Ram Guha is 5 years older than me. Perhaps, like me, he read Tintin comics and this shaped his understanding of the world around him. However, unlike me, he grew up wholly in India. Yet he hadn't noticed that Indian politics was highly dynastic. Political parties were hopelessly unstable- which is what you'd expect in a segmentary, mainly agricultural, society with intense rent contestation. The other point is that the barriers to entry for local caste based political parties were relatively low. Indeed, the activity was subsidized for vote splitting reasons. So there was monopolistic competition in the 'competitive fringe' even if there was a dominant firm. What failed to emerge was an entrenched duopoly though there were two coalitions- the UPA and the NDA dominated by Congress and the BJP respectively. But, whereas UPA is falling apart as Congress declines, the NDA is dissolving for the opposite reason. Nitish jumped ship because he feared being swallowed whole by the BJP. By doing so, Nitish may have revived a 'Janata Parivar' whose target will be, not Congress, but the 'Sangh Parivar'. Whatever the outcome, Indian politics has certainly become more interesting as a result.
But not for Guha who writes in Scroll-
Scholars both Indian and foreign have argued that the health of our democracy has deteriorated in recent years
Nonsense! It is obvious that dynasticism has decreased, as has coalition based instability, and thus democratic functioning has improved over the last decade.
. However, one aspect of India’s democratic decline has perhaps not got the attention it deserves. This is the collapse of the party system.
Parties began splitting in the Sixties. There was a whole alphabet soup of Congress parties and then Janata parties- not to mention various brands of Socialist or Marxist parties. The DMK in Tamil Nadu, itself originating in a split in Periyar's Dravidar Kazahagam, split again in 1972 with MGR claiming the mantle of Annadurai. This sort of factionalism did pose a threat to good governance by reason of greater instability and corruption which is why anti-defection laws were passed from 1985 onward to curb 'Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram' politics.
Indeed, in some ways, this is a more telling sign of how far Indian democracy has fallen than the attacks on press freedom, the suborning of independent institutions, the opacity of electoral funding and so on.
There has been no fall. The fact that Rahul is a mooncalf is what has caused Congress to decline. But Kejriwal has formed a new party which has already taken two States. Nature abhors a vacuum.
Consider, for instance, the recent induction by the Tamil Nadu chief minister of his son into his cabinet.
But his daddy was Chief Minister too!
Younger readers may see this as utterly normal,
just like older readers because that's how Indian politics has always worked. Useless people- like Jawaharlal, the briefless barrister- are encouraged by Daddy and Mummy join politics and if their kids are equally useless they too join politics. On the other hand, some capable people can get richer while also rising in politics. Their kids may choose to follow in their footsteps.
Naveen Patnaik is CM of Orissa just as his daddy was. YS Jagan Mohan Reddy is a CM like his father as is Hemant Soren. There is the Abdullah dynasty which is related by marriage to the Pilot dynasty. But Pilot has to contend with Gehlot who has dynastic ambitions. Over in West Bengal, Mamata is grooming her nephew. Just because a CM doesn't have kids doesn't mean that dynasticism is ruled out.
yet those with longer memories can only view it as antithetical to the founding ideals of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam.
which was 'Tambrams suck ass big time'. Guha is a case in point.
The DMK arose out of a popular movement that asserted Tamil identity in the face of the hegemonising impulses of the much more populous and, hence, more politically influential Hindi-speaking regions of India.
Nonsense! Hindi wallahs had zero interest in the deep south. The DMK was and is based on hating Tamil Brahmins. Stalin has no problem with addressing Rahul- a North Indian Brahmin- as 'Sir'.
While the autonomy of Tamil culture and the desire to cultivate self-respect
by getting very very rich
were the primary driving forces, the DMK also took a more progressive position on caste
they hate Brahmins but beat up Dalits
and gender
having lots of mistresses
than the then-northern dominated Congress Party did. Further, once in office from 1967 onwards, the DMK also sought to provide a more welfare-oriented administration than previous governments in the state had.
Actually, it was Kamaraj who started the school meals program and so forth. Then the silly fellow thought he should help Nehru centralize power. This meant Congress lost Tamil Nadu.
The DMK presented itself as a party of cultural pride and social reform.
Because presenting itself as corrupt and incompetent would not have won votes.
It was not meant to be a family firm.
This is true. Karunanidhi had no intention of passing power to his son. But this was only because the guy didn't want to die.
