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?.
I am sure that the only place that the color of his skin is being discussed is here on SM. Please can we get over this obsession?
Also – don’t want to nit but the correct name for Sanjay’s and Maneka’s son is Varun – actually Varun Feroze Gandhi !( not Varum )
Ennis,
Newsweek apologized to Rahul Gandhi over inaccuricies in the article that alleged that Rahul didn’t complete his degrees or kept his job, you can find details here. And I agree with Runa that the fair skin comment is in poor taste.
48 Jing
It was Patel’s ambition of a hegemonistic India coupled Nehru’s sentimentalism that led to the Kashmir issue.
–> Not a strong India but a hegemonistic one ? Where does one end and the other begin ?
I would agree with the sentimentalism on the part of Nehru. He should have limited his involvement in foreign policy.
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.
–> So, if you have a rabid mob of looters and rapists(backed by the venerable and duplicitous founder of Pakistan) descending on a territory in dispute in your neighbourhood, you, as home minister, should sit on your hands or maybe, invite them for a cup of tea ?
My opinion of Patel is he thought whats mine is mine.
The backing of Hari Singh was a political mistake.
–> So, what would have been the course of action for Patel ? Set popular sovereignty in stone and proceed to take decisions based on it ? Or realise the conditions on the ground presented an opportunity for the newly formed India and strike one for it ?
I have oft heard Indians wax lyrical about the early death of Patel and how he would have been much better than Nehru.
–> Count me as one who(in hindsight) think India was robbed of Patel’s talents too early but as for him being better than Nehru, I would disagree. They both became great as part of a team(in addition to others) but each of them, on their own, would have been a much lesser contributor.
Which, for me, was crucial for the success of India as opposed to the basket case of Pakistan. Jinnah, for all his talents, didnt have(or failed to develop) the bench strength that Nehru could call upon.
49 Ennis
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.
–> It is about India when the dynasty is the main vote getter. I dont think that is the case here, especially when the congress, by itself, is a mere shell of its old self. If people voted for manmohan singh’s performance(in the next election with Rahul Gandhi as head of Congress), that would still count as indian vote for Nehru dynasty ? Or would it count only if congress campaigned on the platform of bringing dynasty back ?
Also, if Rahul becomes PM, he will be PM of India and not just of the party alone.
–> He becomes PM only when he is chosen by Congress. So, after Congress chooses him, you want a rider that dynastic candidates will not be accepted ? I can understand attributing poor quality to congress leadership(which I think you did in yur original post). I just dont agree with assigning poor quality to india’s institutions on account of dynastic obsession of congress.
A simple request to folks to please use the Quote/Italis/Bold – some kind of demarcation – when quoting other people’s comments and responding with your own. It makes for a much clearer reading, and the SM folks have very thoughtfully provided tools to that end. Much thanks! 🙂
False. Patel wasn’t into the brother brother stuff Nehru spouted about neighbors. But he was more realistic. The Kashmir issue was a mess because Nehru didn’t commit to a single strategy. He wanted to have it both ways. Patel wanted clarity. Clarity saves you 50 years of deaths that outnumbered the extra deaths in the year clarity could have been achieved.
Also, I do not see any evidence that Patel cared about the destruction of Pakistan. IF anything, if I remember properly, he went along with partition and saw it as something that would bring about more manageable entities. And let’s face it. Theere is rarely any consistency in how countries go after their interests(addressing the Hyd and Kashmir issues). Patel was not shy in going after Indian interests. India did not care that the Nizam didn’t want to join India and went after him for one reason – it was untenable for a mini Pakistan type nation to be embedded in the heart of South India where there were bound to be rebellions by the Hindu populace. With all the tensions going on, it just didn’t make sense. The U.S. would have done the same thing.
Kashmir is in the mess because Nehru lacked the ruthlessness to settle once and for all the issue. Nehru tried to act like he was above the fray, but he was territorially possessive too. That’s where India exacerbated their problems with China on border issues. Nehru lacked the mentality to give up areas but lacked the will to fight for them hard. Do one or the other or you will end up with 50 year messes like Kashmir.
I personally think India should take the first step and set up a template to grant Kashmir independence. Remove the Ladakh and similar non Muslim dominated areas and make it a separate state. India could negotiate a security presence for 30-50 years that would not harm India’s security interests by ceding Kashmir. (really, can it be any worse?) Kashmir is such a security nightmare, it is no longer a tourist attraction that India could even brag about. Just let it go and let them reunite with Pak Kashmir.
