Sunday, May 31, 2009

Is dynastic politics taking over democracy in India ?

Is India a true Democracy ? or Is there still a tinge of dynastic politics ?

A dynasty is a succession of rulers who belong to the same family for generations. Some of the prominent dynasties in ancient India were Mauryan dynasty, Gupta Dynasty, Mughal dynasty,Chola dynasty.

The smooth transfer of power from a father to a son, a husband to a wife, a family to its clan is overtly visible in Indian politics.

Right from the Indian Independence, one family that has been dominant in the Indian politics is Nehru-Gandhi family. The Nehru-Gandhi dynasty started after Feroze Gandhi, son of Jehangir Faredoon Khan and Ratimai Gandhi, married Indira Nehru, daughter of Jawahar Lal Nehru. After Independence, Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru became the first Prime Minister of India, since then there is no looking back by the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty.Since then we have three Prime Ministers from the same family viz. Jawahar Lal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi.

Sonia Gandhi could have easily been the fourth of a family to reach the feat but for the clause in the constitution that does not allow a foriegn born to be the Prime Minister of India. Then there is another clan of the family, the charismatic Rahul Gandhi, son of Sonia Gandhi, who seems to have carved a niche for himself for the most precious post in India.



Now if I go back to my birth state, Jammu and kashmir, it has been completey dominated by one family since Independence, the Abdullah's. Omar Abdullah, recently elected Chief Minister, is the 3rd generation of Abdullah's being in power.

The same situation prevails in Orisa, where power was transferred from Biju Pataniak to his incumbent son Naveen Patnayak.

In Tamil Nadu, M Karunanidhi, is busy in getting best career opportuinities for his children. He bargained union ministry for his elder son, Azhagiri, in the current UPA government. And his younger son Mr. Stalin, is handling the post of deputy Chief Minister.


This trend seems spread across the country that is piolet's and Scindia's in Rajasthan,Lalu and Rabri in Bihar, Pandit Ravi Shankar Shukla and sons in Madhya Pradesh, Devi Lal and his son O P Chautala in harayana, Sharad pawar and her daughter Supriya Sule in Maharashtra.


Jagjivan Ram and his daughter Meira Kumar, Charan Singh and his son Ajit Singh are others who show similar trend. Chandrababu naidu inherited from N T Rama Rao.

Love of our politicians for the power can be described in one line :

"Till death do us apart"

Posted by at

7 comments:

  1. AbhiMay 31, 2009 at 11:12 AM

    Dynastic politics has a drwaback that it deprives some of the deserving candidates the pleasure of serving their country by occupying ministerial berth......
    But in a way Dynastic polYTicks is good also as we can see the newer generations inherit all the leadership qualities and CAN serve the country in a better way. Nehru-Gandhi family is the best example which has produced genuine gems(in the real sense of the word) who have done a lot for the country....and RAHUL G seems to have inherited tons of qualities and is hell bent upon taking India to newer heights.

    So there is no harm in dynastic politics till we r getting good leaders.!!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Don't be evilMay 31, 2009 at 12:11 PM

    yes u r rite in a way. I have to just add one point which i have observed. Dynastic Politics is not only in india u can see it there in the oldest democracy ...... yup i m talking about US for an example George Bush Ex- US Prez his father was also the ex prez and there is also Mr Kennedy and many more will be there so actually DNA matters
    another instace that i would like to share is; after Rajiv gandhis death there was no Gandhian in congress party and they really performed miserably under the leadership of Sita ram Kesri and fortunes turned as Sonia Gandhi roped herself Presidential candidiate....
    so i think dynastic politian is a part of democracy...

    ReplyDelete
  3. UnknownJune 1, 2009 at 8:29 AM

    Ya I agree that dynasty system cant be completely uprooted from any place.

    But I still see some difference. In USA people stand on there own feet. Wen George Bush came to power, his father was not as influential and as involved as he earlier was.Unlike, in India most of them see their next generation to settle down.

    So more or less, In India respect/power is inherited ;here it is earned.

    ReplyDelete
  4. DhruvJune 2, 2009 at 11:29 AM

    "India is a monarchy disguised as democracy."

    But I dont think Sonia Gandhi is a foreigner, infact she had taken Indian citizenship in 1983. The opposition to Sonia Gandhi's candidature for the post of PM was in particular, to Section 5 of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1955, which the opposition claimed implied 'reciprocity'. Eventually the suits were dismissed by the Supreme Court of India.
    Regarding our state of J&K, Abdullah's will always be the de-facto rulers of our state till de-limitation happens.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Don't be evilAugust 7, 2009 at 11:17 AM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Don't be evilAugust 7, 2009 at 11:30 AM

    @ Abhineet Kapil
    yup i agree in India Father waits till his son become eligible or sometimes he continues unless some other political sway is not there.
    Everyone wants to be powerful and thats quite geniune; only issue is that they should perform their duties properly.

    @Dhruv
    Yes Abdhullas will be the De-facto rulers in J & k and certainly they will remain till ppl of KASHMIR dont get oppressed.
    honestly i dont find any reason of abdhullas getting de-throwned.
    thats my opinion,

    ReplyDelete
  7. DhruvMarch 9, 2012 at 9:16 AM

    I think you should revive this blog

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)