Why pick on the Gandhis for dynastic succession when everyone who can is doing the same thing - including in the world of business?
T N Ninan / New Delhi May 23, 2009, 01:45 IST
Suppose, just suppose, that Sonia Gandhi had said that she wanted both Rahul and Priyanka Gandhi, Robert Vadra and another relative of the Nehru-Gandhis (no, not Varun) to all be accommodated in Manmohan Singh's council of ministers. Imagine what the air waves would have been full of, and what the front pages would have screamed. So why is the same response not there when M. Karunanidhi has the gall to show up in New Delhi and ask for ministerial berths for son Azhagiri, daughter Kanimozhi, grand-nephew Dayanidhi Maran and also Helen Davidson (heard of her)? And not just for them, but also for people who presided over a scandalous performance in the highways and telecom sectors. The closest that any media came near a comment on this extraordinary set of demands was the Indian Express, which bannered the headline: “DMK thinks they are Chennai Super Kings”.
At the same time, Sharad Pawar wanted his daughter, Supriya Sule, a first-term member of the Lok Sabha (she entered the Rajya Sabha a couple of years ago) to be inducted as a minister—without exciting comment in the media. In comparison, the Gandhis shine in their restraint. Sonia Gandhi has stayed away from government office, other than her brief chairing of the National Advisory Council. The Prime Minister wants Rahul Gandhi in his council of ministers, but the 38-year-old wants none of it, he will work for the party. The media keeps asking Priyanka when she will enter politics, and she continues to say that she would prefer not to. Robert Vadra has not spoken in public, except to denounce his relatives for trying to exploit the family connection. And yet, when the media talks of dynastic politics, the focal point is always the Gandhis.
Perhaps that is to be expected, since this is the fifth generation of the family that is now active; by any yardstick, that is an extraordinary record and unparalleled in the history of democracies. But if dynasties are the issue, what about the Thackeray clan in Maharashtra (father, son, estranged nephew and perhaps daughter-in-law), Mulayam Singh and son, Ajit Singh and son (who are second and third generation), Deepinder and Bhupinder Singh Hooda (third and fourth generation, as it happens), and also Ajeya Singh who is VP Singh’s son? Elsewhere, Atal Behari Vajpayee’s niece fought the Lok Sabha elections (and lost), Chandra Babu Naidu is NTR’s son-in-law, Om Prakash Chautala succeeded his father Devi Lal as Haryana chief minister, Naveen Patnaik has inherited Biju’s mantle, Milind and father Murli Deora are both parliamentarians, and Manvendra Singh happens to be Jaswant Singh’s son and Dushyant Singh is the son of Vasundhara Raje (who is second generation herself). The Abdullah family in Jammu & Kashmir is into its third generation, and the PDP in the state is led by a father-daughter duo. Sachin Pilot succeeded father Rajesh, and Jyotiraditya Scindia succeeded Madhav Rao, while Arjun Singh is upset that his progeny did not get the party ticket and wondered about the price of loyalty.
So, is dynastic succession the organising principle in Indian politics? On the evidence, it is hard to argue that it is not. That being the case, why pick on the Gandhis when everyone who can is doing the same thing—including in the world of business? We’ve heard the arguments before: why does a doctor’s son become a doctor, a lawyer’s son a lawyer, and so on? But in the context of the now dead debate on “monopoly houses”, if 20 political families take the place of the 20 business families that once provoked inquiry committees and endless parliamentary time, do we have the privatization—or monopolisation—of Indian politics?
Dear Mr.Ninan,The answer to your long question is simple.every one else in India are aping the so-called Gandhis.The original Gandhi did not have a heir.How come Nehru and Italian sonia are lebelled as Gandhis and soled to people.You are trying to potray them as great sacrifiers and other are selfish.Why ask for petty posts when she is the final orbiter on everything in and out of party and the Govt.Your attempt to potray every member of the family as innocent and sacrifiers is disgusting,particularly when we remember Qarrochi.If you want favour get it.Why this disgusting propaganda from great journalists and writers.
We've heard the arguments before: why does a doctor's son become a doctor, a lawyer's son a lawyer, and so on? .........so why did we abolish monarchy, with this logic a rulers son would have made a better ruler.....If the son's and daughter's have the requsite potential, they should be allowed to contest otherwise should not be allowed to SIMPLY benefit from parental legacy.
Another apologia from Ninan & Co. There is a vast difference between Nheru Gandhi Pvt Ltd and most others. J Nehru was made Congress Pres because his dying father wanted to see his son become president so Gandhi forced Patel out to make Nehru president.Indira Gandhi was made president without much ground level work. Ditto with Rajiv, Sonia and Rahul. How many green horns have been made Cong Gen Sec in INC histroy? Now contrast this with Badal, Omar, Naidu, Stalin, Chautala, V Raje, etc - they started at local level and then rose thru the ranksm unilke Sonia, her husband and son. But then, BS has become a Congress BS so what else to expect but such bhompubaji day after day after day!
may 24 09
this is the first oped written by a senior journalist which asked the pertinent question "why pick on the Gandhis when everyone who can is doing the same thing?including in the world of business? We've heard the arguments before: why does a doctor's son become a doctor, a lawyer's son a lawyer, and so on?"
ninan has underscored the old saw that journalists should lead from the front and not follow the herd
Whenever you raise such issues, kindly drop a line with a phrase 'internal democracy'.
Also, as pointed out by one of the comments, the there is difference between public service and pvt enterprise. To take it further, you will see the family connection in old style business but not the new tech firms, where all the staff are highly educated. NRN Murthy can ask his son to become a CEO but the programmer will not bear him.
Similarly as more educated and demanding people join politics, there will be more internal democracy.
Fair enough. But the comparison to business is flawed. Public service and private business are two completely different enterprises. Perhaps there is something to be learned from the differences?
Posted by: Ab+
May 23 , 2009, 17:31 IST
Rightly said,
aslo the family succession can work in old style firms not in technology companies.
Content Guide
