WHY I AM AGAINST DYNASTIC POLITICS?

My main objection is purely ideological. The basic premise of a democracy is ‘equality of opportunity’. Dynastic politics is a total negation of the basic tenets of a really democratic society. However, I must admit some dynastic politics is unavoidable.
Children growing into a particular environment tend to pick up some of the traits of the parents and grandparents. A son or a daughter growing up in a political family grows up not only in the company of the political parents and grandparents but also the friends and relatives who may be politicians. If they come from a high-placed political family, they have a chance of meeting foreign dignitaries. Pomp and ceremony surrounding such meetings are often intoxicating enough to snare a young mind. Parents and grandparents, even if high-minded, create such situations to groom their children to succeed them. An idealist like Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru could not check the temptation; he invariably used Indira as hostess in his Delhi household or took her as his travel companion on his official tours. He knew perfectly well, (and after Feroz Gandhi’s death expressed some remorse as well) that it was undermining her marriage.
Dynastic succession happens in other professions as well. Doctors’ or lawyers’ etc children often follow in the footsteps and profession of their parents or grandparents. As do the children of actors and sportsmen. In any case, I would not like to penalise any citizen of a democratic country to be debarred from competing for office because of the accidents of birth. On the other hand, I would not like to see someone with a head start in politics because of the accidents of birth. I have a much greater reservation, distaste even, for a politician in power who attempts to groom his or her sons or daughters for succession, however misfit, he or she may be. In this context, political families are a special case unlike any other non-political dynasties such as doctors, lawyers or actors. In the latter cases I have a choice; I can consult a doctor of my choice, or engage a lawyer I want. I can decide not to watch the performance of any actor if I don’t like to. But I have little choice, at least for a number of years, in removing an incompetent or corrupt ruler for whom I may not even have voted. George W. Bush is a case in point; he was considered the worst American president for a century if not more; he was seen by the world to be a greater threat to world peace than the North Korean or the Iranian presidents but he could not be removed. The America Constitution provides for impeachment but it requires sixty per cent of the votes in the Senate which the Democrats could not obtain. They were also worried about losing conservative votes in the ensuing election. Bill Clinton was tried for a most laughable crime, but George W. Bush escaped even a trial for his culpability for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Arguably, children from political families are elected and therefore have a popular mandate. Of course, but if they come from an ordinary family they may not even get a party ticket. Elections, these days cost money, reportedly 60 per cent of Congress candidates fighting the 2009 elections had declared assets worth over a crore (ten million) of rupees; how much more they have otherwise, God only knows. Under the circumstances, candidates from a political (rich) family have considerable advantage over their poorer counterparts. This applies as much to the United States as to India. Particularly in India, even if one accepts-and I am prepared to do so-that the majority of politicians are honest, yet there are many politicians and their criminal allies who have considerable ill gotten gains which gives their children definite advantage over their less privileged counterparts.
People in power have other advantages too. Given state resources they can nurture a constituency by development projects as well as patronage to local leaders who can then be tapped to support the candidates from political families. Political families also have the privilege of placing advertisements in convenient news media and punishing those unduly critical. This has been done by governments in India and elsewhere. As Kuldip Nayar points out in his book The Judgement: inside Story of the Emergency in India
(New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House, 1977) how Bansi Lal, at one time Haryana’s chief minister and a close confidant of Sanjay Gandhi during the Emergency, had ‘set the Tribune at Chandigarh right by denying it government advertisement and having the police penalize the vehicles that carried the paper to Haryana or passed through the state.’ (p.25) Mrs Indira Gandhi firmly believed that the people from the press, both journalists and the owners of the press, were purchasable. Reportedly, Lalit Narayan Mishra had told her how he had kept many journalists on his side “through whisky, cash and suit-lengths” (p.22). The political party in power can also bestow honours such as Sir, OBE, or Padma Shree etc, even offer a Rajya Sabha seat to convenient journalists. Some journalists can be favoured by regular invitations to special occasions while others can be left out. The favoured journalists can easily give major media attention to political families rather than to other people. Sometimes candidates from political families receive more than their fair share of criticism too, but this does not often happen to powerful families or the politicians connected to criminals.

