Constituencies as family heirloom

I am eagerly waiting for Patrick French’s new book on post-Independence India (and the early reviews are encouraging). From an excerpt in Outlook magazine, it appears that one important theme in the book is the hereditary nature of Indian politics. We’ve seen countless examples in the recent past about how Indian politicians promote their offspring, but this report, compiled by Mr. French and his associates, shows how deep the malaise goes. Some highlights:

•          68% of Indian MPs under the age of forty come from political families
•           28% of Indian MPs come from political families
•           100% of Indian MPs below the age of thirty are from political families
•           70% of women MPs come from political families

It’s worse when it comes to start-ups founded by regional satraps. The Nationalist Congress party, backed by allegedly India’s biggest venture capitalist Sharad Pawar, has seven (out of nice) MPs that have entered politics through family connections. All five MPs of the RLD, promoted by politician-comedian Lalu Prasad, come from political families.

Mr. French and his associates have also provided the dataset that lists every Indian MP (from the Lok Sabha), details like his/her age, sex, political background and notes. The dataset is worth reading and analyzing in its entirety, and we hope to bring you more details/comments in the coming weeks.

Mr. French also had this to say when asked whether Indian politics would become completely hereditary:

“I was quite surprised by the results when I did that survey of the Lok Sabha. I did not expect the data to be so overwhelming—the  fact that, for example, every MP under the age of 30 is hereditary. I don’t think it’s a bad thing having political families in any democracy. The problem really is the scale of what is happening. For instance, the quite inspiring grassroots leaders who came up in the past—certainly in the Congress—would have no chance of winning a ticket for a Lok Sabha seat now. You have this ironic situation where democracy is deeply entrenched and yet, at the same time, for the top reaches of certain parties, you have to be the son or daughter of an existing leader in order to get anywhere.”

Personally, though I am amused by the extent of the rot, I am not shocked. The lines of mafia, business and politics have blurred in the past two decades, and the first two professions run deeply in families, so it’s no surprise that our politicians would emulate the ‘best practices’ from these. A vast majority of Indian politicians have interests in real-estate, which necessitates some allegiance to organized crime.  Most of our successful politicians also run business empires, and it is natural that to protect the interests of the family, the heirlooms like parliamentary constituencies are passed on: it’s part of the family business, and our politicians are at least being good fathers. (For instance, who can fault Karunanidhi for being a bad father? Mr. Karunanidhi has fathered several children from three wives, and has settled for nothing but the best for them: one he made a Union Fertilizers minister, another a deputy CM, yet one another a Rajya Sabha MP. Even distant relatives like grand-nephews get to become cabinet ministers and run large TV networks.)

The other reason is India’s rapid journey towards retracing its roots, such as Feudalism. But more on that later.