Connect with us

Opinion

A new trend in how dynastic politics works in India

The Kashmir Monitor

Published

🕒

on

IST

By Ajaz Ashraf

The principle of primogeniture that has determined succession in India’s political dynasties is under stress. Former Haryana Chief Minister Om Prakash Chautala recently overlooked the claims of his elder son, Ajay Chautala, to hand over the reins of the family-run Indian National Lok Dal to his younger son, Abhay Chautala.

In Bihar, after the Grand Alliance comprising the Rashtriya Janata Dal, Janata Dal (United) and the Congress swept to power in 2015, former Chief Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav had his younger son, Tejashwi Yadav, appointed the deputy chief minister, signalling that he did not intend to pass the dynastic sceptre, so to speak, to his elder son, Tej Pratap Yadav.

 

These choices of the patriarchs have caused much heartburn to their children, even leading to a revolt in the Chautala dynasty. This can be ascribed to India’s ageist culture, which presumes that the patriarch’s eldest child, or the male next to him in age among his kin, is best suited to preside over the dynasty.

Indeed, ageism was what drove the conflict in Mulayam Singh Yadav’s family ahead of the 2017 Uttar Pradesh election. In that unseemly battle, the former chief minister’s son Akhilesh Yadav fought his uncle Shivpal Yadav for control of their Samajwadi Party. Akhilesh Yadav, then chief minister, ultimately trumped his uncle, who has since floated his own party, Pragatisheel Samajwadi Party Lohia. Ageists backed Shivpal Yadav as he is 18 years older than Akhilesh Yadav.

Ageism exerts its pull even when the age difference between contenders is minimal – Tej Pratap Yadav is only a year older to Tejashwi Yadav, but he has not reconciled to his younger brother being declared, last November, the chief ministerial candidate of the family-run Rashtriya Janata Dal. He had earlier been appointed the leader of the Opposition after the Grand Alliance government collapsed in 2017.

It seemingly riles Tej Pratap Yadav that since the coalition government’s collapse deprived him of his status as a minister, he has been an ordinary MLA. When his demand for a party post for a close aide was rebuffed, he tweeted that he was thinking of placing Arjun on the throne and retiring to Dwarka. Put simply, he, like Lord Krishna, had no interest other than to inspire the Yadav clan’s Arjun – Tejashwi Yadav – to fight the battle for chief ministership. It is by constructing an image of the selfless brother that Tej Pratap Yadav seeks to overcome the slight that, in India’s ageist culture, is inherent in his father overlooking him for the leadership of their party. On another occasion, he cautioned those who were trying to create a rift between Balram and Krishna, thereby likening himself to Balram, who loved his younger brother Krishna.

But Tej Pratap Yadav has also vented his fury. He once said, “Party people don’t receive my calls and say they have been asked by senior leaders to do so.” The lack of deference within the Rashtriya Janata Dal to his seniority has led to the Opposition invoking ageism to prick Tej Pratap Yadav’s pride. For example, Bharatiya Janata Party vice president Devesh Kumar was quoted as saying that though his party abhors dynastic politics, going by the Hindu tradition, Tej Pratap Yadav, being the elder son, deserved to be Lalu Yadav’s political heir.

Lalu Yadav set aside the principle of primogeniture because he thought Tejashwi Yadav was a better choice to lead the dynastic party. Although both brothers are school dropouts, Tejashwi Yadav acquired cosmopolitan polish studying in Delhi. He was a member of the Delhi Daredevils in the Indian Premier League, played a couple of Ranji Trophy matches, and an assortment of Under-15 and Under-19 cricket tournaments.

Mingling with people from diverse social backgrounds has provided the younger Yadav a persona that can help him connect with the expanding middle class. Though Tej Pratap Yadav is more in the mould of his father, earthy and rustic, Lalu Yadav still recognised Tejashwi Yadav as the man for the future.

As India has changed, so has Lalu Yadav. It was perhaps his desire to bring into his family an educated, English-speaking daughter-in-law that led Lalu Yadav to choose Aishwariya Rai as Tej Prasad Yadav’s wife. They were a mismatch – she was schooled at Patna’s elite Notre Dame Academy and graduated from Miranda House, Delhi. Perhaps Lalu Prasad thought the marriage could smooth Tej Pratap Yadav’s rough edges that his aborted schooling hadn’t.

