Click to play videoMany centuries ago, Machiavelli said: 'To fully comprehend the nature of the people, one must be a prince'. But the grand old party of India - the Congress - is all set to turn away from the Machiavellian advice.
According to the latest diktat, the party has asked all its members to discontinue using any feudal titles. So Congress politicians can no longer use tiles like Raja, Begum, Rajkumari, Nawab and Nizam.
However, critics say for a party ruled by a family aristocracy, this is nothing but a gimmick. With abolition of feudal titles making the headlines, CNN-IBN show Face the Nation debated: Congress diktat on Rajas and Ranis: Should royal titles for politicians be abolished?
The panel included Congress MP and Spokesperson Manish Tewari, Maharaja of Narsinghgarh and ex-Union minister Bhanu Prakash Singh and author and historian Ramachandra Guha.
It is an irony that Congress has abolished titles but the Union Government is presiding over a monarchy. The kind of dynastic politics that Congress is presiding has a large number of leaders who are either sons or daughters or relatives of senior leaders.
“We did not abolish titles. The Constitution of India did it on January 26, 1950 vide Article 18. We had this dynasty debate ad nauseum. It is an irrelevant debate. People who come into Parliament or the state legislature after winning the confidence of the people do so on the strength of their performance. They do not do so on the strength of their family name. So let us keep the two issues absolutely separate. You cannot compare apples and pears,” said Manish Tewari.
So do people who vote for scions do it out of love for the candidate and not because they belong top a particular family.
Guha pointed out that apart from the Congress there are many other parties who are guilty of dynastic politics.
“I think there is restricted choice here and not just in the Congress but in the DMK, Shiv Sena, the Akali Dal, the Samajwadi Party. These are very closely run family firms. So in a way they aren’t open in a way political parties should be in a modern democracy. They are barriers to entry and they are also barriers to promotions. We are an imperfect democracy. Let’s call it darbari (courtroom) democracy. Two titles that should be abolished are Madam and Rahuji. Let’s have Mrs Gandhi and Mr Gandhi,” opined Guha.
Tewari interjected and said, “I am surprised that Mr Guha has decided to characterise Indian democracy in the manner that he has. He has joined all naysayers who never believed in the resilience of Indian democracy and our democratic experiment over the last 60 years speaks for itself. It does not require a certificate from anybody.”
Bhanu Prakash Singh said that abolition of titles is nothing but a gimmick. Nearly 50 per cent of India was formerly princely states. So how can one stop the people from calling Rajas, Ranis, Kunwar saheb? These are sometimes even terms of affection. Is this nothing but a very shallow gesture from a party that is now increasingly ruled by an aristocracy of birth?
“I would like to draw your attention that I was a member of Mrs Gandhi's government and on the issue of Privy Purse I had resigned. If abolishing these titles make people happy. I am for it. We have given our centuries old estates for the welfare of the nation. So what is it if somebody gives up the title? Let me put the records straight. In the 26th Amendment the titles were not abolished. The titles were not mentioned. It was only the rulership that was abolished,” said Bhanu Prakash Singh.
Tewari once again interrupted and pointed out that what Singh was saying was not completely true.
“The 26th Amendment not only abolished rulership but also all privileges that went with that. So it is a fallacious argument that Mr Bhanu Prakash Singh is making. These were precisely the arguments which were made as late as 1994 in Raghunath Rao’s case and the Supreme Court said that these erstwhile rulers did not do us any favours by merging their territories into India," said Tewari.
However, Singh simply asked how they could stop people to call them by their titles.
Some people say abolition of princely states led to loss in patronage of classical music, dance and art. So is the abolition of titles in some way a loss to the cultural mosaic of India?
”If people want to refer anyone as Maharaja it is okay. But to have a road called Shrimant Mahadhav Rao Scindia Marg is inappropriate. I hope by tomorrow it is whitewashed… at least the Shrimant part,” said Guha.
He went on to add that despite 60 years of democracy, India still remained a feudal society.
“We are a feudal society and as Ambedkar famously said that in India democracy is a top dressing or inhospitable soil. Look at the caste system, the aristocracy of Rajputs and Mughal and the British rule which was racist and now 60 years of democracy. We have to slowly unravel this. The battle between democracy and feudalism will be a long battle,” he pointed out.
Increasingly like Pakistan where just a few families have captured the politics and the country is paying the price for it as the poor have no place in the system, in India, too, very rich politicians simply pass on the family business to their sons or daughters along with the Lok Sabha seat.
It means politics is going to become a closed shop and the poor will not get a stake in the system. So it is like bringing back monarchy even though titles are being abolished.
Tewari did not agree and claimed that many MPs who were elected in the recently concluded Lok Sabha elections did so because of their work and not because they belonged to some famous family.
“There are humble minions like me who still come to Parliament. So to say that Indian politics is a completely closed club and nobody is allowed to enter, I think totally erodes the legitimacy of Lok Sabha. Lok Sabha is a mosaic of India’s diversity and people from all walks of life take party in it. So I would not call it like Pakistan. If you juxtapose and see all the countries that gained independence when we did then we have done wonderfully well and no one can take away that achievement,” said Tewari.
Guha supported Tewari and said that many political parties are responsible for the state that Indian democracy finds itself.
“This criticism is not levelled only against the Congress. It is also levelled against the DMK, the Akalis and the Samajwadi Party. There is capture of political parties by families, capture of constituencies. Look at Sangma and his daughter. This is not the India that Mahatma, Nehru, Patel, Ambedkar nurtured. There is a degradation of the political system. We should recognise it,” he said.
Even Rahul Gandhi has recognised dynastic politics and is confronting it openly.
“Mr Gandhi is not leveraging dynastic politics. He is trying to build a futuristic Congress and in that he has opened the doors of mass organisations so that more people can come in and it can become more inclusive that what it was earlier. To say he is leveraging dynasty is a completely erroneous characterisation of his work. The litmus tests of this are the people of India. Indian people will reject leaders if they see that they have nothing apart from family name,” said Tewari.
People may not have any reservation of voting for candidates whose father or mother they knew. Is it because democratic awareness is still not there?
“Ambedkar was right. Let’s compare ourselves with our founders. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi did not leave his property to his children. So let’s give the people of India a much wider choice. There is a tussle between democracy on one side and feudalism and hierarchy on the other side. Simply because we hold regular General Elections doesn’t mean we are a flawless democracy,” claimed Guha.
Nehru has no problem calling people raja. Yet he did not perpetuate dynasty. So is the Congress getting it wrong… abolishing titles on one hand and yet upholding monarchical politics on the other hand?
Guha ended the debate saying, “They (Congress) should have done it quietly. They should not have made a public statement. They should have started by changing names of roads named after ex-maharajas.”
Final web/SMS poll result:
Yes: 86 per cent
No: 14 per cent
(For updates you can share with your friends, follow IBNLive on Facebook, Twitter and Google+)
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
displayed with permission. Use of the CNN name and/or logo on or as part of CNN-IBN does not derogate from the intellectual property rights of Cable News Network in respect of them.