On Monday Rahul Gandhi became Congress General Secretary and consequently a likely future candidate for Prime Minister. At 37 he is the same age as his Rajiv Gandhi was when Rajiv first started his political career. If Rahul succeeds in becoming Prime Minister, that would make him the fourth generation from his family to have held the top leadership post, something I believe would be a record for any democracy.
India’s obviously not the only country with a political dynasty. The United States has two examples where a father and son held the Presidency in over 200 years: John Adams (2) and John Quincy Adams (6); George H.W. Bush (41) and George W. Bush (43).
There are other dynasties in the American Congress or in various governors’ offices. Just off the top of my head I know there were two generations of Gores, two generations of Dodds, and three generations of Kennedys in Congress (although more than three Kennedys in those generations).
Outside the US, Pakistan has two generations of Bhuttos, Bangladesh had Rahman and Sheikh Hasina, and Indonesia has had Sukarno and Sukarnoputri. I’m sure there are others.
Still, we’re talking about 3 generations of Gandhis as PM in a mere 40 years, and the possibility of a fourth generation being raised within 60 years. It reflects quite poorly on the quality of India’s institutions. What does it say that Congress thinks Rahul will give it an advantage in the next elections, despite his poor political showing in UP where he got schooled by the BSP?
Does the Congress party have such poor politicians that the best repeatedly come from a single family? It’s clearly not genetic because the PM’s position had been offered to Sonia, who was a Nehru by blood, not birth.
It must be the name, but does the party have so little to offer that they have to ride on name recognition alone? If so, what will happen if Rahul’s cousin Varun runs for office? Could there be a Gandhi as PM under the BJP?
Lastly, why Rahul and not Priyanka? Rahul left Harvard, and may not have finished at Cambridge or kept his job as a management consultant at Monitor [Link]. Priyanka was the charismatic sibling, and the one everybody thought would enter politics. Does India only want Nehru women if there are no Nehru men to be had?
Somebody really should remind both Hollywood and the Congress party of the danger of sequels. Police Academy 4 anyone?.
this is a totally lightweight observation, but rahul seems to favor his mother’s side while piyanka looks more like her father’s side (especially indira). interesting illustration of the importance of sampling variance in phenotype because of the small number of traits we take in to generate a gestalt perception of resemblance.
Do you think they chose Rahul in part because he’s … fairer?
Do you think they chose Rahul in part because he’s … fairer?
i doubt it. he is so fair he looks foreign to be honest. priyanka isn’t much darker anyhow (take a look at the pictures), i’m talking about features, she has “strong” features like her grandma. i can’t imagine no one would be reminded of indira when they see her. rahul, i’m not sure. he looks somewhat like his dad, but he seems to look more italian than brown (the fact that his paternal grandfather was parsi means something too, they are closer genetically to iranians than they are to other south asians though some intermarriage has to have gone on looking at the frequencies). in any case, i recall talking about the nehru family with a friend once, and he googled rahul and priyanka, and his first response seeing rahul was, “dude, he looks like a frat boy.”
Lastly, why Rahul and not Priyanka? Rahul left Harvard, and may not have finished at Cambridge or kept his job as a management consultant at Monitor [Link]. Priyanka was the charismatic sibling, and the one everybody thought would enter politics. Does India only want Nehru women if there are no Nehru men to be had?
First, I think Priyanka herself does not want to be an seeker of posts, even though she is a very active campaigner during elections. She is more into her family first.
Razib, Priyanka is quite fair too, if not more.
Look, they get votes, and they able energize the electorate. The Nehru-Gandhi family gets voted out, and then get voted in, they are out of power, come back in power again, and again. I am not sit here and pass judgments on the electorate – the largest one in the world.
Nehru staying on as PM for so long as been a disaster for India’s development. Without Patel, Hyderabad probably becomes a mess like Kashmir, Tibet, and China-India relations.
Nehru would have been perfect as the Foreign Minister. Or at least maybe just a two term PM who actually bothered to mentor other people to take over from him. The guy’s problem is he didn’t realize his own limitations. He has some good intentions, but really was probably full of himself bcause he honestly thought he was the only one to lead India into modernity because he knew how to flirt with Edwina Mountbatten and his English education. Gandhi spent so much time worrying about swadeshi or other stuff, he should have spent time laying a template for future successions of leadership after Nehru. It’s too bad they didn’t look to the US for term limit models.