Self-censorship in journalism is a well-known phenomenon in many countries; Indian journalists are human beings too. As anywhere else, some are brave and despite the odds they do not compromise their integrity. But there are others who are as interested in self-promotion as anybody else, and pamper the people in power. This has a serious consequence. Often the wrongdoings of the people in power or their children, are ignored, reported in such brevity or mentioned on pages and columns which escape serious attention. Nevertheless, there are a few brave journalists who risk bringing out the misdeeds of the rulers. For instance, without the unwavering efforts of Chitra Subramanium of the Indian Express and N. Ram of The Hindu, the Bofors Scandal, which continues to cast its shadow on the ruling family, would not have seen the light of day. Much in the same way, it was the Tehelka journalists who had exposed the corruption in defense procurements, which ultimately forced the defense minister to resign. It was closed down by the government for a time but was re-launched as a weekly in 2003. Again in 2007, Tehelka journalists, in an elaborate sting operation captured on hidden camera several perpetrators of the 2002 Gujarat riots who admitted their horrendous crimes, and revealed that the riots were a part of a well-planned conspiracy involving state authorities. There was a time when well-principled politicians exposed unsavoury facts regarding the government and the business. One such leader was Feroz Gandhi who did just that in 1958; he exposed the Haridas Mundhra scandal in parliament which involved the government controlled Life Insurance Company. This came as a huge embarrassment to Prime Minister Nehru's government and led to the resignation of T T Krishnamachari, then finance minister in the central cabinet.
In spite of some brave investigative journalists, many economic and political crimes involving the power elite or their friends and relatives go unsolved. Reportedly, several allegedly political murders remain unsolved even after a quarter of a century. I have mentioned one case of Mr L N Mishra, the railway minister who was assassinated in 1975, but the culprits have not yet been found. Whether this happens because the party in power likes people to forget such incidents because these might cast an undesirable light on the people in power at the time, or because of the sheer incompetence of the law enforcing authorities who fail to apprehend the criminals is difficult to guess. The use of law enforcement and intelligence services for political ends is not only India’s monopoly. We now know that both George W Bush and Tony Blair used their intelligence services improperly to fulfil their own agendas; it is possible that this is being done in India too. India may not have the transparency required or there may be a conspiracy of silence on the part of the government.
The relatives and children of the power elite can influence appointments, promotions and transfer of civil service personnel, this can have a demoralizing effect on the administrative machinery. Such children may have access to government documents which might jeopardize not only the day to day administration of the country but also compromise the national security. Once again, the experiences during the Emergency are a good guide. Sanjay Gandhi had no official position in the government but most official files passed through him and even the senior officials had to consult him on major decisions. For those who might be sympathetic to dynastic succession in India, Nayar’s book may be an eye opener.

I am not yet sure, but it seems that public opinion in India is becoming much more conscious of its rights, as reflected in media comments and on the Internet; this might some times force the ruling elite to change their minds. This happened recently when the CBI exonerated two politicians of their involvement in the Sikh pogrom in the wake of Mrs Gandhi’s assassination. The question being asked was not whether the CBI was right or wrong in exonerating these politicians, it was the sheer fact that the exoneration came at a time convenient for those exonerated to get party tickets. There was a major outcry all over India, let alone the Sikh community. In fear of losing votes, Congress got cold feet and the two candidates were persuaded to withdraw their candidature.

Coming from Bihar, I had a chance to meet President Rajendra Prasad who in jest told us, there was a time when rich people kept elephants as a demonstration of their opulence, now they have universities. If he were alive today he might have seen how people now demonstrate their opulence and power by owning political parties. A dynasty now uses a political party as one uses a poodle. Having a poodle and puppets on strings is not only the privilege of the Indian National Congress – a pale shadow of the Congress I knew – other leaders in many parts of India have their own poodles and puppets. They have their own anointed crown prince and princesses being groomed to succeed them. The rot began soon after independence. In spite of his high-minded idealism, Nehru did not oppose Indira Gandhi being the Secretary of the Congress while Nehru himself was the President of the party. On many matters on which he felt the Party was going in the wrong direction, he would threaten resignation as Mahatma Gandhi threatened fasting. But, on the issue of Indira’s secretary ship, Nehru remained virtually mute; and when Mrs. Gandhi divided Congress and created Congress (Indira), the poodle was born.

