Thought for
the day
“Dynasty was the opportunity to take charge of my career
rather than waiting around like a library book waiting to be loaned out.”
-
Joan Collins (American, 1933-)
Word of the
day
Irredentist
(n)
A member of a party in any country advocating the
acquisition of some region included in another country by reason of cultural,
historical, ethnic, racial, or other ties.
(Source: Dictionary.com)
Shri Nārada Uvāca
Some posters in Mumbai depicted Sachin Tendulkar as Lord
Vishnu.
Not surprisingly, no one found it blasphemous. Guess, blasphemy
is also a function of votes!
Ganpati is son of Shiva
Dear Mr. Modi, you have prominently raised the issue of dynastic
culture of Congress Party in your public discourse. In particular you have
repeatedly referred to the privileged status accorded to the family of Mrs.
Sonia Gandhi by the Congress Party. In our view, this approach is undesirable,
fallacious and could eventually prove to be unproductive.
It needs to be appreciated that dynasties are an integral part
of Indian culture, traditions, history and even religion. It would be
unreasonable to expect it not to be part of politics. Dynasties exist in almost
all professions, e.g., legal, medical, accounting, cinema, music, art,
religious discourse, etc. Many large businesses in India are also owned and
managed by dynasties.
In fact, dynasty should be more acceptable in politics than in
business; because in electoral politics the patrons could only ensure that
their protégée is nominated to contest election. The protégée however has to
win enough popular votes to get elected and get a public office every five
year. This is not usually the case with dynastic inheritors of business or
profession.
Coming specifically to Congress Party, on close scrutiny the
charge of dynastic rule in Congress Party may not as sustainable as it would be
in case of most other parties.
Please note that Nehru never appointed Indira Gandhi as his
political heir. She was elected by the Party after sudden demise of PM Shastri.
People of India later ratified the decision. Similarly, Indira Gandhi never
appointed Rajiv Gandhi as her heir. He was elected by the Party after Mrs.
Gandhi was assassinated. The people of India overwhelmingly ratified the
decision. Later, Rajiv Gandhi did not appoint anyone from his family as his
heir. It was only after the Congress Party fortunes declined substantially
under Mr. Kesari, that the party sought the return of Mrs. Sonia Gandhi. On her
part she has also, rather than seeking any public office for her children,
supported a technocrat Manmohan Singh for 10years. Even now she has left Rahul
Gandhi to earn his place in Indian politics by winning 2014 elections.
On the other hand, Mulayam Singh, Lalu Yadav, Kanshi Ram, Farooq
Abdullah, Balasaheb Thakre, M. Karunanidhi, NTR, Devi Lal, Bhajan Lal, Prakash
Singh Badal, etc. have all nominated their family members (heirs) as their
political successors. From your logic, J. Jayalalitha, Naveen Patnaik, Ajit
Singh etc. are also product of dynastic traditions. Given that BJP leadership
is also apparently nominated by RSS, it is also dynastic in that sense.
If you truly believe that dynasties are not acceptable in a
democratic setup would you promise that upon coming to power, you would
legislate that:
(a)
A person would be eligible to contest Lok Sabha
election only if he has served at least one full term in an elected local body
and an elected state legislative.
(b)
An estate duty of 50% shall be levied on
inheritance of shares of publically listed companies.
(c)
No professional will be able to serve clients of
his/her parents for first 10years of his professional career.
If you find these proposals preposterous, please exclude the
word dynasty from your public discourse.
Also read:
Letter to Mr. Narendra Modi
No comments:
Post a Comment