But the marriage was also Lalu Yadav’s search for social respectability. Aishwariya Rai is the granddaughter of Daroga Rai, Bihar’s chief minister in 1970. The Rais are what could be described as the vintage Yadav family, and a marital alliance with such a family has social and political advantages. Tej Pratap Yadav, though, seems unwilling to subordinate his individuality to the dynasty’s larger interest.

Before initiating the divorce proceedings against his wife, Tej Pratap Yadav said, “I had told my parents that I did not wish to marry at this moment of time. But nobody listened to me…I am a simple man with simple habits while she is a modern woman, educated in Delhi, and used to living in a metropolis.” He has, till now, continued to rebuff his family’s pleas to make up with his wife.

Tej Pratap Yadav’s penchant for being his own man suggests that he can become a problem to Tejashwi Yadav, whose political graph continues to rise. The setting aside of the principle of primogeniture by his father may well become Tej Yadav’s rallying call.

Lalu Yadav could have tellingly courted modernity had he passed the dynastic crown to his eldest child, Misa Bharti. He did not because of patriarchy, it is contended. An MBBS, Bharti is in her mid-40s, many years elder to her brothers. So, both education and ageism favoured her. Bharti did have the first shy at power. Her political path might have turned out differently had she not lost her maiden Lok Sabha election in 2014. Bharti is said to have pressured her father to get her elected to the Rajya Sabha. It only seems to have whetted her political appetite.

According to The Telegraph, the night before the Grand Alliance government took office in 2015, Bharti flew into a rage. She wondered why she had been overlooked for a Cabinet berth despite being the eldest of Lalu Yadav’s nine children and the first among them to enter politics. It took Nitish Kumar and his advisor, Prashant Kishor, to pacify Bharti.

Her political ambition is why many looked askance at a comment she made last month: “Five fingers are never the same. In my family there are differences between my brothers. RJD is a bigger family.” Patna’s rumour mill went into overdrive, speculating why she had gratuitously disclosed the squabbling in the family. Bharti claimed her statement had been twisted out of context. She has all the makings of a contender to the family’s mantle.

In Uttar Pradesh, it was paradoxical of Mulayam Singh Yadav to send his son to an engineering college in Mysuru, then abroad and yet expect him to subscribe to ageism, which legitimises inequality based on age. As Mulayam Singh Yadav was not in good health in 2012, he and Shivpal Yadav decided to make Akhilesh Yadav the face of the Samajwadi Party in that year’s state election. They rightly thought that his command over the grammar of modernity would appeal to voters beyond the party’s traditional base.

The elders, however, maintained their tight control over the Samajwadi Party. Soon, two centres of power emerged – Shivpal Yadav in the party and Akhilesh Yadav in the governance structure. This situation became untenable as the 2017 Assembly polls drew close. Akhilesh Yadav’s future depended on whether he could wrest control over ticket distribution from his uncle. After all, if he were to lose, his standing would depend on the number of MLAs he commanded.

Akhilesh Yadav started asserting himself in late 2016, triggering a family feud that made headlines for weeks. He eventually won the fight for the party’s bicycle symbol. He may have lost the 2017 election, but his control over the party was established beyond doubt.

From Shivpal Yadav’s perspective, ageism was a justifiable reason for refusing to kowtow to Akhilesh Yadav. Filial love was another reason: Akhilesh Yadav’s control over the party implied that Shivpal Yadav and his son Aditya Yadav could no longer be principal shareholders in the dynastic enterprise.

Akhilesh Yadav’s control over the Samajwadi Party implied that Shivpal Yadav and his son Aditya Yadav could no longer be key shareholders in the dynastic enterprise. Photo credit: PTI

By forming his own party, Shivpal Yadav does not hope to capture power. His aim is to cut into the Samajwadi Party’s votes and prevent Akhilesh Yadav from establishing that he can win without his uncle’s formidable organisational skills. This could enable Shivpal Yadav to cannibalise the Samajwadi Party’s support and lay the foundation for an offshoot of the Yadav dynasty.

