Mauryas, Guptas, Rashtrakutas, Satvahanas, Cheras, Cholas, Pandyas, Khaljis, Tughlaqs, Mughals…in ancient and medieval India.
Gandhi, Karunanidhi, Pawar, Abdullah, Scindia, Prasada, Patnaik, Pilot, Thackeray, and now Reddy in post –Independent India.
In our history lessons on ancient and medieval India, there would be maps indicating various dynasties holding sway over India: the Mauryas and Guptas based in Patliputra, the Kushans in north-east India, the Gaudas of Bengal, the Pallavas, Pandyas, Cholas and Cheras of south India, the Bahamani and Vijayanagara kingdoms of the Deccan (mostly Andhra Pradesh), and of course the Mughal’s pan-Indian reach.
Will tomorrow’s history lessons be similar? Will the pages have accounts of the Karunanidhis of Tamil Nadu, the Pawars of Maharashtra, the Patnaiks of Orissa, the Abdullahs of Kashmir, the Scindias of Gwalior…and the Congress’ Nehru-Gandhi-Vadhra(?) with its countrywide reach?
Why is it that one of the largest democratic institutions nurtures the growth of dynastic regimes? Probably Mahatma Gandhi got wind of this Indian tendency to resume the dynastic system even in a democracy. He had asked for dismantling of the Congress party post-Independence. Obviously, Jawaharlal Nehru felt otherwise. His political ambitions for his daughter reaffirmed his feeling of “ownership” of the Congress. He groomed his daughter Indira, who nurtured son, Sanjay, and after his sudden death, Rajiv. Then post-Rajiv Gandhi, the sycophants took over to “force” a “reluctant” Sonia Gandhi to control the reigns of Congress ownership...sorry leadership. The foreign origin issue came between Sonia and the prime ministerial chair. So her son, Rahul, emerged in the political space. Her daughter, Priyanka, is still a key player, though she is yet to reveal her political wings.
Karunanidhi had already set the stage for his son, M.K. Stalin, to lead the DMK in Tamil Nadu. His estranged son, Azhagiri, was confined to being a Madurai muscleman. In this age of coalition politics, where Dravidian ideals splintered and found representation in several political groups, he rebuilt the burnt bridge with Azhagiri and ensured his place in the Manmohan ministry. His daughter and cultural heir, Kanimozhi, has also been given a “fair” deal in the Tamil political space. Karunanidhi has managed to distribute his political property among his children. His is one big happy family now.
The Abdullahs, Scindias, Pilots, Patnaiks and Pawars have all added to the great Indian dynastic bouquet.
Wonder why the Indian polity fails to look beyond the closed circuit of family members to accommodate the sincere party workers out to make a difference in the system?
Now, yet another state in democratic India is violently succumbing to dynastic tendencies. Violently, because there have been demonstrations, protests and violence by a Congress camp rooting for Jagan Mohan Reddy, the 38-year-old son of Y.S.R. Reddy, who was killed in the helicopter crash last week, as chief minister. Even before Reddy senior’s funeral, the sycophants had begun pushing for the case of Reddy junior. The hysterical spate of resignation threats and dissidence to prop Jagan Mohan Reddy has only fueled the political greenhorn‘s chief ministerial ambition. He is currently basking in this hero worship.
Will India ever be able to get out of this dynastic noose? Shall we get out of the medieval mindset to evolve as a mature democratic institution?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think more than a medieval mindset, it is the Indian mentality of following the same path laid out by parents in almost every field. If parents are doctors, the kids become doctors(forced or otherwise). Sons and daughters take on family businesses. Sons and daughters become actors/actresses. I think it is just an easy way out(of the conundrum to make a choice). While it works very well in most cases in the examples I just mentioned,in politics, it looks ugly more often than not.
ReplyDeleteGradwolf has a very interesting point of view there. When professions like medicine or law become dynastic, there is no pretense about it and as such it seems fine. Politics, however, is supposed to be a kind of service to society and when it becomes a family affair, the service aspect of it becomes ultra pretentious. This is perhaps what makes it seem ugly.
ReplyDeleteGreat post and great point of view gradwolf!
Children taking after their father's profession is known. In fact, in makes good business sense for the son/daughter of a lawyer or doctor to set shop because the "client" base is already ready for the plunge.
ReplyDeleteBut politics is public service. At least that is what it is intended to be. So "ruling" dynasties become problematic.