Motilal Nehru was a successful barrister. He sent his only son to England so he too could become a successful barrister. Sadly the lad had no interest in the law. However, he accepted an arranged marriage and became the father of a daughter in 1917. Motilal political career began under Annie Besant's Home Rule league at around that time. When Besant was arrested, Nehru, as Secretary of the League, participated in the protests which got her released a couple of months later. In February of 1919, Motilal Nehru set up a newspaper called 'the Independent'. Its editor, Syed Hosain- an aristocratic Bengali Muslim related by marriage to Fazl ul Haq & Suhrawardy- eloped with Motilal's 19 year old daughter, Vijaylaxmi. Mahatma Gandhi came to the rescue of the family. He sent Hosain away and found a suitable Brahmin boy for Vijaylaxmi to marry. The Nehrus now owed Gandhi big time. Motilal was the first President of the new Gandhi dominated Congress. His motivation was to build up political capital which his son could inherit. Since the son put in a lot off jail-time and was a Hindi speaking Brahmin, it made sense for Gandhi to anoint him as his successor.
Jawaharlal did not have a son, merely a daughter who was made PM two years after her father's death because that seemed the only way to keep Morarji Desai, whom everybody hated, out of the top job. Like Motilal, Indira had a useless unemployable son named Sanjay. He wanted power. But he did not have the patience to rise up through the ranks. Thus his Mummy had to move in an autocratic direction so that he and his chums could have the reality of power without the tiresome necessity of sitting in Parliament or attending Cabinet meetings. Thus Indira's previous style of functioning- as a Socialist supported by 'Young Turk' plebians from the Provinces- changed to that of a Mummy indulging a headstrong son who disliked Socialism and felt nothing but contempt for the average Indian politician.
The problem with empowering Sanju was that he or his chums might decide to bump off Mummy in the belief that they could retain power. Thus Mummy was obliged to call elections and spend a bit of time in the political wilderness till the utter shittiness of Morarji, as PM, caused the opposition coalition to crumble.
It should be mentioned that other politicians had sons. Morarji had Kanti- who was considered corrupt and appears to have been involved in foreign arms deals- Jagjivan had Suresh- brought down by a sex scandal publicized by Maneka Gandhi. Charan's son- Ajith- was the best of the crop. He was working for IBM in America rather than enriching himself by brokering shady deals. What made the Nehru Dynasty special was that the incumbent would take risks and make sacrifices for the sake of the heir- provided that heir was male. No doubt this was galling for daughters or cousins. But, it went down well with the Indian public. What was odd was that while Sanjay was alive, primogeniture was not observed. Indeed, if Sanjay had been employable- perhaps as a pilot like his brother- there may be no Dynasty. It would simply be the case that Indira was brought in to keep Morarji out and that she remained so as to enable an equally shite cohort of Leftist 'Young Turks' to take power from the old men in Congress.
In 1978, Vijaylaxmi's daughter, Nayantara- who somehow managed to avoid marrying a Muslim- wrote
The essence of Indian politics before her (Indira’s) time had been diversity of opinion, institutes and channels for its expression,
No. After 1947, the Muslim voice was silenced. The RSS was banned, though this was later reversed. Then it was the turn of the Princes and Zamindars. The Gandhians, following the example of Bhave and then JP, wandered off into the rural hinterland. In 1955, Nehru had imposed Socialism on the Congress party. Opinions didn't matter. Consumer Sovereignty was gone. Instead you had the Planning Commission. Indira herself took the party further to the Left. She allied with the Soviet Union and put Socialism and Secularism into the constitution.
and a wholehearted acceptance of the nurture of these diverse strands as essential to the democratic faith and system (…).
in other words, the essence of Indian politics was everybody talking ignorant bollocks. Meanwhile, Radio & TV was State owned and as boring as shite.
With Mrs. Gandhi, this atmosphere, along with the political structures it involved, the climate of debate and dissent it had encouraged (…) began to be eroded.
