Rahul Gandhi Shouts: Democracy Zindabad! Dynasty Bahut Zindabad!

Congress Vice President Rahul Gandhi finally spoke on dynasty practised in the Congress Party. He was asked about it when he addressed a meeting of students at the University of California, Berkeley, and so he let out his thoughts - by simply ducking the issue. He pleaded, "That's how India runs! You have Akhilesh Yadav in UP, M K Stalin in Tamil Nadu and Anurag Thakur in Himachal Pradesh. So don't get after me!"  

Rahul Gandhi mirrors the mindset of a ticketless traveller caught on an Indian train, who would ruefully reflect, "Hundreds of train passengers don't buy tickets. That's how India mostly travels. Why catch only me?"

Rahul Gandhi may believe he had answered criticism against the Congress Party, his mother and current party president Sonia Gandhi and also him - that they are undemocratic in thrusting him all along as the future party chief and candidate for prime minister, blocking the growth of other equal or superior talent within the Congress. He does not convince.

Is it true that India cherishes dynasty in politics and government? No. Dynasty prevails in those spheres in major parts of India, and Indians quietly get along with it, because the bulk of the country's self-serving political class has kept India's average citizen in a state of financial deprivation and psychological beggary for the past fifty years. And beggars can't be choosers. They just look for protection and sustenance. They will salute whoever seems, in their judgement, offering it more.

Look at two successful democracies, UK and the USA. Margaret Thatcher was UK's prime minister of immense repute for 11 continuous years until 1990. Her twins, Mark and Carol, were 37 that year and both have been off politics for all time. Neither the Conservative Party nor the British public, and not Thatcher too, would have favoured Mark or Carol becoming an MP and later prime minister merely on progeny value.

When US President John F Kennedy was assassinated in 1963 his popular First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy and their two children, Caroline and John Jr, evoked great sympathy across the country. But Jacqueline Kennedy did not become, and was not projected as candidate for, the US President anytime later. True, George Bush Jr was elected President 8 years after his father, George Bush Sr, completed his term in that office, both coming from the Republican Party.  Recently, Democrat and former First Lady Hillary Clinton was nominated for the Presidency though she lost the election. But there was no doubt they rose on their own merit. If you ask either of them about 'dynasty' in their parties, they will stoutly defend their individual merit on the political turf and not say  – each pointing at the other – "That's how the US runs!".

We know that democracy evolved as an alternative to absolute monarchy.  Dynasty is a core aspect of monarchy, and when a country shifts to democracy it should shun dynasty too. Else it is a half-baked democracy, with the rulers taking citizens for granted.

True democracy and monarchical dynasty do not go together. In an absolute monarchy, the king sees his son, and perhaps daughter if he has no son, as the unchallenged successor to his empire, and his fatherly instincts take comfort from that certainty. Naturally he will not mind members of his family circle and other ministerial officers – on whom he relies for managing the kingdom - bringing their close relatives or known people to positions in state service. So dynasty that begins at the top of a pyramid spreads down.

The twin brother of dynasty is sycophancy. Together, they shove aside merit and stunt growth all around. Of course, in a dynastic setting there could be very intelligent sycophants too, who thrive fast and last long keeping their rivals in check. Don’t you see the results of the Congress Party playing dynasty and sycophancy?  And being the party in government for long years at the Centre, the Congress would have caused more dynastic damage than other parties.

The Congress Party did not practise dynasty in the years before independence and for many years after India became free. Rather, its leaders were known for their devotion to, and sacrifice for, their motherland. After India attained freedom, Mahatma Gandhi did not take office as the country’s Prime Minister, nor did he push any of his four sons into any seat of power in free India. We scarcely remember the names of Mahatma Gandhi’s children.

Jawaharlal Nehru was a darling prime minister of India for 17 continuous years till he died in 1964, but in those years he did not bring his daughter Indira Gandhi, his only child, into his cabinet. She was elected president of the Congress for just one year in 1959, and that was her brief stint in the party hierarchy during Nehru's time. When he was alive, she was not even an MLA or an MP. When he passed away, Indira Gandhi was 47. But the Congress Party installed Lal Bahadur Shastri, and not Indira Gandhi, as prime minister to succeed Nehru, though she was taken into Shastri’s cabinet. Two years later, when Shastri unexpectedly passed away in 1966 she became prime minister. 

Dynastic tendencies began to seep into the Congress Party during the Indira Gandhi years, growing further as she stayed in power, and they remain strong and well-nurtured at present. Who then will defend, in self-pardoning fashion, dynasty in Congress and say “That's how India runs”?  Only a dynast-in-waiting like Rahul Gandhi who is also the party’s vice president. His mother, Sonia Gandhi, has been the president of the party till date for 20 long years since 1998, like no one ever before.  You could say now: “That's how Congress runs!”.

You know what Rahul Gandhi said to overseas Indians last week at a New York meeting, on the final leg of his speaking tour. He recalled that Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Sardar Patel and B. R. Ambedkar had gone abroad and returned to India to work and transform India. Then he concluded, “I want to invite you to work with the Congress to discuss our vision for going forward. We want to take your help." Will Rahul Gandhi's New York appeal touch the hearts of listeners? Those Non-Resident Indians might wonder, "Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru, Azad and Patel were distinguished Congressmen and were also presidents of the party. Ambedkar was an architect of the Indian Constitution. They had all helped transform India but had not favoured dynasty within the Congress. Why should Rahul Gandhi cite those illustrious men and cherish dynasty in the same breath? Isn't it conflicting?" 
 

Oddly, or rather fittingly, we may remember a statement of Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan. As the country's Chief of Army Staff, he toppled the elected civilian government of Nawaz Sharif in 1999 in a military coup. Now retired, Musharraf recently praised the stern upper hand wielded by Pakistan’s military in running the country. He said last month, “Military rule has always brought the country back on track, whereas civilian governments have always derailed it. Dictators set the country right, whereas civilian governments brought it to ruins. The people come running to the army to be saved.”  He could have defended Pakistan’s military dictatorship, enforced sometimes subtly and sometimes brazenly, in just four words, “That's how Pakistan runs!”. He knows that the poor ordinary Pakistani people will not object to his assessment.

* * * * *

Copyright © R. Veera Raghavan 2017