Opinion Young Turks? Really?

In India,we have become so accustomed to hereditary democracy that we in the media have barely noticed what the Lok Sabha has been reduced to in recent years. So,it took a foreign writer to remind us. Patrick French in his very readable new book,‘India: an intimate biography of 1.2 billion people’,has done a deep analysis of hereditary MPs and concluded that by the next Lok Sabha,we could have 150 MPs who have come into politics on account of Mummy,Daddy or some other relation.

This is not good news. If you had tried,as I have,to engage our ‘Young Turks’ in conversation about even less important political matters,you would understand why. Usually all they are able to spout are banalities,babble and buzzwords. Environment,food security,infrastructure,whatever the subject of the moment is,they will know the words but almost nothing else. And if you travel with them,in their constituencies,you will observe that these scions of important political leaders have almost no ability to communicate with the people they represent.

Their ability to speak the local language is often limited and because they have not been thrown up by political movements or made any serious effort to understand Indian political history,the ugly realities of rural India escape them. They whizz from village to village,in their expensive SUVs and if they stop somewhere,it is not the revered ‘aam aadmi’ that they get to talk to,but local party bosses. So,why do they win,you may be asking,and the answer is that it is mostly because they are more often than not the children of a major political leader who is too powerful to challenge. It must be said here,though,that Bihar’s voters were ruthless in their rejection of Lalu Yadav and family,and we may see something similar happen to Karunanidhi’s kith and kin in Tamil Nadu. Happy thought.

Hereditary MPs are bad for Indian democracy not just because they are politically illiterate and disconnected from their constituencies but because they severely weaken political parties. The moment that a political party acquires an heir apparent,you can be sure that its links with grassroots democracy weaken. This is especially true now when even village politicians seek to establish dynasties of their own.

Not so long ago,there was only one political Dynasty in India. Today,nearly every political party is led by a baby dynasty and treated as a family business to be handed down to an heir. Every two-bit MP tries to ensure that his constituency does not slip into the hands of someone who is not related by blood. You do not need a degree in political science to work out why this is happening. A career in politics means money,money and more money,so next time you hear a political leader tell you that he is in politics to serve the people,feel free to laugh in his face.

The funny thing is that the only politician who has talked of the need to democratise the functioning of political parties through elections is Rahul Gandhi. What puzzles me,though,is why he has done no more than talk about it. Why does he not insist that our oldest political party,set an example to others by ensuring that in future only they will move upwards,who rise through the ranks by inner party elections and not those who pay court in the Delhi Durbar. If the heir to India does it,there is no question that lesser heirs will follow. Incidentally,has someone told Rahul every Congress MP under 35 is an HMP?