- In comparison to other countries, the Indian political environment is unique. Particularly after independence, India has evolved a political narrative that is not just distinct but also notable for its eccentricities. Of course, India is a democratic country where the phrase “by the people, for the people, and of the people” guides our every move. Certainly, India was also a region whose history since time immemorial demonstrates how legendary monarchs ruled, establishing some of the most recognized kingdoms ever. The reputation and name of those ancient kingdoms have spread to every corner of the globe, only adding to the aura that has fawned for millennia.
PC: ANI
- As history demonstrates, succession was usually preceded by family feuds in which one-upmanship was the rule. Sibling killings, as well as patricide and matricide, were all too common back then, resulting in a lot of bloodshed. This hasn’t altered much, but it has taken on a different shape in the political scheme of things. In today’s society, family politics has demonstrated how ambitions frequently overpower siblings/cousins/or immediate family members. Look no further than what is going on in Maharashtra. The Pawar vs. Pawar political conflict is a microcosm of a bigger story about family feuds. Family party leaders are always ready for a fight, inside or outside the family. They can vote magnets or turn voters off.
- And, believe me, they are never short of resources. It’s no wonder that governments falter when family feuds flare up. Family feuds have plagued Maharashtra’s two regional parties, the Shiv Sena and the Nationalist Congress Party, both founded by two patriarchs, Bal Thackeray and Sharad Pawar. Many family gatherings were not such at first. If Nehru-Gandhis defined Congress, its former rival Janata Party broke into various regional parties, socialist in name and norm, but family-led in reality and form. With electoral success and political clout, parties evolved into family businesses with over-centralized operations.
PC: PTI
- When things were going well, these structural limits could be ignored, but it cost these parties dearly when things went poorly. Hence, if Mulayam Singh Yadav’s dithering between brother and son cost SP, Deve Gowda’s negotiation for CM-ship for his son resulted in the demise of that administration. There are several such examples. Patriarchs are unquestionably political success stories, allowing for the representation of all castes, beliefs, and communities. They have resisted being absorbed by the national behemoths. The Congress won Karnataka because the electoral plan was overseen by non-family leaders. The family can be a source of strategic weakness in a highly competitive political economy. Will our political leaders take notice? Unlikely.