Nehru, Indira Gandhi all hung on to power for too long. Rajiv Gandhi did NOTHING to mentor future leaders to take over from him. It was one big family affair for these people. Indira Gandhi was rightfully distrustful of the male politicians who thought they could manipulate her as their puppet. But she got too bitter and paranoid and took the country down with her.
The worst the Nehrus did – the Beauracracy Raj. Worse than corruption.
It is an embarassment that the Congress party people are so freaking slavish that they would beg shamelessly for an unqualified Italian to lead the country instead of a decent guy like Manmohan Singh. They act like dogs looking for scraps from their master.
beg shamelessly for an unqualified Italian to lead the country instead of a decent guy like Manmohan Singh
I like and admire Manmohan Singh. He is a good PM.
However, he has never won an election through direct electorate (Lok Sabha, not Rajya Sabha) to data. He is the only PM of India who has never held a seat in Lok Sabha.
Politics is about winning elections.
It is not a NGO.
I meant: to date instead to data
Wait, doesnt the PM have to win a seat too? I am confused, why didn’t the congress party have him run from a couple of seats, one being a safe one, like Indira Gandhi used to? If he didn’t run, that makes it even worse because it is obvious Congress were doing their best to make sure Sonia had no alternative.
Wait, doesnt the PM have to win a seat too?
PM Manmohan Singh is a Rajya Sabha member.
Indira Gandhi used to run from the seat (Rae Barelli constituency) that was her husband’s seat – It was not a safe Congress seat. Her husband was an independent MP, and often at odds with Congress. She got elected from that constituency after her husband died.
Once she ran through two seats – one in North India, and another in South India.
I think she lost Rae Bareilli in 1977, I am not sure.
She won very easily in South India as a MP in 1979, I think.
Even PM Vajapaye once ran at two seats (constituencies). You can technically do that but you have to resign from one of them, if elected at both.
There are no slam dunk seats.
Even though Rahul Gandhi is a sitting MP, it is very odd that one hardly gets to hear him talk – be it inside the parliament or outside. Even during campaign one hardly heard him – usually he is used as a prop to attract crowds.
So one is not sure where he stands on array of issues an elected official has to face – having led a privileged life he is neither aware of problems common people face nor he knows anything about administration.
Not to mention Rahul Gandhi’s girl friend is Colombian – reportedly daughter of a don there. And rumours have circulated for years about Rahul’s intellectual capacity – some even claiming he is bit “slow” as in ret@rded!
So all in all really nothing to see here folks. Will be tragic if he is indeed elected as PM.
I agree that the Congress party “leaders” are sycophants and toadies, desperate for a ‘charismatic’ figure to pull in the votes, ergo Sonia Gandhi. I find it quite distressing that she is seen as charismatic and a vote puller, and would be quite upset if she were to become the PM. However, let us at least grant that she had the wisdom to step aside for Manmohan Singh, inspite of the tremendous pressure she was under from her party in 2004 to become the PM. She may well have been grooming Rahul, and have stepped aside primarily to smooth the way for him later, not an ennobling motive.
But note that Manmohan Singh is now PM, while never having won a popular election to the Lok Sabha, something which goes against the spirit if not the letter of the Westminster parliamentary system. In fact, his latest election, to a fourth consecutive term in the Rajya Sabha, the Upper House of the Indian Parliament, was unopposed, and from Assam of all places. While granting that he is no politician, this is also something that I find discomfiting; it is undemocratic. In addition to which, I sometimes think he might be entirely too brilliant to be leading the country even if he were to have won a popular election. Politicians need not, perhaps should not, be PhDs in economics, leave alone Nobelists, West Wing wisdom notwithstanding.
have to yet to see the slightest shred of evidence that he is fit to be, in any way, shape or form, the future pm of india. read in india today or outlook that his family tried to discredit much of what narasimha rao did, or take credit for it, and dissuaded rao’s family from pursuing a state funeral in delhi. i thought at some point congress was grooming the younger scindia – after his father’s death – for an important role in Congress?
Yes, Indira Gandhi lost Rae Barelli in 1977.
She got re-elected as a MP from Tamil Nadu later.
In next election, she contested from two seats – part of show womanship – politics of pan-indian electability.
Jay Prada, once a Bollywood star is now a MP from UP, and she used to be MP from AP before that.
