dynasty politics in india

Political families are peculiar to all democracies. In fact this is the reason why the supporters of autocracy and monarchy resent the popular definition of democracy (which is: by the people of the people and for the people). Be it the Kennedy clan in the U.S. or the Gandhi clan in India. The meaning of democracy has undergone a huge change and this fact can seriously jeopardize the glory attached with democracy as an ideal or at least the most preferable form of government.

Dynasty politics in India,and here I am talking about the India we know post 1950 , has developed rapidly and surprisingly also found support among the masses. Indira Gandhi's rise to power and then Rajeev Gandhi's succession, followed by Sonia Gandhi's entry in politics (although I concede she did so involuntarily) and now Rahul Gandhi's march as also his sister's role in the party's campaigns. In almost all these cases the persons concerned always managed to find mass following. This further strengthens the claims of the monarchists that people want certainty in terms of leadership, and such certainty can be best guaranteed by hereditary rule.

Our political scene is quite interesting because of the fact that almost all the parties which came into existence to oppose the Gandhi domination have also begun emulating the Congress' model and have thus embraced dynasty politics. Those which haven't are no better in matters of choosing leadership , for the system they have in place for choosing their party leaders is perhaps more autocratic than Ivan the Terrible's claim to Czarhood.

Let's start from the top of our great nation. We have the Abdullahs in Kashmir who have taken upon themselves the responsibility to edify their people. In Himachal Pradesh Mr. Prem Kumar Dhumal has successfully launched his son into politics , who by the way has taken a cue from Sharad Pawar and has already associated himself with B.C.C.I. and Indian Cricket .

In Punjab , Mr. Prakash Singh Badal has brought forward his son Sukhbir and daughter in law Harsimrat. In Haryana Deepinder Singh Hooda has taken up the mantel from Bhupinder Singh Hooda.

In Rajasthan the Scindia clan has quite conveniently associated itself with both the leading national parties in the form of Vasundhara Raje and Jyotiraditya capitializing on Madhavrao's political career.

In Andhra Pradesh NTR'S son in law Chandrababu Naidu succeeded to the throne after the 'family' dispute within the TDP.

But the most important state for dynasty politics is Maharashtra where the electorate has been dumb enough ( inspite of the fact that they have South Bombay as one of the constituency) to overlook this trend.
Sunil Dutt-> Priya Dutt.
Sharad Pawar-> Supriya Sule

and then of course we have those Thackreys. For a party claiming to be the Congresses' nemesis it is ironic that amongst all contemporary parties it is the only one which does not even pretend to be democratic in it's internal organisational structure. Balasaheb gives way to Udhav , Raj his cousin gets angry and forms his own party and not one party worker has any problem though only yesterday were they criticizing the Congress' obsession with the Gandhis.

Among others we have Sachin Pilot, Agatha Sangma, Rabri Devi etc. doing the honors of continuing the family tradition.

Another point.... if we can point a finger at a politician who's kids have not entered the political fray we can can also be pretty certain that that happened because the generation involved was quite useless and incompetent to have carried on the family trade. Rahul Mahajan and Ritesh Deshmukh come to my mind....it is another thing that I haven't seen a more pathetic C.M. than Vilasrao Deshmukh (during my stay at Pune).
This brings me to another interesting aspect of Dynasty politics...which is the non-dynastic-dynasty politics.

The B.J.P. excels in this field. Let's compare the Congress and the B.J.P. since the arrival of Mr. Vajpayee. Till date the B.J.P. has had just one (profanity) leader. The congress has had Three -four because of the untimely demise of two of them. Thus, had Indira Gandhi been alive she would have been like Vajpayee . The sole leader of her party for about 30 odd years. Where is the democracy in electing the party leadership in BJ.P.?

The moment a second claimant for the leadership arrived the B.J.P. fell apart. They had absolutely no clue whom to elect and hence Mr. Advani stepped in...why? No one has any clue. Just because he is a veteran and not because he is popular. If democracy would have prevailed Modi could have reached that position.
In the Congress a similar crisis emerged with Sita Ram Kesri's blasphemous move to express the desire to lead the party. Sonia Gandhi stepped in and saved the day.

I feel in that respect the Congress is better equipped to resolve such disputes since there is a definite policy which governs their organisational policies...which is that, that the Gandhi family shall have a peremptory right to decide all such matters. This means there is some rationale behind their structure....it may not be democratic but it is definitely better than the B.J.P.'s pseudo democratic structure which in spite of all their claims has failed to produce leaders who are willing to give up power and promote democratic features in the party.

All said and done I feel that dynasty politics are is a rule of nature. Since we are all animals we have all those animal like tendencies. An animal shall always protect his family first and then the members of his species. Thus the politicians shall first take care of their children and then think about the welfare of other politicians, they being the members of their species . As far as the general public is concerned , how can we we expect the politicians to take care of their interests ; after all can the predator and the prey share cordial relations?