Author: Swapan Dasgupta
Publication: The Times of India
Date: March 23, 2008
URL: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Swapan_Dasgupta_Dynasty_politics/articleshow/2890100.cms
There is an awkward question that the Congress
stalwarts, who celebrated the Sonia decade in Indian politics, forgot to ask:
Why is Sonia Gandhi the only leader to enjoy an unbroken 10-year stint as
party president? The query may well be insolent but it is nevertheless worth
asking.
It is hardly the case that there was no one
from the galaxy of stalwarts who have presided over the 123-year-old party
capable of playing such a long innings. Even the most fanatical Sonia loyalist
will shy away from suggesting that she has attributes that were lacking in
the leaders of the national movement. The answer is both simple and obvious:
the Congress has changed and Sonia's unbroken tenure symbolises that transformation.
Since the split of 1969, the Congress has
increasingly resembled a family enterprise. The seven-year interregnum between
Rajiv Gandhi's assassination and Sitaram Kesri's unceremonious removal was
an aberration dictated by circumstances. Yet, it is useful to remember that
immediately after Rajiv's death the Congress Working Committee first offered
the mantle of leadership to Sonia. Her rejection of the offer does not detract
from the fact that the Congress leadership felt that a Gandhi had first claim
on the leadership.
The Congress is dynastic because it genuinely
believes that Indian voters instinctively respond to the Gandhi name. If the
party has to revert to its original democratic moorings, it has to be accompanied
by a larger breakdown of the family structure in the country. Since that is
unlikely to happen in a hurry, a dynastic Congress is going to be a part of
the Indian scenery for the foreseeable future.
Of course, the ties that bind the leader to
the follower are also governed by reciprocity. Unless the leader can ensure
consistent political returns to the followers, the enterprise will not endure.
Corporate loyalty to the Congress is only partly mystical; it is ultimately
driven by self-interest. Prolonged failure invariably leads to the breakdown
of the network that sustains the enterprise - and this has happened to the
Congress in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.
Yet, the dynastic principle is not as innocuous
as may appear. There is a price that India has to pay for persisting with
dynasty over meritocracy. This is evident in the manner Rahul Gandhi has made
his political debut.
Rahul, from all accounts, is fairly representative
of most Indians of his class. Somewhat westernised, yet rooted in India, cosmopolitan,
fun-loving and neither political nor scholastic, he should have articulated
the average rich kid's view of the world. Unfortunately, the dynastic principle
has forced him to be what he is not. Having internalised the idea of India
as a family estate, Rahul has to be seen helping and empathising with his
less fortunate subjects. His Discover India programme is an aspect of his
noblesse oblige.
Unlike the meritocrat who seeks an 'opportunity
society' that allows individuals to realise their full potential, Rahul is
obliged to pursue a top-down approach. Like Sonia, he has to show his concern
by showering his subjects with handouts in the form of a National Rural Employment
Guarantee Programme and a debt-waiver scheme. The Gandhis have always loved
the state sector because it has allowed them the right to blur the distinction
between private funds and public resources. Jawaharlal Nehru hated entrepreneurs
with paternalistic disdain; Indira Gandhi saw the maharajas as competition;
and 'Sonia's gift to the farmers' is the spin given to the Rs 60,000 crore
plus loan amnesty by Congress workers.
It is ironic that dynastic democracy demands
a commitment to charity masquerading as socialism. It is prefaced on widespread
poverty and vulnerability. This is why it is in conflict with everything modern
India should stand for.