“However, let us at least grant that she had the wisdom to step aside for Manmohan Singh, inspite of the tremendous pressure she was under from her party in 2004 to become the PM.”
was it wisdom, or was it the long chat Abdul Kalam is said to have had with her, after which she suddenly “renounced” the post?
but there are strongholds. for example, amethi, where rahul gandhi won by some ridiculous margin in 2004 despite having no prior experience.
i wonder how the indian populace will react when ms. raquel castro gandhi is nominated as the general secretary of the inc in 2025.
considering that the Indian press still refers to Sonia Gandhi as “Cambridge educated” despite the fact that she only went to an English ESL class in the town of Cambridge, the chances are slim to none that they will pick up on this.
If so, (and I hadn’t heard this before) at least she saw the “wisdom” in what Abdul Kalam might have said! That he rendered such advice might explain why he never got a second term.
A lot of carpet baggers in India
Sushma Swaraj(BJP) was elected from South Delhi (LS), Uttharakhad (RS), Madhya Pradesh (RS)’ lost in Karnataka (LS)
George Fernandes went from a Member of Parliament from Bombay to an MP from Bihar
Manmohan Singh is an MP from Assam
Kush,
Nehru represented Phulpur IIANM. Indu took on the mantle of Rae Bareilly from her late husband IIANM. The Congress is a party of feudal interests as are many of the regional parties that have sprung up from its mould. Pawar’s NCP, the DMK and PMK in TN, the Biju Janata Dal in Orissa, and large parts of the Akali Dal. The CPI(M) has smartly kept the children out of the party, instead setting up handsome business empires for them. Jyoti Basu’s son and nephew run decent sized business empires in WB. A few otehrs in the North (HS Surjeet for eg.) have done the same. The CPI(M) in any case is a very business like political party running a vast network of businesses in Kerala. The BJP seemed immune for some time, but now it too is seeing leaders’ children jockeying for office.
I do think it was Abdul Kalam.
They were two reasons, both realpolitik:
a) First, the Sonia and Congress knew that her as PM would not last full term – BJP would make so much capital out of it, and stage a full fledged comeback – the government would not be able to function even on day to day basis – She knew Rahul Gandhi would never get a shot as PM if she became PM. Her PMship would be rattled daily with her Indianness that he would be tainted too.
b) In single shot, she became the king (queen) maker, by stepping down, she is more powerful now she would have been in a shortlived PMship.
I do not think it was Abdul Kalam.
The biggest difference in their looks is that she has a big hooked nose like her mother while Rahul looks like a snub nosed dravidian who has rubbed litres of ‘Fair and Handsome’ creme on himself.
Rahul looks chubby, though thats not the point here.
bingo!
OTOH, keep in mind the old saw that democracy is like a raft–worst form of gov’t, except for all the others–Desh is cert. way out-performing its neighbors–my best wishes are with the protesters in burma, tho’ a casual knowledge of Sri Lankan politics cert. suggests buddhist monks are not always a panacea.
There are also “lesser” dynasties in other offices. I’d mention William Howard Taft IV in this context, whose family’s sensible naming convention makes the dynasty easier to track. His son is WHT V.
WHT IV is the third member of his family to hold the office of Secretary of Defence, though in his case only briefly, for a few months:
Link
WHT I was, of course US President 1909-1913, right after Theodore Roosevelt, who was an older cousin of FDR, the longest serving US President.
Mayavati, Lalloo Yadav and other “serious” north indian politicians will give this guy such a beating with their chappals that his gora face will become quite laal.
It is another matter that both Lalloo and Mayavati have not the slight interest in anything progressive or any worry about the lousy literacy rate in north india or its permananent maoist/casteist wars. But at least we will be rid of this loser “babalog” quite soon…
Yeah, Ford, bush I, Clinton I, bush II, Kerry, Clinton II all went to Yale–this is why I give these bastards $$ in spite of my first-order preferences–have to make sure rob or robette II goes too–Desh has nothing on the US in terms of pol. dynasties & insiders.
i would just like to mention that taft holds the record for being the heaviest president in office. in fact, they had to fit a new giant bathtub in the white house when he showed up.
also do not forget senator prescott bush, the granddaddy, who was a director of firms that helped the nazis.
Rahul isn’t all bad.
Kush, it’s not the electorate, it’s the constitution.
Ennis, I reckon she’s a half-Nehru by marriage, not blood, and of course confusingly named Gandhi, but Lordy, must she get to appoint the Head of State and the Head of Government straight out of the Rajya Sabha, and then appoint her son the General Secre4tary of her party too, all while she’s a sitting President of a ruling party? This is insane. It is how a family can do the dynastic cha-cha– it just happened to be this one, and these two very very ambitious women, and I do mean ambitious in a bad way, but this constitution needs a major overhaul.
