Destiny and dynasties in world’s biggest democracy

On January 5, Omar Abdullah completed three years in office. He believes that he was ‘destined’ to become a ruler. Besides, the final arbitrator of power in India, Sonia Gandhi, also signalled that Omar will continue to be the sultan for three more years; the remaining term of the present assembly. It was time to rejoice — not only for completing three years but also for receiving a confirmation for three more years. Omar excitedly, rather arrogantly, announced: ‘I was destined to become chief minister, so I became.’

Only a grandson of Sheikh Abdullah can display such confidence, or haughtiness, that clearly demeans all the standards of civilised behaviour. Destiny, Ahad Raza’s foot (Raza is a satirical character of a famous Kashmiri drama). Public memory is not so short.

Omar and his father Farooq bitterly tried to outdo each other after the announcement of the assembly election results in December 2008. The matter was amicably resolved within the family when Farooq’s wife Molly Abdullah finally pushed for the generational shift. As matter of fact it was 10 Janpath’s ashirwad that ultimately tilted the balance in Omar’s favour. Had he remained a simple hotelier — Omar started his career at the Oberoi — he would never have dreamed of becoming the chief minister of J&K. Only a Sheikh clan scion can claim to be predestined to rule. What an irony then that while Sheikh Abdullah was incarcerated in 1953 allegedly for collaborating to become Sultan-e-Kashmir, democracy has ensured the continuity of the dynastic rule.

The Sheikhs may be accused of extra flamboyance; however they only represent a broader trend. In every corner of India, dynasties have cropped up from nowhere. In Punjab, after the misrule of Badal dynasty, it might be the turn of Captain Amarinder Singh of the royal Patiala family, with wife and their son also contesting the elections. Sheila Dikshit, the overhyped Delhi chief minister, too belongs to a political family and her son Sandeep is an MP. The Scindias and who can forget the notorious Chautalas of Haryana, the third or fourth generation of that humble farmer Devi Lal.

Mulayam Singh started his career as a follower of Ram Manohar Lohia, his son Akhilesh Yadav now is aiming to become the next chief minister of UP, with bright prospects in the upcoming elections. The Pawars of Maharashtra, Patnaiks of Orissa, Reddys of Andhra and Sangmas of the Northeast... the list of political dynasties seems to be ever-growing after every election.

Patrick French in his India: A Portrait is reported to have remarked that India is going back to monarchy: out of 545 MPs in the 15th Lok Sabha, 156 have a family member in politics. French predicts that the ‘next general election was likely to return not a Lok Sabha, a house of the people, but a Vansh Sabha, a house of dynasty.’

What is the future of democracy in India? If the trend of dynastic politics goes unchecked, leaving hardly any space for the honest and the honourable to enter the electoral fray, the future of democracy in India looks to be bleak. More than the rise of family politics, the real threat to democracy is the fact that the people genuinely are not alarmed. More often politicians of Lalu Prasad’s ilk, knowing well that people with seemingly reasonable causes are unelectable dare members of civil society to contest elections.

It is the crude reality of present day India that corrupt, lumpen elements with the help of money and muscle are the only electable. Where does the fault lie? Less with the elected and more with the electorate. In a country of a billion-plus people, how many are seen protesting against corruption at Jantar Mantar and Ramlila Maidan? At best thousands.

It seems that a very serious problem has slowly crept into the moral fabric of the society. The elected are free to plunder and the electorate are also keen to have their share of the booty. How else can the rise of dynastic politics be explained?