their ‘blue blooded’ kinsmen there in our blood? Isn’t it true that a majority of our gentry fancy itself as the humble ‘praja’ (subject)? That our media also revolves around our politicians and their ilk?

No Dynasties in our Neighbourhood Countries

Yet before we dwell further on the topic, let’s explore our neighbourhood. It is surprising that none of our neighbouring countries have displayed this typical trait of political inheritance. Nepal overthrew its established monarchy to become a democracy. Bhutan made a transition from absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy with the Council of Cabinet Ministers vested with the power to impeach the King by a two-thirds majority of the National Assembly. Sri Lanka, China, Maldives, Myanmar – none of them can boast of nurturing any political dynasty. The only exception seems to be Pakistan where the Bhutto family does represent a political dynasty despite the nation’s history of military dictatorship.

Indeed, dynastic politics has a unique place in our recent history. Political compulsions, tragedies (such as assassination of Indira Gandhi) and our tendency to eulogise our heroes and their immediate families have been the main reasons for this.

Dynasties were Rejected in the Past but Returned

Yet it is equally true that dynastic politics were rejected by the people in the past. That is the reason for VP Singh, Chandrasekhar, HD Deve Gowda, Inder Kumar Gujaral, PV Narasimha Rao and Atal Behari Vajpayee, to become prime ministers. Narendra Modi, as prime minister, is the latest such example. But never ever has dynastic politics been completely shunned by our starry-eyed electorates. This is the reason why a Sonia can still win election despite being blamed by her detractors for the UPA-II’s flop show.

Of late, a rather strange phenomenon too has crept into our political system. Politics is no longer treated as social service rooted in the concept of welfare state. It has emerged as a big business that revolves around protectionism. There is nothing surprising, therefore, when politicians today consider themselves as professionals like in any other field. They don’t believe in charity and lobby for and do get a hefty salary and perquisites for their job. Hence, rules of inheritance have to be a natural corollary of this phenomenon! Whether one appreciates it or not, if the son/daughter of an industrialist inherits the industry, or if the son/daughter of an actor becomes an actor, why shouldn’t the son/daughter of a politician become a politician?

At a time when politics, like media, has become big business, what should be the purpose of a Laloo Yadav anointing his son as his successor? Or a Sharad Pawar, promoting his daughter in his vocation? Or a Shiela Dikshit initiating her son’s rise in politics?

Public service could not be the motive alone. In the light of the big money involved in politics today, it would, therefore, be foolhardy to write off dynastic politics in our country. Any doubt?