To this end, Shivpal Yadav will likely try to recruit Mulayam Singh Yadav’s family members who face existential anxieties. He will try to win over Akhilesh Yadav’s step brother, Prateek Yadav, son of Mulayam Singh Yadav from his second marriage. Prateek Yadav is married to Aparna Bisht Yadav, who unsuccessfully contested the 2017 Assembly election.

Aparna and Prateek Yadav cannot vie for the dynastic crown as long as Akhilesh Yadav retains control over the Samajwadi Party. This was why pundits saw signs of realignment when Aparna Yadav shared the stage with Shivpal Yadav. It is also in the BJP’s interests to deepen the fissures in the Yadav dynasty, a pointer to which was the state government’s decision to allot to Shivpal Yadav the palatial bungalow vacated by the Bahujan Samaj Party chief Mayawati.

Indeed, ruthless succession wars have become a recurring aspect of our democracy. This is because modernity has dynasts tilt against the inequality inherent in the ideas of primogeniture, ageism, and gender-based exclusion that once glued together the Indian political dynasty.


The Kashmir Monitor is the fastest growing newspaper as well as digitial platform covering news from all angles.

Advertisement
Loading...
Comments

Opinion

A prayer for our times

The Kashmir Monitor

Published

on

By Rajeev Bhargava

As all of us ordinary citizens recovered from the carnage in Pulwama, and wondered how the government would respond to this latest instance of cross-border terrorism, one television channel showed us poignant images of grieving relatives of the fallen soldiers. While a few, driven by moral hatred for the perpetrators, were understandably crying for revenge, others, even at this moment of utmost suffering, spoke of the futility of retaliation. “It would only bring similar suffering to fellow humans,” said one widow from the rural hinterland. Hers was a cry for peace, not for vengeful violence. “War can only be the last resort, after everything else has failed,” she wisely counselled.

Yes, war is sometimes necessary, especially in self-defence. But one doesn’t have to be an unconditional pacifist to acknowledge the misfortunes it begets or to decry war mongering. Nor is readiness to go to war the only indicator of patriotism. True, patriots must be prepared to die in defence of their ‘patria’, their mother or fatherland. But one is not any less a patriot if one strives for everyone in his country living peacefully, happily, flourishing, leading life to its fullness. Fighting the daily challenges faced by their countrymen, seeking to improve their lot, always loving them and their habitat, and expressing this love in word or deed as the occasion demands is the everyday vocation of a patriot.

 

 A country at war is different. War is disruptive, and because it is lethal and involves human sacrifice, a patriot must eschew any bravado about it. This is particularly expected from contemporary leaders, patriots who never themselves go to war; quite unlike the past where the ruler who declared war was expected to always lead from the front on the battlefield. After all, it is our Army officers and jawans who die, not the ones who call for and support war. Our rulers move about with elaborate security to protect their own lives. If they don’t allow others to play with their lives, they must ensure that no one plays with the life of their countrymen, most of all our soldiers. Decisions on war must then be taken responsibly, without haste, not for spectacular effect or as tactical ploys in a game.

The inner workings of the human mind are mysterious, however. For it is not these thoughts that crossed my mind when I saw those moving images on television. This reasoning is retrospective; thoughts that have occurred to me now, post-facto. At that time, a strange melange of emotions — feelings of grief, despair, shame, nostalgia — curdled up and then suddenly, from nowhere, the lyrics of an immortal song by Sahir Ludhianvi, set to tune by Jaidev and sung melodiously by Lata Mangeshkar in the 1961 Dev Anand classic Hum Dono, came unbidden to mind: “Maangon ka sindoor na chhutey, maa behenon ki aas naa tootey (may no one be widowed; may no mother or sister lose hope of their loved one returning).”

In the film, these lines are part of a prayer for peace led by the wife and mother of a Major of the Indian Army missing in action — a prayer not only that their own loved one returns home safe but that no wife, mother or sister may lose loved ones in war. Death in war is an interruption, an anomaly. It takes away from us young, active, lively persons who have not yet lived their full life. When a soldier dies in the prime of life, he leaves many tasks unfinished, many relationships incomplete, millions of desires unfulfilled. And according to popular belief, when a person at the height of his powers meets a bloody, violent, untimely end, his prana or atman remains in limbo, trapped in no man’s land; it leaves the body without reaching wherever it is meant to go and keeps hovering around us. May this never happen to anyone, says the poet. “Deh bina bhatke na praan (may the spirit not abruptly detach from the body and wander restlessly).”

