DEMOCRATIC DYNASTIES
State, Party and Family in Contemporary Indian Politics
Kanchan Chandra (Ed)
Cambridge University Press
279 pages; Rs 495
On Monday, speaking at the birth anniversary celebrations of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, freedom fighter and India’s first home minister, Prime Minister Narendra Modi remembered him as a leader who did nothing for his family, and his family also did not take a “copyright” over him.
More From This Section
It can be safely assumed that Mr Modi’s swipe was aimed at the Nehru-Gandhi family. With Assembly elections in Uttar Pradesh imminent, the remark could hold true for the ruling Yadav clan of the Samajwadi Party, currently in the throes of a succession battle, though Mr Modi is unlikely to refer to the Badals of the Shiromani Akali Dal in Punjab, where his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is a junior partner.
Anti-dynastic politics was the leitmotif of anti-Congress unity among Opposition parties from the end of the 1960s to the 1990s. Jawaharlal Nehru’s former associates couldn’t accept the rise of his daughter Indira Gandhi to a position that many of them thought they deserved. Congress President Sonia Gandhi neutralised this anti-dynasticism by sacrificing the prime ministerial chair in 2004. However, with Congress Vice-President Rahul Gandhi as his party’s prime ministerial face, anti-dynasticism was revived during the 2014 Lok Sabha polls. Mr Modi would frequently refer to Rahul Gandhi as a “shehzaada”, the Urdu word for prince.
The fact is, dynasties are found in virtually all parties, regions and social groups: The Chavans of Nanded, Reddys of Kadapa, Yadavs of Saifai, Dhumals of Hamirpur, Gogois of Kaliabor, the Karunanidhi clan in Tamil Nadu, Sinhas of Hazaribagh and even in West Bengal, with Mamata Banerjee’s nephew Abhishek being primed as her successor.
It is conventional to decry political dynasties as the bane of our democracy. An important new book argues the opposite. Ms Chandra, a professor at New York University, and others, contend, with compelling data, that political dynasties have helped deepen democracy in India. Ms Chandra says political dynasties might be associated with illegitimate forms of exclusion, but “paradoxically, dynastic politics has also had an inclusive effect”. This anthology shows that democratic dynasties have provided for representation for members of social categories that do not find space through normal channels — women, Muslims, backward castes, Dalits and tribals. Of these, only Dalits and tribals have seats reserved for them.
Ms Chandra says the founders of Indian political dynasties “belong not to an old pre-democratic ruling class, but a new elite created through the democratic process. These dynasties, as the Yadavs of Uttar Pradesh and Chavans of Maharashtra exemplify, have several family members active in politics from the panchayat to national level and have strong local roots. Lloyd and Susanne Rudolph show how the princely rulers and jagirdars were ill prepared to learn the ropes of participatory democracy, but their courtiers, adept at managing competing interests, adapted well.
The anthology also contests the view that political dynasties are unique to India and that this has something to do with the strong family traditions of the country as opposed to the nuclear families of the West. There is enough data that shows the presence of dynasties, in one form or the other, in most democracies, including western democracies.
Weak inner-party democracy and the large returns associated with state offices are reasons widely recognised for encouraging the emergence of dynastic politics in India. But the book offers interesting subtexts. Francesca R Jensenius has argued that there is little difference between constituencies that elect dynastic and non-dynastic politicians but MPs from erstwhile royal families are more likely to be elected from constituencies that are rural, poorer and with fewer literate voters. Amrita Basu shows how dynastic politics has helped increase women representation in Indian politics.
While criticism of dynasties founded by Mulayam Singh Yadav and Bihar’s Lalu Prasad is common in the media, Ms Chandra has documented that “forward castes” are the larger beneficiaries of dynastic politics. In fact, she says, backward caste leaderships also favour forward castes in giving election tickets as they are unlikely to challenge them for control over the party.
However, as recent trends in Indian politics have shown, political parties with non-dynastic leaderships are not necessarily more democratic. The “supremo” model of leadership with no inner-party democracy has come to afflict parties with non-dynastic leaders such as Mamata Banerjee’s Trinamool Congress, Arvind Kejriwal-led Aam Aadmi Party, Nitish Kumar’s Janata Dal (United) and, most of all, the Modi-Amit Shah-run BJP.
Recent events also show how important settling the succession battle can be for political parties to survive. Last year, Rashtriya Janata Dal chief Lalu Prasad effected a smooth dynastic transition in his party by having two of his sons appointed ministers in the Nitish Kumar government. Dravida Munnetra Kazghagam chief M Karunanidhi wasted little time in anointing M K Stalin as his successor with his rival Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam chief J Jayalalithaa lying in hospital.
Ms Jayalalithaa, Bahujan Samaj Party chief Mayawati and Odisha Chief Minister and Biju Janata Dal chief Naveen Patnaik do not have known successors. No surprise, these are also areas where the BJP believes it has long-term prospects to consolidate its position.