The ‘dynasty’ and democracy.

Anyone becoming a part of a family is accidental. It just happens. It is also true for the Gandhi family. When they are elected by a party or people they are dynasts, but not others. It is unfair and contradictory to call India the largest democracy and the Gandhi family a ‘dynasty’.

Rajiv, Sonia were not keen but Indira needed their support so made entry. Nehru carefully avoided to indicate his successor¹. It was only the destiny that decided the course, not the ‘dynasty’. In a democracy everything is possible. A seller of tea or lies can become a dictator.

What matters is how the leader concerned functions whether as a democrat or a dynast or a dictator. In a truly functional democracy, there cannot be a dynast or dictator if its independent institutions freely, fairly discharge their duty professionally safeguarding democracy.

All members of the Gandhi family were good listeners. They allowed space and the required freedom to everyone in the party or the administration to operate within the permitted precincts of law to ensure natural justice to people in delivery of governance and service to society.

Since when staunch believers, practitioners of democracy are called dynasts. Democracy has given everyone a right to aspire for any post. That includes the Gandhi family. But people have to decide that. This is a political weapon used by opponents to confuse the perception of people.

There were always divergent views and thoughts. There were tussles but no disruptions in the democratic process. It also existed in Nehru, Indira era. But the evolution of decisions was collective. It may be by leaders, experts, bureaucrats and final decisions by those in charge.

Indira turned out to be assertive, confident and not the ‘Goongi gudiya’ she was expected to be. She had the political acumen to read the pulse of the people and earn their trust. If leaders listen to people and deliver what is good for them then they are democrats, not dynasts.

The power shift 

Those who have a hold or influence with the masses and the party become leaders. They should not dictate just because of their massive influence. They are to share responsibility with others. A functional democracy should prevail for evolving right decisions through discussions.

Though such processes were there, there were also attempts by overambitious politicians to disproportionately influence, change, disrupt majority decisions by fomenting disaffection, divides and exploiting inherent or imposed insecurities and ignorance of the people.

This was invariably so when the power shift happens or when leaders see scope for usurping power. Indira experienced it when she was elected by the party to lead the country. The senior leaders wanted to exercise influence beyond their weight. But one has to earn people’s trust.

The power centre in Congress shifted from Sonia to Rahul over a decade. Sonia was more in touch with leaders and less with people directly. Rahul was doing the legwork. He was in contact with party cadres; listened to them. He knows the actions needed to rejuvenate Congress.

When Sonia distanced herself due to health and age factor, Rahul was entrusted the responsibility and occupied the centre stage. This power shift was always imminent but still the objections, apprehensions erupted from superannuated in-house warriors on ventilators with assistants.

It is to be noted here that it was not only the power shift from Sonia to Rahul but also the shift of power from groups that occupied the centre stage slowly yielding to a new support group with whom Rahul was finding his wavelength and identity of views for executing his plans.

So the collective democratic decision making process shifted from one group to another. The old set of leaders wanted status quo or ‘democratic disruptions’. While Rahul respected leaders, he knew the urgent need for rejuvenation of Congress and inducting fresh talents.

The power shifted to Rahul but not effectively as leaders are choking the process or the changes. Some have spoken but many have not. They do not have a hold but unwilling to concede space. Hopefully, after the election of the INC President, it will move on the right track.

Footnote:
The New York Times article ‘Who after Nehru’ dated 19th Jan 1964, when he was ill, will help in understanding the truth about some of the issues referred to in this blog. https://www.nytimes.com/1964/01/19/archives/indias-big-question-who-after-nehru-illness-of-leader-points-up-his.html