Internal Democracy in Indian Political Parties

9

Tweet

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 centrestage of Indian politics and 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 has yet another example to teach 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 - the length and breadth across India!

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 the Indian 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 Lalus and company in Bihar and the list is endless. They believe in parivars 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 never interested in spending time and energy to democratise their internal system because of the fear that they would lose their grip over the family silver. Majority of the Indian 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. They are "state men" rather than "statesmen".

Recently the Supreme Court finds it difficult to give even directions to the 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 consisting of Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justice P. Sathasivam passed the buck when they said "it was for the Income Tax Department to look into the issue. Why should we interfere in it?"

The 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 unless you are well connected" and the outburst of Margaret Alva, one of the staunch family loyalists, when she speaks of Congress tickets being "sold".

Both Rahul Gandhi and Margaret Alva are living examples of all that is wrong with the Congress in particular and the Indian political system at large. 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 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 she too would want to continue with the same tradition and would like to plant her elder son Nivedith 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 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 will handle 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" and India is just an "imitation" democracy!