Politics of new and old dynasts
DYNASTIC politics is hogging the headlines and dominating the exchange of abuses at election rallies. What is on display are families investing their political capital earned over generations to grab and accumulate more power. In a social milieu where public office instantly gets translated into brute power and ill-gotten wealth, politics is enterprise and politicians its biggest entrepreneurs — from district-level wannabes to state satraps to the mighty monarchs holding sway over vast swathes of the nation.
After losing Amethi (once held by Sanjay, Rajiv and Sonia) in 2019, Rahul is moving to Raebareli. That the Gandhis are clutching at the old shrunken roots of legacy need be no solace to anti-dynastic modernists — if there are any.
Otherwise, Karan Bhushan Singh, Prajwal Revanna and Rahul Gandhi’s Raebareli candidature would not have seized disproportionate news space and TV time. The three are representative examples of dynasty in Indian politics not just at the three levels — local, regional and national — but also because they belong to three different kinds of political formations. One is from a purely family-based national political enterprise, the second belongs to a caste-based family outfit limited to a state and the third is from a cadre-based ideological organisation that professedly propagates cultural nationalism and worships the idea of Bharat Mata.
And they all practise the same politics of patriarchal inheritance of power. Not only these three, but across the country from Kashmir to Kanyakumari, Indian politics is dominated by inheritors — while Omar Abdullah is a successful third-generation former J&K Chief Minister, MK Stalin is a sitting second-generation Tamil Nadu CM. In almost all states, dynasties have struck roots, whatever be the nature of the ideology that has nurtured the organisation — linguistic nationalism for the DMK or the anti-feudal, pro-nationalist stance of the National Conference or the Maharashtrian-first strong-arm tactics of Shiv Sena or Yadav empowerment for the Rashtriya Janata Dal/Samajwadi Party or Dalit emancipation of the Bahujan Samaj Party.
This widespread phenomenon is best explained by the candidature of Karan Bhushan, son of BJP MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh. The latter is one of the most controversial contemporary political figures, who was accused and later acquitted in the sensational JJ Hospital shootout case of the 1990s, involving the Dawood Ibrahim gang. He has brought a bad name not only to the BJP, but also to the administration of Indian sports, drawing accusations of molestation from women wrestlers. Yet, he has been able to control his pocket borough by getting his son nominated from Kaiserganj on the BJP ticket. Why?
Even a cadre-based organisation cannot afford to discount the political capital that a local strongman builds over the years. In a tight contest where every seat counts, electability trumps organisational principles. Reportedly, Brij Bhushan controls 54 educational institutions across four districts of Uttar Pradesh. So, it is not even a question of one constituency, but influence over three-four seats and a dominant caste. These are individuals who, with their feudal intervention in the social and economic life, build a local connect and turn it into political capital, which later becomes an instrument of inheritance.
Prajwal is the grandson of former Prime Minister HD Deve Gowda and the inheritor of the family’s pocket borough, Hassan. When the BJP struck an alliance with the Janata Dal (Secular) for the 2024 Lok Sabha polls, it had to shoulder the burden of this controversial MP. In fact, Gowda Sr had vacated this safe seat for the sake of his grandson and contested and lost Tumakuru in 2019. The need for stitching an alliance had blinded the BJP to the glaring allegations of sexual assault against Prajwal, levelled by Karnataka BJP leader Devaraje Gowda in a letter in December 2023 to state BJP president BY Vijayendra, who himself is a dynast — former CM BS Yediyurappa’s son.
Even the ruling Congress in Karnataka, it seems, dithered while filing a case against Prajwal, waiting for polling in constituencies dominated by Vokkaliga (Deve Gowda’s community) to get over on April 26. This is the strength of identity politics that becomes the stable foundation for these enterprising clans to build their political careers, which in the course of time accrue enough political principal to start yielding interest for the newer, idler generations.
After using the business metaphor all through this article, it is only proper to refer to the brilliant book Dynasties by the late Harvard Professor Emeritus of history and economics, David S Landes. While setting out to analyse the rise and rise of the Rothschilds, Morgans, Fords, Rockefellers and many other families, this economic historian defines dynasty as three successive generations of family control over a business. He points out that growth, diversification, technological advancement and, most interestingly, success are inimical to the continuity of a dynasty.
It sounds very familiar in the case of the Congress. After the immense success of four generations (if Motilal Nehru is counted as the founder of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty), the fifth one is floundering. And it is but natural as Landes analyses the inheritors: “As the firm develops power and prestige, the heirs find many interesting and amusing things to do rather than business… Typically rather than wear the shirt sleeves of their forefathers, they finish in silks and velvets… or the unabashed pursuit of good life.” That is the reason why Rahul’s candidature in Raebareli has become a subject of such political derision.
After losing Amethi (once held by Sanjay, Rajiv and Sonia) in 2019, Rahul is moving to Raebareli. Feroze Gandhi had chosen to fight the first polls in 1952 from Raebareli, which after his death became Indira’s and later Sonia’s constituency. That the Gandhis are clutching at the old shrunken roots of legacy need be no solace to anti-dynastic modernists — if there are any. For, the Gandhis’ failure is not that of dynasty as a political concept, but that of dynasts as effective managers.
Landes says that dynastic performance is determined by two factors: nature of the business activity and how society views it. The nature of the Congress’ activity was anti-colonial politics, as exemplified by the policies of Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi, and society viewed the Congress as the prime vehicle of patriotism. The inheritors seem to have lost the firm’s USP.