But this mellifluous song is more than a comforting prayer for peace. It subtly points fingers at those who injudiciously push us into war, at the economically strong and politically powerful who bring war upon us for their own benefit, to serve their own nefarious purpose. “O saare jag ke rakhawaale, nirbal ko bal dene waale, balwaanon ko de de gyaan (jnana) (you, who watch over the entire universe, you who empower the weak, may you also grant wisdom to the mighty).”

Jnana here refers not simply to knowledge, but to wisdom, moral insight, indeed to conscience. May the rulers rule with a conscience! May they be able to distinguish right conduct from wrong. Really, only such people should guide us when we are faced with the dilemma of whether or not to undertake morally retributive action.

And this is not all. The prayer then becomes a plea that we all be endowed with sanmati — to put our intelligence to good use, to have sound judgments, that all have a conscience. Why? Because unsound judgments, faulty moral reasoning and suspension of good sense are not the lot of leaders alone but also of those who support them and legitimise their actions. It is after all we, ordinary folks, who are swayed by war hysteria. Those without good sense get the leaders they deserve. May the gift of sanmati be bestowed on us. For only people with sanmati can rein in leaders who have lost all sense of good and bad, right and wrong.

But who is this prayer addressed to? “Allah tero naam, Ishwar tero naam (You, whose name is both Allah and Ishwar). In this, his masterstroke, Sahir invokes not only Gandhi, but an entire, centuries-old religio-philosophical legacy of the subcontinent in which all traditions are believed to share the same semantic universe that enables the god of one religion to be translated into the god of another. This is inclusive monotheism at its best, where god is one but referred to in different traditions by different names. And so, the prayer is addressed to Allah, Ishwar, and implicitly to the god of every religion.

With men spewing venom, not satisfied with fighting a war with their own fellow countrymen, itching to go to war with others, nothing (empathy, reason, dialogue) seems to work. Helpless spectators, no longer in control of their collective life, in sight of a looming disaster on the horizon, often break into a prayer. What else can those stripped of agency do but hope that somehow good sense may prevail, that all of us be delivered from the collective insanity that shows no sign of loosening its grip? Thus, those who believe in one god, invoke him; those who believe in gods and goddesses, invoke them; and those who believe in neither, hope for some good fortune to fall in their lap! This is why this is a prayer for our times: we offer this prayer to you, Allah to some, Ishwar to others, that you miraculously bring an end to needless killings, wisdom and conscience to the rich and powerful, and peace and good sense to everyone.

(Courtesy: The Hindu)

Continue Reading

Opinion

The ‘Clash of Civilisations’ Thesis Stalks the World

The Kashmir Monitor

Published

on

By Ram Puniyani

The horrific massacre in Christchurch on March 15 has shaken the world. The killer, Brenton Harrison Tarrant, is an Australian citizen. Nearly 50 people died in the attack in which Tarrant attacked two mosques. Those killed include nine from India.

Tarrant had fixed a camera on his head so as to live stream the massacre. The Christchurch terrorist was consumed by intense racism and hatred of Muslims. He posted a long statement online, a “manifesto” of “white nationalism” before undertaking the dastardly act.

 

New Zealand Prime Minster Jacinda Ardern, who at 38 years of age is among the youngest heads of government in the world, was the first to term the shootings an act of terrorism. Arden declared that the victims, many of whom may be migrants or refugees, “are us”, and the shooter “is not”. The overriding theme of the Prime Minister’s statements was that her country represents “diversity, compassion and refuge”.

The Pope in a touching speech said, “In these days, in addition to the pain of wars and conflicts that do not cease to afflict humanity, there have been the victims of the horrible attack against two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand… I am close to our Muslim brothers and all that community… ”

As in India, the phobia of Islam and Muslims is founded on the narrow version of history. This phobia against Muslims around the world gained momentum after the 9/11 Twin Towers attack in New York.

