Irritated by my persistent comparison of present-day political happenings with what had gone on after Aurangzeb died in 1707, a friend of mine had this to say. They fought for succession like barbarians, using brute force, even blinding rivals. We are not doing that, are we? We have institutions to protect us.
True enough. Nevertheless, try as one will, it is hard to feel very sanguine. The politicians, on whom it all depends, show little signs of coming to their senses and a 21st century version of warlordism could be just round the corner. The regional party chieftains have already begun to maintain private armies.
The other parallels with early 18th century are also very striking. Thus, for five years after 1707 when Aurangzebs son ruled, there was a facade of political stability. But, more importantly, this was also the period when rival forces were gathering strength in hopeful anticipation, either to break free of Delhis yoke or to have a stab sometimes literally at power there. This is comparable with the five years after 1991, when Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated.
More From This Section
Then followed a five-year period of deep political instability during which various charlatans took turns at the throne. This is the period through which we now seem to be passing. In those days, like now, legitimacy was not the issue. All that a pretender needed was the support of a handful of nobles, often armed to their teeth. These days, the arms have gone but a handful still determine who will rule. Legitimacy, of course, is not an issue at all, which is the main point.
In 1718, Muhammad Shah Rangila took over and ruled until 1738 by essentially abdicating central authority and responsibility. Everyone knows what happened as a result. In a nutshell, respect for central authority broke down completely and the Mughal state became hopelessly enfeebled. Indeed, it never recovered, although its final disposal took place only 120 years later.
Muhammad Shahs period was also the period during which the East India Company and its French counterpart developed political ambitions. They began fighting for control from the mid-1740s and the struggle lasted two decades, with the British emerging decisively victorious.
Obviously, history never repeats itself exactly. Also, it is learnedly witty to say that it repeats itself only as a farce or as a tragedy. But the fact remains that, regardless of whether it is one or the other, the consequences of such a breakdown of central authority because the central power lacks legitimacy are the same.
This is the lesson which our political establishment has not learnt from history. You can have all the trappings of power like Deve Gowda has. But if you lack legitimacy, like Deve Gowda and his United Front do, not only will you be treated with contempt (as Mr Kesri showed) but you will also destroy the peoples faith in central authority.
This has happened on three occasions after 1947 once when Charan Singh was prime minister, once when Chandra Shekhar was prime minister and now. On the previous two occasions, the Congress party was there to restore legitimacy. Now the Congress too is disintegrating.
And, pray, who does that leave? The BJP. Have no doubts, it will come to power soon enough. The only thing then would be to see if it emulates the reign of Mohammad Shah Rangila or not.
I would like to think that it will not. But that could be wishful thinking, as Shankersinh Vaghela has just reminded us.