Vasudhaiva kutumbakam

After traversing through the “entire linguistic science” of Vikash, Atmanirbhar, Vishwaguru, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, Anusandhan and Tushtikaran, now we’re asked to deal with Parivarvad. In India, unlike in some countries, family plays the central fulcrum around which the society revolves. Suddenly, in poll season, family has become a pejorative term. “Parivarvad” is supposed to be what the 2024 elections are to be fought over, not electoral bonds, nor economics, foreign policy, social inclusion, social justice, etc.. Apparently, parivarvad or dynastism is the biggest evil plaguing India. While this might mean someone getting too many chances without having the merit, what I gather from the utterings is that if someone is in politics, no one from his immediate or distant family should enter politics for seven generations or so. Let’s see whether either of the connotations holds water. 

First, the prevalence. Possibly, during the hunter-gatherer phase of human evolution, leadership was based purely on ability and not on genealogy. However, the moment people specialised in different aspects of life, dynastism came into the specialised field of security and governance. The children of the tribal chief and later, those of the king, started training in governance from birth. 

This was not merely a tribal or ancient situation either. As per a 2018 study, political dynasties are present in over 145 countries including in more than half of the democratic countries. In the US, the Kennedy family is considered royalty. On my first day of orientation in Harvard University, our guide who was taking us around suddenly burst out crying saying that was a sad day for America because one of the Kennedy clan had died that day. The country also saw Prescott Bush legacy through Geroge Bush Sr., George Bush Jr and Jeb Bush. Myanmar has had Aung San and his daughter Aung San Suu Kui. In Egypt, Hosni Mubarak was succeeded by his son, Gamal Mubarak. Despite loud posturing by some parties in India, ALL the parties (yes, including BJP) with the possible exception of the Left parties have seen dynastic politics. Studies have shown that a full 25 % of the MPs in the current Lok Sabha are dynastic MPs. Congress has 44 % MPs with dynastic background but even BJP has 20 % such MPs. The renomination of dynastic candidates for the 2019 general elections stood at 67 % for JD (S), 50 % for SAD, 29 % for BJD and so on. Also, a full 35 % of the villages in India have been “ruled” by some dynasty in the entire post-Independence period. Parties themselves like to nominate and renominate dynastic politicians because of winnability due to name recognition, local networks and access to resources. 

Secondly, is it such a bad thing to have dynastic politics? Why should someone who has a parent or a close relative in politics be deprived of joining the profession? We don’t bother too much if a lawyer’s son or daughter chooses to or is forced to become a lawyer. Similarly for doctors, civil servants, bankers, teachers and so on. In fact, we find it quite logical. Further, there are a lot of things going for it also. 

A teacher’s son grows up with books around him all the time. A doctor’s daughter grows up listening to medical stuff around the dinner table and may also develop deep empathy for the patients. Similarly, a politician’s offspring trains for politics from birth, even if unconsciously. He also develops the close connections and access to the resources so necessary in the field. Further, dynastic politics can also be a way out of patriarchal pitfalls. With the Indian society being as patriarchal as it is even today, it could not have produced a female prime minister in its independent infancy if not for dynastic politics. Even so, she was dubbed as “Gungi Gudiya” then but turned out to be anything but. Similarly, other marginalised sections and minorities have found a way in and stayed on through dynastic politics. Dynastic politics also makes for a certain amount of stability, a quality much in requirement in the growing stages of a democracy. Further, a dynastic politician is more likely to be in for the long haul and would have a time horizon longer than the five years because he would be looking out for his descendants in the process. In contrast to this “stationary bandit,” the “roving bandit” in the form of the career politician would be averse to long-term development at the cost of immediate political gains. 

The problem with dynastic politics occurs when the designated successor is incompetent or corrupt directly as a result of being born with a silver spoon in the mouth and a sense of massive entitlement. This also leads to a disconnect with the masses, lack of resourcefulness and worldliness. However, if the person wins elections on merit or because the electorate prefers a dynast with all his flaws, where is the problem? 

It is seen that a large number of the dynastic candidates in India successfully win the democratic elections again and again. A survey by ToI indicated that 46 % of Indians don’t see a problem with supporting a dynastic candidate and, pressed for a reason, 45 % of them said that such candidates are “better at politics as it is their family profession.” The other problem of dynastic politics which is politics of largesse, patronage and crony capitalism is seen to apply equally to so-called non-dynastic politics. 

When our deep-rooted philosophy of “Vasudhaiva kutumbakam” is referenced with family, it should be a non-issue to put the family connection to the sword in an election. What should be more important is accountability. The ancestry shouldn’t matter.