Where? Within the party? Mahatma Gandhi had got rid of any dissent long ago. To this day, to be a member of the Congress Party you have to profess to be a 'habitual spinner of khadi'.
A simple formula of for-and-against, either-or replaced it.”
I suppose, Nayantara means the Emergency- a period during which journalists were afraid they might be carted off to jail. But, newspapers had nothing interesting to say about anything. Neither did academics. From time to time some foreigner would publish a book on India which offended our amour propre. Why hadn't the thing been banned? Come to think of it, why haven't all books been banned? Would that be too much to ask?
Mrs Gandhi's great service to India was to make its politics even more boring and stupid than her father had done. In this, she was the Mahatma's spiritual daughter. But, it was Vijaylaxmi's eloping with a Muslim which had brought the Nehrus under the wing of the Maha-crackpot. It was Gandhi who designated Jawaharlal as his successor. Why? He believed that sooner or later Nehru would see India as he himself saw it- viz. a vast gaping shithole where the best anyone could do was give up sex and eating nice things and pretending to care about governance or poverty alleviation or defending the country.
Nayantara published a book in 1978 titled 'Indira Gandhi's Emergence & Style'. Achin Vanaik reviewed it thus-
As another addition to the spate of publications on Indira Gandhi and Emergency, this book does not provide any fresh insights into either the personality of the former Prime Minister or on the economic/political developments which led to centralization of the state in the form of Emergency.
Sanjay had returned to India in 1969. The hope was that he would start a car company. This was set up in 1971. If that had kept him busy, Indira could have got on with her job. Sadly, the boy was useless. He decided that it would be easier to take over the country rather than bother with producing a car. Mummy wanted to indulge sonny boy. Hadn't Motilal made sacrifices for his sonny boy? Anyway, Indira had a big majority and had won a war. She could do what she liked and her courtiers and Cabinet colleagues would have to grin and bear it.
It must be said, having a dynastic heir means that your Cabinet colleagues have less incentive to stab you in the back. There is no way they will get the top job and hence they might as well keep themselves occupied with their Ministries.
Unfortunately, but not surprisingly the personality of Indira Gandhi overrides all other considerations.
It was Sanju's personality which mattered. Indira was a doting mother. The elder boy was married and enjoyed his job as an airline pilot. Maybe the younger would do well in the family business. What mattered was that any alternative to 'Madam' within her own party would be bitterly opposed by a colleague. Thus it was a case of 'better the devil you know'. Otherwise Congress would go on splitting. Nobody would be concerned with running the country because their priority would be to stab each other in the back before themselves getting stabbed.
As the author puts it, ‘we were moving inexorably towards an authoritarian order …. because of the …. needs of her own nature which had little to do with the reason and rhyme of the Indian situation.’
The only way Sanjay could exercise power is if dynastic autocracy entrenched itself. This is what happened. Sanju's personality was the deciding factor.
In the first two chapters, Mrs. Sahgal describes the childhood, education and the family traditions of Indira Gandhi,
that tradition was to indulge the unemployable son by building him up as a politician. The Brits were kind enough to send Jawaharlal to jail from time to time. That kept him occupied. At least he didn't keep eloping with Muslims like Vijaylaxmi.
which according to her, provided every opportunity for training in democratic ideals.
i.e. ensuring your unemployable son can inherit your political position.
However, unfortunately for India and for the Nehru family ties, the temperament of Nehru’s daughter clashed with this inheritance.
No. She did what Motilal did. He was President of Congress and ensured his son would gain the same position. She did the same thing- though sadly the younger died and so it was the hapless elder son who replaced her as PM. This is the inheritance Sonia preserved for Rahul.
As a member of decision-making bodies of the National Congress, such as the Congress Working Committee and the Central Parliamentary Board, Indira Gandhi had during her father’s time gained political experience.
