D for dynasty

D for dynasty

For the record, Rashtriya Janata Dal chief Laloo Prasad Yadav has distanced himself from the hectic celebrations slated to culminate in the anointing of his school-going teenaged son as inheritor of Bihar. In fact, Laloo sees his son's projection as an Opposition sponsored move to give him a bad name. Why is it still so difficult, then, to accept his disclaimers for the farcical spectacle of huge street hoardings proclaiming young Tej Pratap as Yuva Samrat, or for the naming of a brand new colony after him? There are at least three reasons why Laloo's protestations lack so completely in believability: Sadhu Yadav, Subhash Yadav and Rabri Devi. Given his track record of running Bihar like a family fief, given the free rein to the brothers-in-law and the chief ministerial chair to the wife, Laloo cannot shrug off responsibility for the political hoopla currently surrounding his son with any degree of credibility. For the same reasons, the prospect of a callow teenager being entrusted with the future of Bihar isnot as fantastic as it may at first seem.

Meanwhile, another dynastic takeover is reportedly due to be smoothly accomplished in a few days. It is learnt that Congress chief Sonia Gandhi has offered the Shahjahanpur Lok Sabha seat that fell vacant due to the death of Jitendra Prasada to his widow, Kanta Prasada. Mrs Prasada is seen to have inherited her husband's political mantle in general and his rebellious faction within the Congress in particular. So doesn't it make eminent political sense for Sonia Gandhi to offer her his parliamentary berth as well? It is time that question in Shahjahanpur as well as the drama in Patna provoked more than the usual outrage against arrogant leaders practising and perpetuating a dynastic politics. It has become customary and convenient to blame the megalomaniac leader for trying to hold on to power by all means, and all the kin, at his/her disposal. But the sorry fact is that the goings-on in Patna and Shahjahanpur point to more than an individual culpability. They point to a pervasive political culture in whichdynasty becomes `the' rallying point and the main instrument of political mobilisation because political parties are too lazy and far too removed from popular concerns to work up and sustain genuinely political campaigns on genuinely political issues.

It is highly debatable today, for instance, whether the dynasty needs the Congress more than the party needs its Nehru-Gandhis. Decades of complacency and sheer sloth have led to a situation where ironically the invocation of dynasty is the only real issue the party is left with. Over the years, workers have dwindled, far outnumbered by `leaders' who owe their status not to the cultivation of a mass base but of the Family. It is a sad phenomenon, this dynastic politics. But the villains are many more in number than isimmediately visible.