*http://retributions.nationalinterest.in/son-rise/ *
** *Nepotism is the DNA of Indian society. * What is the unifying theme in Indian politics? What transcends all barriers of religion/region/caste/creed and is equally true for Kashmir as it is for Tamil Nadu? As any observe of Indian politics would testify, the answer is dynastic politics. The virus of making political parties family-based ventures started from the Congress party in its obscene obsession with the Nehru-Gandhi family and has spread across the Indian political spectrum. Therefore, a Laloo Yadav can impose his wife as the chief minister of Bihar while the family feud in DMK would put any saas-bahu serial to shame. Even parties, which have vehemently criticized Congresss' dynastic politics in the past, have no qualms in promoting the children of their leaders. But the important question to ask is not why India's ruling Maharajs want to pass on their inheritance to their children-that is but natural in the Indian context but why this utter perversion of democracy; this cynical nepotism tolerated by the Indian voter? Perhaps, tolerated is not the correct word, for it is not merely condoned but actively, and one may say so, wholeheartedly endorsed. In the marketplace of democracy, where electoral success is the defining feature, it makes immense sense to anoint a family member as heir apparent. There is simply no political price to be paid! The answer to the question posed above perhaps lies in the very structure of Indian society. As politicians are fond of pointing out, nepotism is hardly restricted to the political arena. Indeed, it would be fair to claim that it is the defining character of Indian society. In India's caste system, filmstars' children follow their illustrious parents' footsteps while industrialists revel in inherited wealth. Even in the less glamorous professionsfrom medicine to law-it is the inherited name which carry more weight than acquired skills. Why it may be so? Is it because family has always been the fulcrum of the Indian society? Individuals are expected to function not for their personal satisfaction or intellectual, social, and material advancement but for carrying forward the family name. This subservience of the individual to his family has made movement-both vertical and horizontalextremely difficult. The accumulated weight of burden stymies individual desires and passions. In turn, this has led to an extremely stagnant society where the individual's station in life seems predetermined-nay, pre-ordained. So manifest is the inability to understand this that social inequities brought forth by perpetuation of family/community's overwhelming role are sought to be countered by giving hand-outs based on community allegiance! However, this burden of family works both ways. The family not only expects its name to be carried forward, but also is expected to clear the way forward for its scion. That is why India's tallest political leaders in the sunset of their lives do not think of their legacy but on ways to divide the kingdom among their children. That is why India lacks its own Robert Wood Johnson Foundations, its Rockefellers, and multi-billion donations to her universities and research facilities. For the permanence of an individual-his place in history is not guaranteed by the larger social good-but only by the fortune he bequeaths. That he who seeks to perpetuate the family name at the same time must lose his individuality is an acceptable price to pay. This tendency to live vicariously-to derive pleasure and satisfaction from others' successes-explains this Indian tendency to take offense at the slightest slights: perceived or real. For an individual, so entwined in his community, that his very existence is defined by it would naturally take the community's defamation as his own. Or even the wild celebrations when anyone with the slightest Indian connection achieves success especially if merits an approval from the West. Or the tendency to look down upon India's own heroes and heroines. A community, by its very definition, craves for outside recognition. And that in India, carrying forward the White man's legacy, can only mean one thing! To be fair, nepotism is not unique to the Indian political scene. A Bush or Clinton has presided over America in the last 20 years and might continue to do so in the near future. What, however, is uniquely Indian is crass sycophancy; the implicit recognition that the party, the workers, and the entire nation exists only to celebrate the family. Here again the Indians' ability to be satisfied with less-to accept that he cannot strive for the highest political position-explains (at least partially) why the second rung leadership is so ready to embrace the imposed prince. That is why the economic reforms are so important for rejuvenating India's impotent social fabric. Indian genius, long shackled by laws imposed by family, society and the state (they have been used inter-changeably in the past-the *mai-baap sarkaar*) has finally been unleashed and allowed to seek its own fulfillment. How many self-made millionaires India created between 1947 and 1991? How many since then? This is not merely a function of economic or regulatory incentives-important as they may be-but far more importantly, allowing ordinary people to find their own space unencumbered by the burdens of the past. It is about allowing the luxury of failure. Unsurprisingly, India's next generation is willing to explore options beyond the ordinary. From generations which emphasized conventional careers, India is now finally beginning to produce those interested in professions that are decidedly more esoteric. But these are not the rebels of 1960's -those who sought to change the world. The Naxal movement was a movement of the vacuous-designed to satisfy the hyper-inflated egos of few by imposing an alien and stultified social order on the gullible. The new Indian is not for destruction but for establishment even as he constantly re-evaluates the old. Mayawati's unbridled ambition-her articulation of her desire to be the Prime Minister- so unique in Indian politics, characterizes this change as little else does. In 1957, Lal Bahadur Shashti, when asked to comment upon Jawahar Lal Nehru, pithily remarked, '*'inko sirf apni putri ki chinta ha*i". (He only cares about his daughter.) Rahul Gandhi's coronation is a celebration of this old and decadent culture. Despite its modern façade with its emphasis on generational shift and youth, it is a very much a reaffirmation of the past. It is in dissonance with the changing India and her ethos. To be sure, this changing India is still small in numbers and its immediate electoral impact may be limited. However, that the process of change has been set in motion is unquestionable. That is why despite the short-term gains; the long term viability of Rahul Gandhi brand of politics is questionable. Rahul Gandhi may be the last prince who would be the king. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" 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/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