Don’t forget, y’all, that at the time Sonia was poised to become PM, the BJP organized nation-wide protests and most importantly, that Sushma Swaraj threatened to shave her head, wear a white sari and eat nothing but roasted chick peas if Sonia Gandhi became Prime Minister.
If this was a Shakespeare play, Sonia would understand– or someone would- that she is gravely endangering her son, the mamma’s boy and frat boy, here in NYC with Mummy right after his brand new appointment.
sorry, that should have read,”shave her head, wear a white sari and eat nothing but roasted chick peas off the floor.”
that’s the floor where she would be sleeping.
Family political dynasties are a bad idea.
Can anyone explain to me why people support them in a democracy?
It makes no sense- at all!
Of course, I would be remiss to omit that the Italians in nyc & new haven are rejoicing that the plan of the Vatican to control India is all now all but complete–they invite me to these festivities because I would contemplate voting for Giuliani, unlike the “proper” AbDs. 😉
It makes no sense- at all!
people are stupid. they don’t vote based on “rational interest,” on average. i have read that a minority of those who voted for george w. bush in 2000 confused him with george h.w. bush who was president from 1988-1992. similarly, in 1968 eugene mccarthy was popular early on in part because of support from people who thought he was joe mccarthy. i wouldn’t be surprised if a substantial number of americans are pro-clinton because they think that bill clinton is running again 😉 [that’s a joke]
dravidian lurker, good points both. There’s actually a picture of Taft on a buffalo while US Governor in the Philippines, where he looks about as heavy as the buffalo. He also invented the memorable phrase Little Brown Brother to describe Filipinos.
rob, WH Taft I also went to Yale undergrad, but returned in later life to teach at Yale Law. You’re totally on to something there. In fact, Senator Prescott Bush also went to Yale.
Goodnight guys and girls!
Ennis, you’re just rehashing the pedestrian TOI-editorial arguments about the dynastic character that is seemingly exclusive to the Congress.
Naturally – whereas all the other parties with non-dynasitc leadership have so much to offer its like a talent, commmitment and political integrity bazaar. Come on. Political success in India is hitched to a lot of horses, but an MPP from Kennedy is not one of them. Rahul Gandhi, by virtue of his education and the sincerity of his political aims, is head-and-shoulders better material for party leadership – and definitely policy making – than most politicians in the business.
Is that the reason he’s the Gen Sec’y at 37? Clearly, no. Does the fact that he’s only the Gen Sec’y at 37 because he’s a Gandhi mean he has less to offer than most Indian political leaders? Emphatically, no. Nepotism is a curious business in India, and politics generally – it is a natural, if disagreeable, part of the system of advancement. But when the entire system of patronage and advancement is weak, nepotism isnt an automatic indication that a candidate is inferior.
Don’t forget that Rahul Mahajan – noted wife-beater and cokehead – has also been into politics by the BJP; thats a reason to worry, because, independent of his route to political prominence, he’s a wife-beater and a cokehead.
Rahul Gandhi? Its just a predictable, uninspiring reality that he reached where he has. But that doesnt mean that he, or the Congress Party, are necessarily poorer prospects for it.
Okay, I regret using the phrase “and the sincerity of his political aims” so bluntly; all I mean is, I have good reason to believe that he’s not in it for the money.
Nope, Indra got elected from Karnataka..
I think people are giving too much weightage to the Nehru/Gandhi dynasty.. Maybe Congress sycophants could think so.. But I don’t think Sonia / Rahul are vote pullers.. If you look at the percentage of votes and seats that Congress gets now it’s far less compared to what Nehru / Indra got.
Congress in the current parliament has just 145 seats just 7 more than the BJP. The future is going to be with the party that forms smart coalitions. BJP lost the last elections because of wrong alliances in Tamilnadu and AP. Indian elections have become more of an aggregate of state elections in the absence of any emotional issue (like war with Pakistan etc..)
Rahul Gandhi, by virtue of his education
What do you mean? He transferred from Harvard to somewhere called “Rollins College” in Florida, and it’s still not clear if he finished an undergraduate degree.
India currently has a Ph.D. in economics as its PM. Now, I don’t think that’s necessary, nor do I think that Ph.D.s necessarily make good PMs, but you’re saying that Rahul is better than average in terms of candidates who might be considered for the PMs post? Out of a billion people, Rahul is not a weak candidate even though he shows no political acumen or signs of past success? That means George W. Bush would be an above average candidate for India (2 degrees, business success, past experience, independently wealthy), even though …
Does this man speak Hindi?