She did not have a penis. Her father didn't greatly care for her. Still, at least she hadn't eloped with a Muslim.
But she was never exposed to the process leading up to these decision-making posts—she had not faced an electorate until 1967—long after becoming Prime Minister.
Thirteen or fourteen months after becoming PM. Previously, she had been in the upper house. This suggests that 'parliamentary norms' had already been dispensed with. In other words, she had been put in to keep Morarji out and because of who her daddy was. But daddy was his own daddy's sonny boy. The tradition here was that of dynastic succession.
The emergence of Indira Gandhi in 1967-69 shows up her political style and behaviour which the author repeatedly contrasts with those of Nehru.
Her 'style' was irrelevant. She was PM because Daddy had been PM. The problem was she had a son who might draw the conclusion that killing Mummy is the way to get the top job.
But vital points are missed. The emergence (after 1967) of opposition rule based on electoral alliances in several states and the erosion of the domination of the Congress took place within the context of
it being shit.
a severe recession and growing political instability. The large-scale middle class discontent took the form of communal riots in Bihar, UP, Andhra and Maharashtra.
There was also a rise of far-left violence.
The ideological foundations of the Congress steadily declined in this period.
Planning came under intense criticism. The target for the Third Five year plan had been over five percent growth. The outcome was half that. There had been devaluation and a reduction in tariffs which was felt to be humiliating and which might choke off 'rent-seeking'. Something had to give. Indira, like Mrs. Bandarnaike, lurched to the left and broke with the Old Guard. She presided over a minority government with support from the DMK and the Left. Then she won a big majority in the elections. Her gamble had paid off.
The Party needed a popular mandate
Indira provided this with Bank Nationalization, ending privy purses etc. By then she could rely on the 'Kashmiri Mafia' in the administration. But this also meant Sanju could demand more and more immediate power and influence.
and consent to regain its former dominance. President’s rule was merely a constitutional device, a form of domination without consent during fluctuations in parliamentary alliances. For the Congress, including the old guard, the question of revival of the Party was supreme.
The Kamaraj plan had already killed it off. It increased the power of the PMO. Kamaraj came to be seen as the 'king-maker' who raised Shastri & then Indira to the throne. But 'king-making' is fatal to Democracy.
But there was a crisis of leadership. Politically it took the form of the struggle between Indira Gandhi (the ‘Left’) and the old guard (the ‘Syndicate’).
Morarji had lost badly in 1966 to Indira. He was already 70 and people thought his career was over. But he remained as truculent as ever in Cabinet. A parting of the ways was inevitable.
As Mrs. Sahgal admits, ‘ideas and issues were fogged by political theatre.’ There were very few differences in the economic policies of the two sides.
They were sizable enough for Indira to gain support from Left wing parties and the DMK. Kamaraj's foolishness had destroyed Congress hegemony in Tamil Nadu. He should have remained CM in Madras. He was a good administrator.
For the old guard who dominated the Congress Working Committee the question was control of the Government.
Was it though? Their concerns seemed petty. Keeping out Morarji was the priority purely because of the personal antagonism he generated by his prickly personality.
For Indira Gandhi it was the question of her individual leadership. This was reflected in the Presidential election.
Which didn't matter in the slightest. The real issue was whether Morarji & Gadgil would decide economic policy.
The Congress defeats in the 1967 elections revealed the
rise of other parties. Elections are competitive.
loss of its social base among the rural and urban petit-bourgeoisie.
meaningless Marxian jibber-jabber.
For Indira Gandhi and the Congress the organization problem had to be solved before the 1971 general elections. Having failed to get her candidate selected for the Presidential post, Indira Gandhi introduced her programme ‘jotted down in a hurry, in about one and a half hours’—proposing a ban on the entry of big capital into consumer industries, a licensing policy to curb the growth of big capital, nationalization of banks etc.
In other words, she was reversing the 'reforms' which the IMF had forced on India.