This phobia has by now constructed its own History, selective and distorted, that centres around Muslim invaders and their alleged crimes in the medieval past. This History generates endless accusations. It singles out and exaggerates, holding a large and diverse group of people collectively responsible for these acts.

It is tragic that Tarrant’s hateful note is being supported by those who believe in this notion of politics and history. Again, taking revenge for the past is one of the dimensions of the agenda governing these ideologues: “To take revenge on the invaders for the hundreds of thousands of deaths caused by foreign invaders in European lands throughout history.”

Again, the radicalisation of the likes of Tarrant is due to the rabid propaganda current in the Western media – and many places besides – where Muslims are constantly presented in a negative light. Many newspapers and media groups – owned by a few – like the Daily Mail in the UK and Fox News in the USA have taken the lead in spreading negative perceptions against Muslims.

Such propaganda, along with many anti-immigrant and xenophobic websites, is spreading hatred against Muslims which in turn is the foundation of the attacks on Muslims. Muslims are also being demonised in terms familiar from anti-Semitism, portraying them as less than trustworthy, lesser citizens and inferior humans or not humans at all.

Many such biases and myths are prevalent in India also. In the Western mode of propaganda Muslims are now being portrayed as people whose wearing of the hijab is sufficient proof that they are against the norms of the West – against the US Constitution, for example. Similarities with prevalent perceptions in India!

One recalls the Norwegian Christian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik at this point of time. In a carefully planned attack in 2011, Brevik killed 69 youth with a machine gun and other assault weapons. He also had issued a manifesto, in which he said his primary goal was to remove Muslims from Europe.

Breivik also called for cooperation between Jewish groups in Israel, Buddhists in China, and Hindu nationalist groups in India to contain Islam. He wrote, “It is essential that the European and Indian resistance movements learn from each other and cooperate as much as possible. Our goals are more or less identical.”

We must note, that there are strong parallels between Tarrant’s and Breivik’s manifestos and the ideology of Hindu nationalism, or Hindutva, on the question of the nature of Islam: Muslims and coexistence with Muslims. Much like rightwing parties in the European mainstream, the BJP in India does condemn the violence for name’s sake, but participates in spreading the underlying ideology which is based on Islam-phobia.

Worldwide, this despicable politics is in a way the outcome of the ‘clash of civilisations’ thesis propounded by Samuel Huntington. At the end of the Cold War, with the collapse of Soviet Russia, Francis Fukuyama stated that now Western liberal democracy would be the final form of political system.

Building on this, Huntington stated that now the primary conflict would be around civilisations and cultures. Nation-states would remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics would occur between nations and groups belonging to different ‘civilisations’.

“The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.” As per this manifesto Western civilisation is faced with a challenge from backward Islamic civilisation, providing the basis for the American policy of attack on many Muslim-majority countries like Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Iran among others.

To counter this thesis the United Nations undertook the initiative for an ‘Alliance of Civilisations’ when Kofi Annan was Secretary-General. The high-level committee he appointed gave a report which argues that all the progress in the world has been due to the alliances between different cultures and civilisations.

Today we are facing times where American politics of ‘control over oil wells’ led to the formations like Al Qaeda and the Islamic State. After the 9/11 attacks perpetrated by men whom the US government formerly supported and armed, the US media popularised the phrase ‘Islamic terrorism’. What we are witnessing today is the fallout of this policy, which was pursued simply to control oil wealth.

The Islam-Muslim phobia this generated, in the West and elsewhere, has led in due course to White Nationalism. Like other forms of majoritarianism and violence, this needs to be countered ideologically, by demonstrating the inherent tendency of alliance between diverse cultures found throughout human history in the world.

Continue Reading

Opinion

The Sikh Empire’s Expedition to Balakot

The Kashmir Monitor

Published

on

By Ananth Karthikeyan

A few weeks ago, the Indian Air Force’s Balakot air strike using French-built Mirage-2000s bought India and Pakistan to the brink of war, and perhaps changed the regional dynamics forever. Balakot has a history which has been a subject of much interest in the past few days: it was the site of the end of Syed Ahmad Barelvi’s jihad at the hands of the Sikh Empire. Today we look at this history and another curious fact – this was not the first time that French weaponry has been wielded against Islamist fanatics in this region.