And it would perhaps never have become one had it not been for the premature death of its first chief minister, C. Annadurai.
If Annadurai hadn't died, Karunanidhi, not MGR, would have split the party.
Making the DMK a family party was the handiwork of his successor, M Karunanidhi. It was he who groomed his son, MK Stalin, as his successor, thus transforming the party of Tamil pride in a direction not anticipated by its founders.
This is foolish. Stalin had to fight off his siblings. Tamil politics is like Tamil cinema- highly competitive not to say brutally violent.
From father to son
The DMK is not the only major regional party to have followed this nepotistic route. The Shiromani Akali Dal has an even older lineage than the DMK. For many decades after its founding, its principal aim was to fight for, and defend, a robust Sikh identity. It was only under the leadership of Parkash Singh Badal that it became a family party.
Kairon's sons are also in politics- they just don't seem to be good at winning elections. Prakash Singh Badal was very successful but it doesn't seem likely that his son will ever get to be CM.
A similar path has been taken by other regional parties, such as the Shiv Sena and the Telangana Rashtra Samithi. Indeed, when Stalin inducted his son, Udhayanidhi, into his cabinet, he was surely encouraged by the precedents set by Uddhav Thackeray and K Chandrashekhar Rao, who had already made their own sons ministers in cabinets of which they were chief minister.
I think Stalin wants to combat the young lion, K.Annamalai, fielded by the BJP. Don't forget, Stalin is 70 years old- though he looks much younger.
Then we have North Indian parties like the Samajwadi Party, the Rashtirya Janata Dal and the Rashtriya Lok Dal, whose professed ideological commitment to “social justice” is deeply vitiated by the party leadership passing in all cases from father to son.
Nitish Kumar is the one exception. But this is also what makes him a lame duck.
It is my contention that none of the above may have happened if the oldest and most storied of Indian political parties had not, under Indira Gandhi’s leadership, become a family firm.
This is foolish. Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Singapore- all have dynasties. Why shouldn't India?
Indira's younger son- Sanjay- was an unemployable psychopath. The only way to keep him out of jail was to ensure he'd get to be Prime Minister. Sadly, the boy was too stupid not to crash his stunt plane and thus Rajiv had to step up to the plate to prevent the wicked Maneka inheriting power.
The Indian National Congress of today bears only the slightest resemblance to the party of the same name that played such a critical role in the freedom struggle.
by partitioning the country and presiding over massive ethnic cleansing of Muslims. In 1941, one third of Delhi's population was Muslim. In 1951, the figure was 5 percent.
The unbridgeable difference between the one and the other is captured in (among other things) the family history of the most popular leader of the original Congress. Mahatma Gandhi had four sons; all went to jail several times while protesting British rule;
one became a Muslim till 'shuddhified' by the Arya Samaj
none became members of Parliament, let alone ministers, in independent India.
Nor did their daddy. One or two of Gandhi's descendants have fought elections and lost miserably.
Gandhi’s youngest son, Devadas Gandhi, was asked by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru to enter formal politics; he refused, choosing to stay on in his job as a newspaper editor instead.
He worked for the Birlas. Had Birla told him to join politics, he would have had to listen.
In 1949, Nehru offered to send Devadas as India’s ambassador to the Soviet Union;
Nehru's sister had previously occupied the post.
the following year, Nehru invited Devadas to join the Union cabinet. Mahatma Gandhi’s son, mindful of the precedent it would set, declined each time.
The precedent it would set would be of doing something useful rather than writing bollocks. The Mahatma was against stooping so low. Sadly, one of Devdas's sons ignored this imaginary precedent and stood twice for Parliament, losing on both occasions. Another son stood for the Vice Presidency and lost.
That sort of scruple is now, alas, entirely absent in Indian politics,
Nonsense! Plenty of politicians have sons or daughters who prefer other professions.
and not just in the Congress Party. Indira Gandhi’s successive anointing of her sons, Sanjay and Rajiv, as her political heirs encouraged leaders of the DMK and the Akalis to promote their own children.
I suppose Bandarnaikes and Bhuttos also followed Indira's example because they were totes in love with Indira.
A generation later, the refusal by Sonia Gandhi to consider anyone other than her son, Rahul, as the pre-eminent leader of the Congress has given a further stimulus to the fostering of a dynastic culture in Indian politics.
