"imitation democracy" is better than "non-democracy". On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 12:15 PM, briana moore <[email protected]>wrote:
> * > Nepotism: Is India an imitation democracy?* > > > BENJAMIN DISRAELI, England’s first and only Jewish prime minister, once > said, "In a progressive country change is constant; change is inevitable." > But, I don’t think this applies to Indian politics because the scourge of > nepotism has never left the centre stage of Indian politics. It’s constant. > In our childhood days, when we were told about India’s ‘unity in diversity’ > I’m sure we would never have understood the full extent of the meaning of > the phrase but now, thanks to omnipotent ‘nepotism’ in Indian politics, our > education system might incorporate yet another example of teaching our > children about India’s ‘unity in diversity’. From Abdullhas in Kashmir to > Karunanidhis in Tamil Nadu our politicians are one in perpetrating > ‘nepotism’ and it’s not an exaggeration if we claim this gene of nepotism > runs in every Indian’s blood, across the length and breadth of the country! > > Like many of the ill-wills afflicting this nation, the disease called > nepotism too was effectively introduced in Indian politics by the Congress > party in its obsession with the Nehru-Gandhi family. > > Apart from the three family trees so far mentioned in this article the > dynasties spread across all "isms" and all regions of our political > spectrum. From the Thackerays, the Pawars and the Deoras of Maharashtra to > the Karunakarans of Kerala to the Chidambarams and the Ramadosses of Tamil > Nadu to the Naidus and Reddys of Andhra Pradesh to the Gowdas of Karanataka > to Patnaiks of Orissa to the Mulayams and Mayawatis of Uttar Pradesh to the > Badals in Punjab to the Chautalas in Haryana to the Scindias, Jaswant Singhs > and Pilots in Rajasthan to the Laloos and company in Bihar, the list is > endless. They believe in *Parivars* or *gharana* politics rather than in > ideologies. They are the first families in their respective fiefdoms and are > law unto themselves. > > The end result is our political parties, while fighting tooth and nail to > perpetrate their kinds of rule in their local strongholds, are never > interested in spending time and energy to democratise their internal > systems. It’s because of the fear that they might lose their grip over the > family silver. Most of the political parties are nothing but private > limited companies. When starting a political party has become such a > profitable venture it is foolhardy on the part of the electorate to expect > any kind of self-regulation and internal democracy. Most of our present day > leaders are ‘state men’ rather than ‘statesmen’. > > Recently the Supreme Court found it difficult to give directions to > political parties to file income tax returns when the Association of > Democratic Reforms, in its petition, urged the Apex Court to order them to > file income returns for each assessment year. The bench consists of Chief > Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justice P. Sathasivam merely said, "…it was > for the Income Tax Department to look into the issue. Why should we > interfere in it?" > > Political parties in India get divided not due to any ideological reasons > but mainly due to family feuds and palace intrigues. As Pratap Bhanu Mehta > writes, "Our political parties seem to be similar in their style of > functioning. Most are based on loyalty to leaders rather than loyalty to > causes or institutions. Very few have properly institutionalised norms of > recruitment and membership. And none has any real intra-party democracy." > > Meanwhile what’s even more striking is the recent remark by Rahul Gandhi > when he admits ‘democracy’ in political parties "is non-existent in India”. > You cannot enter politics unless you are well connected. The outburst of > Margaret Alva, one of the staunch family loyalists of the Gandhis, when she > speaks of Congress tickets being ‘sold’ is sadly true. > > Both Rahul Gandhi and Margaret Alva are living examples of all that is > wrong with the Congress in particular and the Indian political system, in > general. Whilst there is no doubt about the lineage of Rahul Gandhi, > Margaret Alva too is a product of nepotism and privilege. As the > daughter-in-law of Joachim and Violet Alva, the first Congress couple in the > parliament, she was handpicked by Indira Gandhi to become a Rajya Sabha MP, > in 1974, when she was barely 32. She went on to serve four terms till 1998. > In 1999, she contested on a Lok Sabha ticket and won. In both Rajiv Gandhi > and Narasimha Rao cabinets she held important portfolios and therefore it’s > totally uncalled for when she suddenly accuses the very system, which has so > far helped her reap benefits. > > The answer is not a difficult one. Like any Indian political leader would > behave in a similar manner, she too wants to continue with the same > tradition and would like to plant her elder son Nivedith, as her successor > in the system, before it is too late! > > The irony is that it is simply out of place for both Margaret Alva and > Rahul Gandhi to adopt this kind of moral posturing in a party ruled by a > political dynasty and crowded with children of political clans. > > What’s also amazing is the shadow boxing that both the leaders unwittingly > indulge in. In Alva’s case the real target is none other than Digvijay > Singh, the chairman of the screening committee who, she claims, is the man > who looked the other way while tickets were being bought and sold. On the > other hand it’s an open secret that Digvijay Singh enjoys the confidence of > none other than Rahul Gandhi himself! > > So, is Margaret Alva taking on Rahul Gandhi to tell the whole world how > come nepotism on the part of the first family of the Congress is okay but > not of other leaders? Or is it called the ‘family value’? > It would be interesting to see how the Congress leadership handles this > unlikely scenario but one thing is clear: coteries in the Congress Party are > well and alive and Benjamin Disraeli has to blame himself for speaking too > much when he said, "change is constant" but, of course, he only talked about > "a progressive country”. Sadly, India is just an ‘imitation democracy’. > > ^ ^ ^ ^ > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "English Learner's Cafe" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/english_learners?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
