I write for the FPJ on the issues with the break up of the Sena, on the 4th of July 2022.
The Maharashtra political turmoil had all the masala that would make for an interesting Bollywood potboiler or an OTT series. As befits the home of Bollywood, the saga of a government being toppled unfolded in front of our eyes, in full technicolour and with all the sound and fury, and plot twists. At times, the story resembled the pathos and tension of a Godfather, at others the craziness and illogic of a Hera Pheri. And it is these innate contradictions in pace and emotion, that makes politics in India such an interesting watch.
Right now, there is Eknath Shinde who is ensconced as the Chief Minister, and the former Chief Minister – and possibly future Prime Minister hopeful (the slogan was Narendra ke baad Devendra) – Devendra Fadnavis as deputy chief minister – in a plot twist that very few saw coming. The Thackeray family has been effectively defanged within the party their patriarch, Balasaheb Thackeray, had set up and built.
From a public posturing perspective, there is still a Shiv Sena chief minister, and the BJP did what it did to save the Hindutva of Bal Thackeray, from his biological descendants who were wandering from the path set by the man. In doing so, the BJP has done what many leaders in the Sena feared – making the Sena itself irrelevant. The deal struck to have a Shiv Sena CM and a BJP Deputy CM could have come to pass in 2019, but it didn’t. If you are voting for Hindutva, which party would you vote for – the BJP or a regional party that is based on regional identity, and also on Hindutva.
But you really cannot blame the BJP for the turmoil in the Shiv Sena. It is the result of ambitious satraps feeling left out as family members, without organisational experience or ground connect rose to the top – by sheer virtue of birth. As Raj Thackeray pointed out, rather sarcastically, on Twitter – the day a person starts mistaking their good fortune, as the fruit of their deeds – is the day the downfall begins. Ironically, he left out the fact that his own claim to the top job was because of the accident of birth.
The entitlement of dynastic aspirations to parachute into top jobs in organisations, and boss around far more experienced players is going to rankle, whether you are in the private sector or a political party. Where organisations do not have clear growth paths based on merit, and achievement, you are going to see either the best talent leave or overthrow the existing regime.
The great tragedy of India is dynastic rule. The belief that peoples born into one family are specially endowed to take forward a political organisation, by very virtue of their genetic makeup. This happens in business too, but in business there are internal governance mechanisms to put in to prevent excesses. These are not always successful as we have seen with Anil Ambani’s disastrous handling of his companies, as with Ranbaxy heirs. But they exist. With political parties that is not the case.
As dynasty takes charge, the first thing that it does is side-line all those with mass appeal – leaders with a political base derived from the masses. And replace them with people without the requisite experience or ground connect. We saw this as Indira Gandhi took charge of the Congress in the late 1960’s and systematically began to move power away from chief ministers to her office. State after state faced instability as the centre shuffled CM decks in states. For example, the state of Bihar saw 7 Chief Ministers in the period between 1967 – when Indira Gandhi became PM – and 1977 when she lost the elections post emergency. The shortest duration was the 5-day rule of Satish Prasad Singh, and the longest was a shade over 2 years, towards the end of the emergency era, Jaganath Mishra. In the same period, UP saw 6 governments. States like Maharashtra and Karnataka were spared this because of giants like Vasantrao Naik, and S. Nijalingappa, but many states did not have that luxury. In states where merit ruled, the Congress regained power for a little longer. In states where lackeys were put in charge, the party lost never to return.
The Dynasty Conundrum faces every major regional political party in India. There is the first-generation leader who was possibly the first among equals. The man (and usually a man) who galvanized citizens into cadres, and the disgruntled into voters -and created a movement that overthrew the current dispensation. You see what with the Shiv Sena, the DMK, the TDP, the TMC, the NC, the NCP and a host of others who tapped into the resentment of the existing system to provide a counter narrative. But rather than building strong systems of awarding merit and picking the best to lead the movement to the next level – instead of organisation building – the patriarch, side-lines his allies through the struggle to nominate his progeny. And it is the result of this that we are seeing in parties across the board. Ambitious leaders are leaving in droves to join other parties – either AAP or BJP – they seemingly offer them the chance of advancing their careers. Or Ambitious leaders are overthrowing the dynasty to return the party to first principles.
Unless regional parties, and national parties, shake this dependence on one family ruling them, an already crumbling opposition is going to disintegrate a bit faster. This is not to say that the BJP Is not prone to dynasty. It too is. This is the natural instinct of Indians to perceive power as a hereditary hand me down. But, the BJP has enough grassroot up karyakartas – including the Prime Minister – who for now, keep the organisational politics and ascendency merit based.
For India to thrive, we need political parties that have inner party democracy. Where the best, most committed and purpose driven individuals rise up the organisation, driven by wanting to make a change. And for that to happen, power cannot be an inheritance handed over to the next of kin. The age of family anointed leaders needs to end and make way for home grown leaders taking charge. Without that they are headed for irrelevance sooner rather than later.