The general argument trotted out by apologists for dynasty is simple: why blame the Gandhis, when every other party is also family run, from the Yadavs of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar to the Reddys of Andhra Pradesh, the Badals of Punjab, the Pawars and Chavans of Maharashtra, the Naveen Patnaiks of Odisha, and the Karunanidhis of Tamil Nadu.
The simple counter is this: the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty is older than the hills, having run into over five generations, from Motilal Nehru to Rahul Gandhi. In the case of the remaining state-level dynasties, the family is still into the second generation and the first generation leader is either still around or very visible.
The corollary is this: dynasties do last for one or two or even three generations, since the aura of the original creator remains alive. But after the third generation, unless you have another super hero (or heroine) entering the picture, it will start fraying.
And this is precisely the case with the Sonia-Rahul combine. According to Shekhar Gupta, the Gandhi family is no longer a vote-winner, and the only reason why they are still at the top of the Congress power pyramid is because other Congress leaders find it useful to give them the casting vote when they can’t decide things themselves.
This is what a Congress leader told Gupta when he asked them why the Gandhis were still around when they can’t help them win any election. “Surely, they cannot help anybody win elections, but they keep the party together.
Their word is law and the party needs that discipline. Illustration: the moment Sonia or Rahul says something, everybody nods and falls in line. If Narasimha Rao or Sitaram Kesri said something, everybody broke out in rebellion and rashes.”
This argument, of course, is weak. If everyone knows that the emperor has no clothes (or rather, can’t get you votes) it is an indirect acknowledgement that the Gandhis have no power beyond what you are willing to notionally confer on them by mutual consent. In short, the Gandhis have changed from being real powers to symbolic powers – something like hereditary monarchs. This is hardly a recipe for long-term growth of either the Congress party or for the longevity of the Gandhi family’s political future.
Gupta, however, makes a more controversial point. The reason why the Gandhi family’s power is slipping is because it has failed to counter the rise of new dynasties. He writes: “The Gandhi family has lost its pan-national appeal because several new dynasties – at least 15 of them politically significant – have risen in key electoral zones of India. Each one of these now has a strong, proprietary vote-bank and total ownership of its party. A pan-national dynasty no longer has the ability to breach these fortresses.”
He concludes; “The inability to counter, or now challenge, the rise of these dynasties is the Congress party’s biggest failure.”
However, it is doubtful if any family, any dynasty, can really counter strong regional leaders without giving up its own power. The power is not in the Nehru-Gandhi family name, it is in deeds. The Nehru-Gandhi family can grow the party only by allowing regional leaders to develop, but this is the inherent contradiction in a family-based dynastic party.
To build real strength, you need to develop leaders outside the family. But if you do this, you have to start sharing power. You will no longer remain unchallenged and all-powerful as before. Dynasties have to choose between personal power and growing the party – and this is where dynasties are always doomed to fail, for they will always need to put family above party.
So, it is no accident that the Gandhi family is in decline. It has two options: let the party bloom and fade out itself. Or it can behave like Bahadur Shah Zafar. Pretend you have empire when it is going, going, gone.
As this writer has noted before, “limited dynasties are in the natural order of things – as the course of human civilisation shows. The history of evolution is a history of sons (and daughters) following in their parents’ footsteps – whether it is business, profession or vocation.”
But usually success does not last beyond the third generation.“The Gandhis’ longevity in this ‘family business’ is an unnatural exception that has continued for five generations because of extraordinary events (assassinations of
Indira Gandhi and Rajiv) that catapulted many family members to do what they were not equipped to do. They are (thus) an aberration.” The right conclusion to draw about the Gandhi family is this: the leader(s) is no longer good enough to lead the party. It is the party that is keeping the leader(s) in power.
No comments:
Post a Comment