Most members of the Old Guard welcomed it except Morarji Desai and S.K. Patil so the rift was not on economic issues as such.
Indira was 54. Desai was 75. Patil was 73 and had previously lost to George Fernandes. This was a generational shift in a country with a youthful demographic.
But the timing of introduction of these issues took the Party by surprise.
Why not wait till we turn 89 before doing anything?
Indira Gandhi was seeking the support of the urban and rural petit-bourgeoisie.
No. She wanted poor people to vote for her because, she said, she would 'remove poverty'. Nobody gives a shit about the petit-bourgeoisie in a country which is as poor as fuck and has universal suffrage.
Nationalization of banks widened the credit base of this strata which included rich and middle peasants, small industry, traders, artisans, etc.
It might eventually do so. But not immediately. Still, there would be jobs in nationalized banks for unemployed graduates.
According to the author, the new era of populist politics, arranged rallies, leadership cult, intrigue and manipulation became the order of the day under Indira Gandhi. During the national movement Mahatma Gandhi was the political investment of G.D. Birla. For K.K. Birla the Maruti car was a major investment.
K.K hadn't inherited much of his father's wealth because he only had daughters. He was close to Indira but also got along with Atal who tipped him the wink so he could leave the country before Charan Singh could pounce upon him. Maruti was a non-starter so long as Sanju was involved.
The next few chapters touch upon the growth of a ‘committed’ civil service, judiciary, press and the frequent use of the Presidential Ordinance. The PM takes over Home, Intelligence, Police, Election Commission, RAW and Revenue Intelligence under her immediate control. All criticism is regarded as a personal attack on her. On a bogus platform of ‘Garibi Hatao’—the mid-term elections returned a number of Party candidates who did not wince when the MISA was passed in 1971 or severe repression was carried out in Bengal through the Preventive Detention Act.
A good thing. The Naxals had to be killed one way or another. Indeed, it was Jyoti Basu who first got the police involved. Once the Naxals started killing judges, the judiciary was perfectly content too allow extra-judicial killing to curb the Maoist menace.
After relating the events leading to Emergency—the growth of the JP movement in Bihar,
the Naxals had shown JP that his 'bhoodan' scheme was a fraud. Previously, he had been living in a fantasy world. His mistake was to try to get the first Muslim CM of Bihar removed. This made him look 'communalist' more particularly because he was in bed with the RSS. But it was Lohia who first embraced them.
suppression of the railway strike, the Allahabad verdict and finally the resistance and the emergence of a national alternative to the Congress,. Mrs. Sahgal concludes that Indira Gandhi’s personal style broke the whole content of the Congress past and altered fundamentally the Indian political process and institutions.
Not really. The only thing different about the Seventies was Mummy's need to keep Sonny Boy happy. One could say this 'subverted norms' but nepotism and dynasticism were well established norms. Nothing had been subverted.
Shoba De- a better novelist than Nayantara- describes the Lesbian daughter of an Iyengar Inspector General of Police who uses her father's authority to persecute her lover. My point is that Indians don't think there is anything unusual about the son or daughter of an important official illegally exercising the parent's authority. Indeed, even nephews or son-in-laws or mistresses may do so.
This change in political values and ethics marked the distance between the India of Jawaharlal Nehru and that of his daughter.
The distance was that he didn't have a son. She did. What Motilal did for Jawaharlal, she would do for her son. Sonia repeated the pattern with Rahul. But Rahul hasn't married. Will the succession pass into the Vadra line? I suppose so. Poor old Varun has been frozen out.
To conclude, was there any thing distinctive about Indira's 'style'? No. In India, you join politics to spend more time with your family. What makes the RSS such a force in Indian politics is the tradition they have of choosing celibacy in the cause of national service. Thus, dynasticism is much less a feature of the BJP's institutional culture. If they are able to recruit smart young people and bring them forward- well and good. If not, they too will decline.
No comments:
Post a Comment