A Dutt for another Dutt

When will we see the end of nepotism in Indian politics? Right from the Gandhi clan to their vociferous Thackeray who derided dynasty rule until his own son Uddhav led to the exit of Narayan Rane, one of their trusted aides, Indian politics simply cannot dissociate itself from dynasty identity politics. The latest case, although a bit dated now, is the nomination of Priya Dutt to the Lok Sabha seat recently vacated due to Sunil Dutt’s demise.

Has grassroots politics failed totally that they couldn’t find any noteworthy party worker to contest the election? If politics is all about identity, then any grassroots worker who has worked patiently for his constituents should be easily identifiable to the electorate. What if they aren’t recognized outside the constituency; after all the people that elect them only matter, right? The safety net of identity is so firmly entrenched in Indian politics that no major party is willing to risk an ordinary party worker to an elected post. It is almost like there are two distinct levels of hierarchy in an organization; the easily-identifiable figurehead that contests the election and the organizational machinery that works to get them elected. In return, the elected official ‘rewards’ the party workers with small favors.

There would be a serious uprising if the underlying support mechanism was discontent but it almost seems like a symbiotic relationship; each hankering after their share of the pie without really caring about the big picture. Adam Smith argued that everyone striving to achieve their selfish end would end up creating a collective wealth but I don’t see that happening in a social setting. There should be a degree of altruism in political work that we see seriously lacking in most Indian constituencies. From the point of view of the constituency, does nepotism achieve better results? Will a daughter care for the constituency as much as her father did? Maybe or maybe not; however, it is always assumed that irrespective of where the children have grown up, they will always want to return to their roots i.e. their parent’s political legacy. Probably they will but not because they care but because it works out well for all concerned.


Related Posts

  1. Kaun Hai Khalnayak
  2. Death in your sleep.
  3. Twittering National Secrets

  • http://imsri.blogspot.com Ramana

    Though it primarily means governing affairs pertaining to a nation or a state, politics has long since ceased to be that and more a game of chess where power rules and is lusted after by many aspirants. One, it is the only means to unlimited ‘wealth’ that could be unaccounted for, two, it’s the only area where you can arm-wrestle your way to the top. I mean, isn’t it even used in jest in our day to day talks where we rib ourselves – ‘hey you should run for president or a certain party (here in India) ?’ Now, altruism, though an ideal virtue to have when you have the general good of the people in mind, has long since died in our political construction. Why? Because altruism won’t get you power, at least not the fast – n – furious way that ‘nepotism’ does. And nepotism sometimes works even for the party worker because a new guy might not dance to the tunes of the party whereas a son or a daughter might just do. Or even if the person didnt’ dance to their tunes, at least they could be insinuated into doing so. It’s all about ‘keeping it inside the family’ thing. When we have a successor in a family member, it’s that much easier to maintain previous ‘records’ without allowing the skeletons to peep out. I guess that’s how politics works best in our country. Will this change? Who knows..politics has always been like cricket. Just when you thought you had the ball well within your range, it does a googly, blindsiding you.

  • http://ipatrix.com Patrix

    Ramana, thanks for sharing your views. I agree with you that nepotism suits both sides equally and seems to be the easier way out. But finally, the long term result is not so great. After all, genes simply cannot replace statesmanship abilities. We don’t need political leaders anymore, we need statesmen (or stateswomen)

  • http://www.calamur.org/gargi harini calamur

    i also think that in an increasingly media intense world, the “brand” name helps. it is easier to vote for a dutt or a bush or a gandhi, than take risk with an untried option. nations across the world are facing such a drought of leadership, it seems to make more sense for the voters to choose safe rather than an unknown name.
    besides Priya Dutt is also a grass roots worker. has done a fair bit acutally. works with the spastic society and so on.
    but, as you point there are probably more competent and qualified people – but without the “brand” name.

  • http://balancinglife.blogspot.com Sunil Laxman

    It’s the old fashioned Indian thingy……dad’s a trader, you become a trader, dad’s and actor, you become an “actor”, dad’s in politics..you jump into politics :-)

    The system doesn’t really allow a person to rise from the “grassroots”.

  • Yajiva

    I guess its the easiest way out not only for political parties, or offsprings or spouses but for cricketers and Bollywood also. Abhishek Bachhan gives a dozen flops before he performs one good role–c’mon now even a school kid will learn that way but the papa is behind it you see.
    I think one can get the right perspective if we study our inheritance laws; one inherits from their parents and grandparents not only their wealth but also their profession and competence be damned. Priya Dutt may or may not be competent but I think the best way for this cycle of nepotism to be broken is for the voting public to soundly denounce by voting for the other candidate. And to think that the drug addict Sanju baba is going to be her mentor. Now the pota cases will also be withdrawn against him I guess.