In case you've forgotten, here's the answer: Sonia Gandhi. And her only claim to the job? Need I remind of you that as well?
So well may Rabri Yadav ask: if it's all right for Sonia Gandhi, why is it not all right for me? What's she got that I haven't?
"Ah," you may lecture her, "the circumstances were different then. But your husband is being pursued by the law and has nominated you merely as a proxy who can protect his interests."
To which she could ask: a proxy is a proxy, so why not the best that is available, at least from the nominator's point of view?
"Well," you may say, covering up your discomfiture, "Sonia at least is educated."
But then, as the RJD minister in the Union government, Captain Nishad, pointed out on Star News on July 25, since when has education become a constitutional requirement for becoming a chief minister?
To which Laloo Prasad Yadav may add with a lot of justification that if a pilot with no particular experience of administration and little formal education could become prime minister, why can't his wife (who will have the benefit of his guidance) become a mere chief minister?
As a final attempt at defending your position, you will say that she isn't a member of the legislature. Upon which you will be reminded: was Narasimha Rao one when he became prime minister?
So try as you will, you can't find a convincing riposte to what Laloo has done. He has acted within the ambit of legal and constitutional provisions. Indeed, he has also followed precedent. Game and two sets to Laloo. If dynastic affiliation, expedience and cynicism are going to be raised to the level of infallible principles, Rabriji's right to be elected as chief minister cannot be disputed. The reason is simple: you can't apply one set of rules to the Laloo dynasty and another to the Gandhi one. What's sauce for Sonia etc must remain sauce for Rabri too.
Besides, there's another uncomfortable truth: it was Congress president Sitaram Kesri who gave Laloo the idea of appointing a proxy. Why then blame Laloo for appointing a proxy of his choice? Surely, he can have that much leeway.
Bewildered? Bemused? Annoyed? Frustrated? All four?
The problem, when you come to think of it, is not with the geese but with the sauce. It has been prepared over the last 30 years, starting with Jawaharlal Nehru who began to groom his daughter for the top job from the mid-1950s onwards.
Indira Gandhi refined that sauce into a fine and powerful potion which Congressmen legitimised by lapping up like Popeye swallowing spinach. And today, it is this legitimisation which has led to the subterfuge of appointing wives and widows as perfectly acceptable successors or surrogates.
Which is why, after MGR, Janaki Ramachandran became chief minister in Tamil Nadu (as did Madame Jayalalitha, her rival). The same thing would have happened in Andhra Pradesh except that, in what really amounts to the same thing, it was the son-in-law who ran away with the prize. And in Kashmir, we have Faroukh Abdullah, s/o Sheikh Abdullah, founder of the National Conference and, in some ways, the MGR of the Valley.
If you think a little more about it, you will find that this happens only in parties which owe their existence to one individual -- Indira Gandhi, MGR, NTR and now Laloo. Parties like the BJP and the CPM, which have a different culture and a different raison d'etre, don't face this particular problem.
It has been argued from this that this only reflects the need for totems in our still politically backward society. The political system is unable to function without a totem around which everyone can dance.
But on the opposite side, it has been argued that this is nonsense because it happens only when there is an ideological vacuum. That is why, it is said, the CPM and the BJP don't face this problem. They both have very strong ideologies to offer.
So which is preferable? Ideologies which are as flawed as the ones on offer from the BJP and the CPM or equally flawed totems? What about a party, like the Shiv Sena, which combines both -- a flawed ideology and a totem principle.
The optimistic argument, of course, is that come the elections and the flawed ones are invariably thrown out -- Janaki Ramachandran, Rajiv Gandhi, Laxmi Parvathi, Faroukh Abdullah, Jayalalitha etc.
Well, yes, there's that of course. But what happens in the meantime, when politicians, secure for the time being, flout simple norms of decency and propriety? After all, the sort of disregard which Laloo has shown has been shown by Indira Gandhi, MGR, NTR, Jayalalitha, Faroukh et all too when it suited them.
This, to my mind, is the real issue. You can have all sorts of legal and
constitutional defences bolstered by precedent but, in the end, if your politicians are scum, nothing can help you. Which suggests that India's problem is not its politics but its politicians.