I think comparisons to the Bush family are a little unfair. Prescott Bush might have been a senator but Bush Sr. fought in WW2, won the Distinguished Flying Cross, lost a Senate campaign in Texas and despite being a Northeasterner won a Congressional seat in Texas, was the head of the CIA and a two time Vice President before he ran for President. Even Dubya ran for and lost a Congressional election in the late 70s and also beat the all powerful and brilliant Ann Richards against heavy odds (nobody thought he could take her down) for the Governorship of Texas which he won again before running for President. The Sonia/Rajv/Rahul situation is a little different with all of them running from safe seats and being anointed by party bosses to run the Congress Party.
ennis,
you left out the Solomon Bandaranayake/Sirimavo Bandaranayake, dynastic succession (he was cut-down by a religion-of-peace Buddhist monk, Talduwe Somarama) and then the much-later emergence of their daughter, Chandrika.
The wife and daughter turned out to be far more decisive and warlike than him, as well as less devoted to the disastrous (for today’s business climate) socialist policies he followed and less short-sighted (he initiated the sinhala-only legislation by making it the official language), although all of them were pretty much failures in the long view.
nay to nepotism. Rahul seems to be the consensus pick of image consultants.
A little off topic Pravin, but Kashmir is in part in the mess it is now precisely because of Vallabhai Patel.
By the way, I have heard and not sure if this is true, that the Gandhi family is able to attract votes simply because a lot of ignorant voters think there is an actual blood relation with Mohandas Gandhi? Can anyone else extrapolate this further.
why not priyanka? her last name is not gandhi. i hope rahul has only daughters so that the ‘gandhi’ dynasty ends.
From original article, “It reflects quite poorly on the quality of India’s institutions. What does it say that Congress thinks Rahul will give it an advantage in the next elections, despite his poor political showing in UP where he got schooled by the BSP?”
–> That entire line could have been dispensed with. When did congress become synonymous with India ?
5 Pravin
Nehru staying on as PM for so long as been a disaster for India’s development.
–> How is Nehru’s tenure the cause of india’s development morass ? Did time stop in 1964 after Nehru’s death ? Or whatever other leaders did after 1964, doesnt matter ?
The guy’s problem is he didn’t realize his own limitations. He has some good intentions, but really was probably full of himself bcause he honestly thought he was the only one to lead India into modernity because he knew how to flirt with Edwina Mountbatten and his English education.
–> And this about the same Nehru who took care to ensure democratic procedures took root in the nation ? The same Nehru who encouraged debate ? The same Nehru who wrote anonymous letter to newspaper warning of unlimited power vested in him ? If congresswallahs were so spineless that they couldnt find a leader to challenge and replace Nehru, why blame Nehru and throw in personal attacks for a good measure ?
I am not arguing for Nehru as a pristine leader but he was a man of the times, someone India should be rightfully proud to have had as its leader. As for his progeny’s efforts, the less said the better.
It’s too bad they didn’t look to the US for term limit models.
–> The tiny problem with hindsight is it happens after the fact.
44 Jing
A little off topic Pravin, but Kashmir is in part in the mess it is now precisely because of Vallabhai Patel.
–> This is the first time I am hearing Patel being blamed for Kashmir. Care to elaborate ?
but if they marry some random dude named wally nehru…
It was Patel’s ambition of a hegemonistic India coupled Nehru’s sentimentalism that led to the Kashmir issue. Ultimately Patel was the key actor in sending in the British Indian army into the region to evict the Pathan tribals. Patel’s modus operandi was one of whats mine is mine and whats yours is also mine. Considering he had also been instrumental in coordinating the economic blockade followed by military seizure of Junagadh and Hyderabad, both Hindu majority areas ruled by Muslim princes based on the notion of popular sovereignty. The backing of Hari Singh was a political mistake.
I guess whether or not one considers Patel a great man depends on your qualifications of greatness. I have oft heard Indians wax lyrical about the early death of Patel and how he would have been much better than Nehru. His legacy was the retaining of half of the territory of Kashmir but also at the cost of tens of thousands dead and a constant source of friction with Pakistan. Then again his actual goal was the destruction of Pakistan and he had not managed that, though they seem to be doing a good enough job on their own as is.
I said India because using a dynastic candidate has worked before and they have reasons to believe it will work again. That’s about India, not just the Congress party.
Also, if Rahul becomes PM, he will be PM of India and not just of the party alone.
Technically, as the fourth generation, Rahul would not be Nehru:TNG (That was his grandmother) but Nehru:Voyager instead …