South Asia’s propensity to spawn dynasties is bewildering and is proof of the persistence of our feudal mindset
From the time
Rahul Gandhi was appointed the vice-president of the Congress, the media have accused him of perpetuating dynastic rule.
No doubt, dynasty is antithetical to democratic politics. Yet, it is also true that dynastic succession is the norm outside India as well. Its pervasiveness explains why people dismiss the hypocritical media outcry against dynastic succession to routinely vote pater familias to power.
One of the most vocal critics of dynastic succession and the Gandhis are two Indian media stalwarts who are guilty of what they rail against. One of them is considered the diadem of Indian journalism: he became an editor at a young age, launched a classy newspaper, joined the Congress briefly, returned to journalism, and now heads a weekly newspaper in which his son is an associate editor. The other acquired from a generous industrialist, now deceased, a newspaper more than a century old. His son is now the newspaper’s managing editor.
It is true political parties have a different role than newspapers. It is also possible the children of these two luminaries are prodigiously talented. It is conceivable their fathers saw in them qualities they couldn’t in others who could fill their posts. Such arguments echo precisely the ones the Congressmen mouth: that Rahul Gandhi is astonishingly talented.
The two illustrious editors run private operations and enjoy an unassailable right to choose who oversees them. Nevertheless, for many in the profession, it could well appear as examples of powerful fathers subverting meritocracy, given their role in generously granting designations to their children. Might it not have been better for them to have designations which did not vouch for their journalistic excellence and which did not indicate to others that there is ‘space for eminence’ in the two organisations, “but none for pre-eminence”? (The words in quotes belong to one of the two who used it to criticise the appointment of Rahul Gandhi as the vice-president of the Congress.) To what extent is the ethos of the two media organisations any different from that of the Congress whose members claim they are entitled to run their party as they desire?
Dynastic succession dominates religion as well. As you enter through the imposing gates of Delhi’s historic Jama Masjid, a board lists the descendents of the Bukhari family that have been Imams for 13 generations, beginning 1656. Forgotten is the fact that a hereditary imam is in gross violation of Islam.
Similarly, many temples of India have the tradition of hereditary priests, usually Brahmins. In 2006, the Tamil Nadu government of M Karunanidhi issued an order abrogating the unwritten principle of familial succession to priesthood which was also opened to non-Brahmin castes. The irony is that Karunanidhi has publicly declared that son MK Stalin will succeed him as the party leader.
Or take the scions of illustrious business families. Irrespective of their skills or talents, children often inherit companies their fathers or grandfathers established and in which ordinary shareholders are today heavily invested. You can’t readily think of a businessman, owning a substantial share in an Indian corporation, who voluntarily chose to overlook his or her children at the time of passing the baton.
At least, unlike editor-owners, priests, and businessmen, the great political families of India can claim that they have to at least periodically pass the electoral test to acquire power. It is an argument Bollywood too could cite to justify the domination of a few families over two and three generations. Though children from these families don’t have to struggle for a foothold in the industry, the longevity of their career depends on their ability to satisfy the audience.
Nevertheless, the presence of Bollywood dynasties, as is true of all dynasties in every field, concentrates power in a few and stifles competition. Even in classical music practitioners complain about the debilitating impact ordinary children of extraordinary parents have had on the talented.
South Asia’s propensity to spawn dynasties is bewildering and is proof of the persistence of our feudal mindset. It is still intact due to socio-economic inequalities and the inherited ethos of the caste system that ensures a patron-client (or raja-praja) relationship thrives in its modern avatars.
It is by bridging inequalities that we can end dynasties, not by criticising the Gandhis, Bhuttos, Sharifs, Koiralas, Zias, and Hasinas. We are as guilty as they are.
[email protected]