Sonia was merely the regent for the Roi faineant. Congress's decline is because Rahul will neither appoint a CEO of his own nor step up to the plate by just reading out boring speeches and keeping his puerile 'vichardhara' to himself.
It is true that in India, many professions run in the family line. However, while a child adopting a parent’s trade can get early breaks, ultimately it is their own achievement that counts. Rohan Gavaskar became a cricketer because of his father, albeit a less successful one. Cheteshwar Pujara also became a cricketer because of his father, albeit a more successful one. Abhishek Bachchan certainly got some roles because of his father’s name, but hard as he tried, his fame never remotely equalled Amitabh’s.
This is irrelevant. The reason dynasticism prevails is because it uses an uncorrelated asymmetry (only one person can be the heir by primogeniture) to reduce rent-contestation. There is an institutional 'favor bank' such that politics is not a 'memoryless' game. Nothing similar arises in sports or the film industry.
Dynasticism in sport or cinema or law or literature reflects social entitlement.
No. It reflects early exposure to best practice. If you love your daddy and he teaches you cricket and he is an excellent cricketer, chances are you will be very good at that game. Entitlement to daddy's love is not 'social', it is biological.
However, dynasticism in politics is far worse, because it is a violation of the democratic principle itself,
more particularly if the heir is only one quarter Indian by blood.
and because it affects many more people.
Why not have anti nepotism law? Ban the kids of Cabinet ranked politicians from entering parliament. But this would be unconstitutional.
Moreover, in spheres outside politics, there is some degree of accountability. A lawyer less competent than her parent will get fewer briefs, a doctor less competent than his parent fewer patients. In politics, such accountability rarely exists.
Though we can clearly see that Rahul gets less votes than Rajiv and Uddhav is considered to be utterly useless.
When Stalin or Uddhav or KCR or Sonia induct their child in a party or government they head, it sends a signal to other members that – whatever their talents and attributes — they can never aspire to the top leadership themselves.
Sure they can. Look at Eknath Shinde. The trouble is that Shinde might soon face his own rebels. Rise by factionalism, fall by factionalism. Dynasticism was the antidote to endlessly splintering political parties.
The conversion of parties into family firms is one manifestation of democratic decline.
Not if they get the order of the boot and are replaced by new parties with first generation leaders.
Another is the subordination of parties to a single leader.
Which is what the Mahatma did to Congress. Govind Vallabh Pant described the old coot as the 'Il Duce and Fuherer of India'.
Exhibit A here is, of course, the Bharatiya Janata Party.
Fuck off! It is precisely because the BJP wasn't 'subordinated' to any leader that Modi and now Adityanath could rise. The big question is whether Adityanath can replace Modi by the end of the decade.
The BJP of the pre-Modi era was never captive to a personality cult in the manner that it has now become.
Because it kept losing.
The party then stoutly opposed “vyakti puja”, the worship of an individual, claiming that its collective leadership and inner-party democracy set it apart from the Congress of the authoritarian Indira Gandhi.
Whereas, what set it apart was being shit at running things.
A.B. Vajpayee did not dominate his cabinet
because he was completely senile. Brajesh Mishra ran things. His daddy had been a Chief Minister.
in the way that Narendra Modi does, while state chief ministers from the BJP never sought to speak in cravenly sycophantic terms of their prime minister as they now do.
Because Modi is good at his job. Vajpayee was a senile windbag.
Since May 2014, the vast resources of the Union government and of the ruling party have been devoted to the burnishing of the image of the prime minister, presenting him as a semi-divine being who carries in his person the past, present and future of the Indian nation and of Indian civilisation itself.
Modi is a Hindu. According to Hinduism, everybody is a semi-divine being- a partial incarnation- endowed with infinite spiritual potential.
The Modi cult
doesn't exist. The guy is just a smart CEO running a fairly tight ship.
I have previously written in these columns of the damage done to Indian democracy by the cult of Narendra Modi.
Indian democracy is constantly getting damaged. Dynasticism comes along and bashes in its face. Then some Cultic practice chops its legs off. Why not just put the thing is a bank vault where it will be safe?
Worryingly, it has begun to influence how other parties conduct their affairs. When the Aam Aadmi Party was founded, it attracted wide support for its stand against corruption and its apparent distancing from entitlement and privilege.
Which party was saying 'vote for us. We are for corruption and entitlement and privilege. Also we promise to damage Indian democracy with our dicks.'?