In conclusion, I must admit, I would like to see an end to dynastic succession. In a country like India, we worship personalities—more often their stone statues— more than the principles they stand for, therefore, dynastic politics will remain for the foreseeable future. To argue that children of political families are tested in an election does not mean they are necessarily worth the office they aspire to. Criminals and demagogues can be, and have been, easily elected. After all, Adolf Hitler came to power on the strength of his victory in an election. Supporting a dynastic succession purely on the grounds of electability would clearly be a mistake. Even though I have distaste for dynastic politics; I welcome the emergence of regional dynasties with regional political parties and a regional agenda. This process, by undermining the mystique of national level dynasties, inhibits to some extent, the national parties freedom to profit from such dynasties and thereby helps the democratic process. To argue that regional parties care only about regional issues is inconsequential. Regional parties are as serious about national security as national parties. They are anxious to fight poverty, deprivation and unemployment even more than the national parties because the main brunt of the ire of the local population falls on the local leadership. Delhi is a far distant land for most people – the Delhi elite care little about the underprivileged except at election times.

Alleged Political Murder Remains Unsolved after 35 Years

Shree Lalit Narayan Mishra was railway minister of India from 1973 to 1975 who died in 1975 in a bomb blast. After all these years the probe in his death still remains unresolved. Since he was one year senior to me in Patna College (Patna University) where both of us were completing our Masters in Economics, I knew him reasonably well. We had both taken part in active students' politics as Congress workers. He was much more active and had decided to take part in politics while I had made up my mind to be a professor under the inspiration of Dr. Gyanchand, a leading Indian economist of the time, well known for his book 'Teemimg Millions in India.'
Lalit, as we knew him,graduated in 1948 and joined actively the Indian National Congress party and became a member of the Lok Sabha and remained so for two terms. He, over time, held several other posts in the party and the government. He became Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Planning, Labour and Employment in 1957, Deputy Minister for Home affairs in 1964, Deputy Finance Minister in1966, Minister of State for Defence Production in 1967. He was Minister of Foreign Trade between 1970 and 1973. In 1973 he became the Cabinet Minister of Railways in Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's cabinet. Mrs. Gandhi , to the best of my knowledge, liked him. He also acted as one of the main fund raisers for the Congress.
In his capacity as the Minister for railways, he visited Samastipur on 2 January 1975 to inaugurate the opening of Samastipur-Muzaffarpur broad gauge railway line. He was seriously injured by a granade thrown on the dais. If I remember correctly, another friend of mine, a senior member of the Indian Police Service also died because of the blast. After all these years, I have failed to understand why a seriously injured VIP was taken to Danapore (quite a distance from Samstipore), a relatively deprived railway town with a poorly equipped railway hospital. One must be reminded that only 30 minute away from Samastipore, there is a long-standing Medical College with Post-Graduate teaching facilities and a large hospital. Many of the students who graduated from that college work in hospitals in the UK and elsewhere. I have discussed this with my younger brother, now a Retired Professor of Surgery in the Medical College and he cannot see any sense in taking Lalit to Danapur. Strangely enough, there is another Medical College in Patna as well. Before going to Danapore one has to pass through Patna.Lalit should have been taken to Darbhanga Medical College hospital where there were several reputed surgeons in addition to my brother. Darbhanga Medical College attracts students and patients even from Nepal. After all these years of reasonably dispassionate thinking I have not come to a conclusion. I am not yet sure whether this was a botched decision-making or a pre-meditated politically conspired murder.
It could be, as I say a botched up policy decision, but conspiracy theorists would see it,--in fact the younger brother of Lalit, who became one of Bihar;'s chief ministers considers it--v as a politically motivated murder. It was the time that the Congress was in total disarray; it was the same year that Mrs. Gandhi had declared a national emergency and had become a virtual dictator. Lalit , as a fund-raiser for the Congress must have had some access to secret sources of funding for the Party. It is conceivable that some one did not want such secrets to be known publicly. But who? The question remains unanswered after all these years. I generally, do not believe in conspiracy theories; and am prepared to accept a verdict which might suggest a 'botched up' decision-making under panic conditions but I find it a travesty of justice that the mystery remains unsolved after all these years. It is not only a sad commentary on the condition of the judicial system in India but a shadow on the ruling party, if it cannot get the mystery of the death of an important minister in the Central cabinet cleared and culprits brought to justice, what chances are there for an ordinary Indian citizen to obtain justice in India. I beg the in-coming Chief Minister of Bihar to take up the matter seriously and get it resolved.

For more details about Mr. L.N. Mishra please see Wikepedia.