The phenomenon of political dynasts in Indian politics often attracts negative notice, but that of political parachutists is seldom, if ever, examined. A parachutist is not a dynast and is inducted into political office without prior political experience. Dynasts are believed to damage Indian democracy, while parachutists are considered favourably, especially by the middle classes, who consider the former to be dishonest and an obstacle in the path of the country’s development. Parachutists who are professionals, members of the civil services or businesspersons are looked upon as persons of integrity, dedicated to cleansing Indian politics and administration. An examination of the parachutists’ phenomena is required because it is doubtful if they meet the essential criterion expected of politicians in our electoral democracy.
Politics requires a direct connection of a political nature with the people. Such a connection can only be made by those who spend long years in the field. This experience gives them an understanding of the people’s needs, beliefs, aspirations and apprehensions. It also makes them gain the people’s political trust. No parachutist can ever have this.
Persons holding high political office should be leaders in their own right. This means that they have an independent standing in their political party. In addition, they have the confidence of their leadership. This enables them to bring political perspectives to the deliberations of government and its decision-making. Insightful and experienced professionals, former administrators, diplomats or business persons, can act as experts, advisors or consultants, but they cannot bring views derived from popular connect. These opinions are essential for final decision-making by elected governments. Expert advice has to be refracted through the prism of political realities. Parachutists do not have a direct experience of the ground.
Dynasts belong to political families, while parachutists have an adoptive political parent. The fortunes of a parachutist are linked to those of his adoptive political parent. Indeed, parachutists generate resentment in a political party because the party does not really consider them as belonging to it. Generally, no sooner than the fortunes of the adoptive parent dip, the knives come out. This may not happen in the case of dynastic parachutists because they have a reservoir of support because of their political lineage.
Parachutists have to be distinguished from political protégées. Leaders of political parties have their likes and dislikes for members of their parties. They promote some and put down others. If protégées are savvy, they build their own group of supporters in a party. It can be argued that parachutists can also build bases in their parties, but it is difficult for them to do so.
The parachutist phenomenon is seen in almost all political parties. This is true of the Congress, the BJP, as well as the regional parties. The only exceptions seem to be the Communist Parties. Many former civil servants and a few serving ones, too, former army officers and others join political parties with fanfare, often before elections. Political parties consider them as trophies to impress the public with their own popularity and, hence, the probability of their success in the coming election. Those who join clearly want to be parachutists. Most are simply thrust to the margins; some are given sinecures which secure them “gari, ghora” but little more.
The preferred route of the parachutist is through the safety of the Rajya Sabha. Some do contest elections to the Lok Sabha, and that is admirable because it gives them a feel of politics in the field as distinct from the comfort of party headquarters. Of course, the Constitution does not require only the membership of the Lok Sabha as eligibility for political office, but continuous Rajya Sabha membership cannot give a political connect. What is common to both dynasts and parachutists is that they have the haven of the Rajya Sabha, even if they lose Lok Sabha elections. The families of the former and adoptive political parents of the latter ensure that.
Any Indian national indeed has the right to join politics at any time. If anyone does it, for instance, after retirement, it would be preferable if they work in the field, away from the limelight. Obviously, then they would not have a desire to be parachutists but would be only following their convictions. These persons would bring the benefit of their experience to national life but would not seek the power and pelf of high office.
Perhaps the most significant parachutist in India’s history was Manmohan Singh. He did not hold any political office till he was inducted as Finance Minister by Prime Minister Narasimha Rao. He played his cards well with the Gandhis, earning their trust. That enabled him to remain in the party’s leadership positions even though he lost the Lok Sabha elections. In 2004, Sonia Gandhi made him the Prime Minister, but real political power remained with her. For the next 10 years, what should always be quintessentially a political office was engaged only in policy-making and administration.
The Indian political system does not contemplate dyarchies. The Prime Minister and the cabinet as the elected executive cannot bow to the will of, or be controlled by, outside individuals or organisations. They should not look to them either for political or ideological guidance. That would be contrary to their popular mandate.
The phenomenon of parachutists is flourishing. It has also led to one interesting development: The decision to grant cabinet rank to some who hold very senior staff positions. The obvious reason was that their juniors in the civil services were inducted into the cabinet.
New times bring in new practices.
The writer is a former diplomat