However, over the years, it has largely become a vehicle for the personal ambitions of Arvind Kejriwal.
as opposed to his impersonal ambition to get his moustache married into the British Royal family. I will admit to having a vested interest in bringing about this salutary outcom.
Other Aam Aadmi Party leaders defer to him in much the same manner as other BJP leaders defer to Modi.
Kejriwal expels those who try to fuck with him. In general, this is wholly salutary.
The Delhi government spends large sums of money promoting the Kejriwal cult, perhaps proportionately as much as the Union government does promoting the Modi cult.
The Guha cult, sadly, receives little support. Why won't people understand that instead of saying 'Jai Shri Ram' they should say 'Hey, wouldn't it be cool to worship Ram Guha so as to save Indian democracy from being damaged by the dicks of all and sundry? What's more, an undamaged Indian democracy will be able to arrange marriage of Kejriwal's moustache to King Charles III. This will be fitting revenge for Jallianwallah Bagh. Mind it kindly. Aiyayo!'
What? All Tambrams start babbling nonsense sooner or later. I'm only 5 years younger than Guha. True, he has a head start, but I'm catching up.
The idea that a single person can represent an entire party, an entire state, is also visible in the cult of Mamata Banerjee in West Bengal; and even to an extent in the cult of Pinarayi Vijayan in Kerala.
not to mention cult of Rishi Sunak in Westminster and cult of Pope in Popeland as Poland is properly called.
Congress is a cult because it sticks with Rahul no matter how badly the fucks up. BJP isn't a cult because it backs winners but drops them like a hot potato when they start losing elections.
Like the BJP, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) once prided itself on its inner-party democracy;
Hilarious! Stalin and Mao were always priding themselves on 'inner-party' democracy achieved by torturing and killing their colleagues.
that too, is now history, as the sacking of two of his best-performing ministers by Vijayan when the Left Front was re-elected in 2021 showed.
Vijayan's Muslim son-in-law might come in useful to displace Congress and make the CPM the default 'Secular' party.
The degradation of the Indian party system is more or less complete, with one set of political parties becoming family firms, and another set becoming quasi-religious cults exalting their leader as a living god.
While Indian democracy is being constantly damaged by the dicks of all and sundry.
The broader consequences of this depressing trend remain to be examined.
Canine sodomy. Ram Guha will be anally raped by street dogs. I remember reading the sequel to 'Tintin in Tibet', set in Tamil Nadu, where Snowy the dog becomes depressed due to damage to Indian democracy and joins a band of canines who make Tintin their bitch.
The political party is arguably the most important institution of modern society,
if by 'modern society' you mean Nazi Germany- then, sure.
on whose healthy functioning democracy itself vitally depends.
Nonsense! The healthy functioning of a system of government depends on its not doing stupid shit. That's all that matters. Do stupid shit and you go down the toilet. Don't do stupid shit and you live to fight another day.
If parties themselves operate in a culture of deference and obedience,
they will operate at a higher level than if they choose a culture of biting each other's face off while wanking furiously.
if they mandate family-worship or hero-worship, what does this signify for the wider political culture?
Nothing at all. If politicians do smart things then all is well. If they do stupid shite, it doesn't matter who or what they are or aren't worshipping.
If a leader wants only praise from his party colleagues,
he is sensible. If your one goal in life is to have your colleagues keep telling you you smell bad and are shit at your job and should simply fuck off and die, then, it is likely, you won't ever get to hold down any sort of job.
would he ever be inclined to promote a free press?
Either the press is free or it isn't. What leaders promote or don't promote can change nothing in this respect. There was a time when Mao promoted a free press. It was a lure to get his opponents to reveal themselves. They were killed and such flowers as had been foolish enough to bloom were chopped down.
If a leader demands unquestioning loyalty from party members, why would he, when in power, not then demand unquestioning support for his mala fide acts of policy from the bureaucracy, the police, the media, or the judiciary?
Because he'd be killed or incarcerated or chased away. Anyone is welcome to set up a group where obedience is obligatory though membership is voluntary. But if you gain power in a country under the rule of law, then any mala fide action would be punishable even if you demand that it shouldn't be. That's how the world works. Sadly nobody explained all this to Ram Guha. Like Tintin in Tamil Nadu, he is now being sodomized by street dogs. The Huccha Venkat of Indian Historiography has finally got his comeuppance. But only because all you stupid Hindus are constantly damaging Indian democracy with your dicks. Mind it kindly. Aiyayo.
No comments:
Post a Comment