Ishaan Nag – My diary of the human society.

In India, there is a much despised yet enduringly popular style of politics: the family. It started with the Nehru-Gandhi family at the helm of the nation, with the first , fourth, seventh and eighth prime ministers from the same family (the father-daughter-grandson trio of JN Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi, not to be confused with the Mahatma, respectively). Moreover, the current boogeyman of the governing BJP, a bitter rival of the Gandhi INC, is Rahul Gandhi,  a very visible INC leader, often portrayed as a potential INC prime ministerial candidate with his mother Sonia Gandhi reportedly having pulled the major shots of the Manmohan Singh administration of the last INC leadership of the nation. Yet, with their rivals bitterly denouncing the party as elitist and dynastic (by all means, valid criticism), their electorate often fail to take into account the deep rooted dynasticism in their own ranks and file. A few of the many offshoots of the Gandhi family itself are part of BJP, members of parliament representing very sought after constituencies. Other opponents of BJP, such as powerful parties governing the states, such as the TMC and the BRS have their own dynasties of the Banerjees and Raos respectively.

This trend is not restricted to India by any means. The Kennedys of the USA, the Kim family of North Korea, the absolute monarchies of the world, the Bhutto-Zardaris and Sharifs of Pakistan are just a few examples.

In a highly socially stratified nation such as mine, to the point where the social fabric is stretched to its limits, dynasty politics makes a lot of sense. They are usually representative of a prevalent caste or creed, are tried and tested candidates of a rigid clan, and in a highly populated nation where cult personality status is attached to the extent of worshipping even actors, voting for a specific dynasty often becomes an unconscious choice, even ritual. Nor is dynasty politics inherently grim. Merit or the grit required for leadership may lie in succession in a specific family, such as the Bush presidents of post Cold War USA. Yet there is, of course, no such correlation and is usually the result of pure coincidence. Competence is displayed not because of dynasty politics, but in spite of it.

One may argue that this kind of politics has its advantages. A political dynasty, with deep rooted trust among the public in democracies, or a long history of governing in dictatorships, have with them associated a certain sense of safety, if safety were to be interpreted as the blissful resistance to change. Also, one might even say that in some cases, they give rise to communal unity, though with exceptions as well. This is comparable to the comparative communal harmony in the now famously conflicted Balkan areas of the Iron Curtain era, when ethnic identity was trumped by ideological identity, uniting all through an ideological allegiance to the Soviet Union and common fear of capitalist encirclement. A strong, popular allegiance  to a dynasty helps suppress communal tensions, as the dynasty rule may serve as an almost dictatorial adhesive, forcing all to stick together and demand their loyalty, be it a willful cult-of-personality appreciation or an autocracy.

Yet, there is no mutual correlation between family rule and communal harmony, but merely an imposed will of an autocratic family rule, be it through the absolute control of governments or the minds of the people, especially in democracies.

A democracy was made precisely to give way to the free will of the people, emphasis on free. It was made to replace hereditary serfdoms. It was made to uproot corporations and family businesses and instead, replace them with legitimate states, which are run through statesmanship instead of reckless impunity, with family members as the thieves, police and judiciary. Yet its scorn is all bark and no bite, as family politics continues to thrive just as ever.

In India, at the very least, a barrage of anti-dynast rhetoric has made the phrase of family politics very, very dirty. Yet, if we were to take a look at the erstwhile Maratha rulers of Gwalior, the Scindia dynasty continues to be  a royal dynasty even to this day. Post independence weakening of princely states have moved them to adapt to democratic politics, and adapt they sure did. With Jiwajirao Scindia and Madhavrao Scindia being very senior and powerful functionaries of the INC and Janata party in their long political careers, and the matriarch Rajmata Scindia even exerting her political influence to topple the government of the former CM of the state of Madhya Pradesh DP Mishra, they are still dynasties true to their name. Jyotiraditya Scindia, a very powerful former INC leader of Madhya Pradesh, similarly toppled the slim majority government of the INC leader Kamal Nath in MP, bringing along with him a wave of defections into the BJP. BJP’s anti-dynastic punishment took on the appearance of vesting in him the responsibility to head a union cabinet ministry.

In Tamil Nadu, the DMK and AIADMK have ruled the states for most of its modern history. The current governing DMK’s original patriarch was the madly popular film star M.Karunanidhi while his son, M.K. Stalin heads the state. The list is endless, with the Patnaiks of Odisha, the Thackerays of Maharashtra who are still viewed by many voters as the original Shiv Sena, the Naidus and Reddys of Andhra Pradesh, and of course, Vasundhara Raje Scindia, the BJP matriarch and former CM of the state of Rajasthan.

Although some of the states mentioned are not aligned with the BJP brand and its firebrand preaching against dynasty politics, in many of those states which are, dynasties rule supreme. Why, it rules supreme even in the Centre!

The problem, if one may ask, is our structure. Everything looks good on paper. Most laws look good on paper, most stipulations and principles look ideal in the Constitution printed, and most promises look utopian in  manifestos. Why is, then, India an electoral autocracy? Why are there, then, so many cases of mob lynching, travesties of justice, and if so delivered, why so many criminals escaping head held high and scot free?

It’s the tragedy of the commons. The mass does not want to change but complain, no matter how clichéd it may sound. We despise nepotism and are more boycott-happy than ever before, but we still pour big bucks into mediocre movies by a film star by virtue of the last name. We still pour so many fingers on the ballot, by virtue of the surname. We now despise family politics, as long as it isn’t the party of our choices. We still despise corruption and bribery, but don’t bat an eyelid in slipping a few bucks into the chest pocket of the traffic cop to let us escape. Me and you and he and she and they may want to change and surely would change if everyone did, but together, we are all bark but no bite.