Opinion Four down,more to go

Right now,it is a difficult proposition to create a political space outside “sibling-centric” politics in India. When Rajasekhara Reddy,the Andhra Pradesh chief minister,was killed in a helicopter crash,there was an almost typhoonic campaign among the legislatures to install his son Jagan in the chief-ministerial chair. The track record of the Nehru-Gandhi family is part of the folklore of ‘sibling-centric’ politics in India. If the succession of political office remains within the confine of a family,in the next couple of years,just about 100 families will rule the entire country. Even the rudimentary party structure that now exists will possibly get liquidated,to be replaced by dynasties.

Once the benefits of individual accumulation on the basis of public office gets extended to within the family,the accumulation of huge financial resources by a single hand,later by a single family,becomes powerful enough to replace the party machine with a family or a dynasty. In India,huge political families have emerged,who not only command resources but also unprecedented political clout. If recent elections are any indicators,money is the single most important factor in deciding the complexion of politics. In the recently held election in Maharastra and Haryana,it was indeed a battle between second generations of siblings. Even the CPM was afflicted with this malaise. In the recently held by-election in West Bengal,after the demise of popular minister Subhash Chakravoty,his wife Ramola Chakravorty was fielded as a replacement. In this backdrop,Nitish Kumar’s effort to try a different line was a difficult proposition. However,the by-election reverses did not deter him. Members of Parliament who promoted their own relations were expelled,and he tried to carve a different niche within the party. This effort found parallels in the rest of the country. In the recently held by-elections,in the Firozabad Parliamentary constituency (in UP) or in the Belgachhia Purba Assembly election (in West Bengal),the spouses of both the previous incumbents were defeated.

During his tenure,apart from building the state,Nitish Kumar has also made some authentic moves for inclusion of the socially marginalised in governance. Another move he was contemplating related to land management in Bihar. The constitution of the Land Reform Commission was a step in that direction. The by-election reverses were attributed to positive discriminations for the marginalised and the intention of the government to implement the Land Reform Commission.

The beneficiaries of“sibling-centric” politics had deftly diverted attention to ensure that land management does not take place in the state. In the “permanent settled” states,economic management is not possible without updating land records. The cadastral survey in the state was done way back in 1904,and ultimately published in 1912. Without updating mutation cases, civil cases accumulate,leading to criminal incidents. In the process,the entire machinery of the state is stressed. The Left Front government in West Bengal is likely to fall like a house of cards in the next Assembly election,even though they had ensured economic empowerment by ensuring the rights of the “bargadars” (tenants). In Bihar,economic inclusion will be permanent only with proper tenurial management. In West Bengal,although land management has changed,the elite is not ready to give political space. Bihar,on the other hand,is not ready to give land-related economic space to the marginalised,although some political space has been assured to them. A feudal economy cannot get integrated with the national or international economy. The battle in Bihar is difficult,but it is not insurmountable.

The writer is member secretary,Asian Development Research Institute,Patna