Maharaja Ranjit Singh (r. 1801-1839) was aware of the superiority of Europeans in technology and modern methods of war. He sought to close this gap by importing talent and building an indigenous capability. Ranjit Singh welcomed experienced scientists, engineers, mercenaries and officers from European nations to ensure that his kingdom could withstand any threat. Besides, the Afghan kingdom, the Pathan tribes and jihadis were threatening his western borders. French know-how became a major element in the defence of his realm. After Napoleon lost in Waterloo (June 1815) thousands of French and allied European soldiers were dismissed: the governments of Europe, including the new government of France, distrusted those who served under Napoleon. A few settled into civilian life, but most could not: fighting was all they knew, and they did not wish to waste the skills they honed fighting in three continents. Many offered their services to Asian kings who wished to modernize their backward militaries.

 

At this juncture, Ranjit Singh accepted talented Napoleonic officers such as Jean-Francois Allard, Jean-Baptiste Ventura, Paolo Avitabile, and Claude Auguste Court into his service. Besides such officers, there were chemists, doctors, engineers and soldiers of American, German, Italian, Polish and Irish extraction also. Many foreigners were given plum roles in the Empire. Claude Auguste Court was a product of the Ecole Polytechnique in Paris and apparently knew the science of artillery. Paolo Avitabile also had considerable experience as an artillery officer. Court and Avitabile, along with the Sikh leader Lehna Singh Majithia (who possessed great skill in engineering), overhauled the Sikh artillery. They established the training program for the gunners. Court re-organized the artillery command structure and established arsenals and magazines on European lines. The existing weapon foundries and workshops (established by Ranjit Singh and Mian Qadir Baksh in 1807) were rebuilt with French know-how to manufacture a variety of high-quality guns and artillery. Ranjit Singh soon possessed a formidable artillery of about 500 pieces, including mobile horse-drawn artillery. Court was bestowed large cash awards and titles when he introduced his new shells, fuses and commenced full-scale production.

The meteoric rise of the Sikhs and the decline of the Muslim kingdoms of India had agitated many Islamic fundamentalists. The most influential of them was the popular preacher Syed Ahmed Barelvi, who hailed from present-day Rae Bareilly. In 1825, thousands of his followers from the Gangetic Plains took up his call for jihad against infidel powers and followed him to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Barelvi’s Jihad was supported by many Afghan chiefs, who were usually suspicious of all outsiders. Barelvi was able to field nearly 100,000 Mujahideen and launched a five-year guerilla war against the Sikh Empire.

However, Barelvi’s orthodox interpretation of scriptures and stern disregard of Afghan tribal traditions soon led to many Afghans leaving his cause. Barelvi suffered a crushing defeat in a battle with the Sikhs near Nowshera in March 1827. Later some Afghan tribes turned on Barelvi and massacred hundreds of his followers in Peshawar in November 1830. Barelvi and his loyalists now decided to move out and try their luck in Kashmir. However, a Sikh army led by Sher Singh surrounded the Mujahideen at a mountain fort in Balakot and annihilated them in May 1831.

Ranjit Singh’s French guns and artillery were widely used in such battles in the turbulent North West frontier. Artillery and firearms which performed reliably enabled the Sikhs to prevail against great odds. Perhaps even more critical was the discipline instilled in the new infantry battalions by the European officers. Officers such as Ventura and Court also led campaigns into the North West frontier. However, after Ranjit Singh died, neither their weapons nor their courage could save the Sikhs from civil war and treachery. During this chaos, the surviving Europeans returned to their homelands. Soon the British defeated the Sikhs and the Afghans also took back some of their lands.

The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa region is still turbulent, and weapons from many nations are still used here in the name of pacification, anti-terror and innumerable internal conflicts. History is repeating in strange ways and there are irony and dark humour in the shadow of the mushroom cloud. India’s French Mirages are the latest entrants in this theatre — let us hope it is not a destabilising element.

(dnaindia.com)

Continue Reading

Latest News

Subscribe to The Kashmir Monitor via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to The Kashmir Monitor and receive notifications of new stories by email.

Join 1,000,183 other subscribers

Archives

March 2019
M T W T F S S
« Feb    
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
Advertisement