As Lucius Malfoy warns Harry in the movie version of CoS:
“Mark my words, Harry Potter. You’ll meet the same sticky end as your parents one of these days. They were meddlesome fools too.”
At the very best, Rahul Gandhi will face ignominious defeat at the hands (fingers) of the Indian voters. At the very worst, a sticky end like his father and grandmother.
ennis – “Do you think they chose Rahul in part because he’s … fairer?”
he is not any more fairer than jawahar lal nehru or indira gandhi, both kashmiri pandits, whose color played no role in their becoming prime ministers of india. indeed, since 1947, numerous light skinned, light browned haired and blue/green eyed kashmiri pandits have held positions of great import [d.p.dhar, m.l.fotedar,t.n.kaul, p.n.dhar, t.n.raina etc..] in various indian administrations, and i seriously doubt that the sole criteria for their jobs was the relative pastiness of their epidermis.
anybody who has a passable knowledge of indian politics knows the reason rahul baba was ensconced as general secy. of congress i party – he lost uttar pradesh and he is the scion of nehru – gandhi dynasty.
Runa-ji, hello. While I agree that SM may be the only place that issue is being discussed openly, I don’t think it is entirely irrelevant to either Rahul’s political future, or indeed, to the entire history of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. All of the Nehru-Gandhis, perhaps including Motilal, but certainly everyone including and following Jawaharlal – have been extremely fair of skin.
One of the main factors that help them get elected from Rae Bareli or Phulpur or Amethi is that the people there have internalized white skin privilege – they simply assume and expect and demand that their ‘leaders’ be fairer than them, and if they were indeed white or European, that’s no problem either. I don’t say that whites or Europeans should not be elected from Indian constituencies, but when the internalized white skin privilege is one of the main reasons why it happens, that must be brought up and discussed. And the Congress toadies, rather than confront this not-so-subtle internalization of the white skin privilege, see in it the “vote catching power of the ‘charismatic’ Nehru-Gandhis”, perpetuating the cycle.
And a minimicro-nit: Maneka’s son is Feroze Varun Gandhi (FVG not VFG) who apparently expressed himself regarding Sonia’s ‘foreign origin’ back in 2004:
Link
Chachaji,
I think the whole internalized white skin privilege is a stretch of imagination, I am sure you don’t have anything to back this up and I persoanlly feel it is better not to derail this thread any further. I feel the Nehru/Gandhi pale skin is only incidental to their political clout.
The parties that are successful in UP, BSP and Samajwadi parties all have leaders like Mulayam, Amar Singh, Mayawati etc. that are not pale skinned and have been in power for the last two or three elections.
anybody who has a passable knowledge of indian politics knows the reason rahul baba was ensconced as general secy. of congress i party
per se, general secretary of congress party does not mean much, there are number of them – often a mix of different religions, regions, vote banks, power centers. same with bjp, etc.
however, the president of a political party in india is quite important – orders of magnitude more than – what the chairman of democratic/ republican party is in USA
to be a PM, you do not have to be a general secretary first of any party. your party have to choose you as their PM candidate if they are invited to form the government.
rahul g. made one of the general secretary of cong (i) is for slowly bringing him on the national forefront, and grooming him for future bigger roles later however,
kush – i couldn’t agree with you more.
Chacha-ji, All due respect – and I do respect your perspective – but I do not think this is correct. I can accept that fair skin plays a part in politics when I see data that most of the MPs in the Lok Sabha are fairskinend which is simply not true. Look, I do not take issue when skin color in the case of matrimonials is discussed. I cannot because it is a fact that in the marriage market unfortunately skin color is one of the criteria in many – not all– arranged /semi-arranged marriages. I cannot accept the simplistic carryover of this into political and professional life because it does not happen.
Indira Gandhi did a tremendous amount for Amethi/Rae Bareilly.Poured a lot of money into development there ( Same as other politicians did for their pocket burroughs) Its a well known fact that nobody can win there against the Gandhi-Nehru dynasty.Sanjay Singh – a son of teh soil form UP – tried and failed.
To say that fair skin played a part in it, is IMHO, a leap of imagination caused by our preconceived notions not reality. Continuing a discussion on this would be feeding into those preconceived notions.
56-‘india could negotiate a security presence for 30-50 years by ceding Kashmir. Just let it go and let them unite with pak kashmir’ Would kashmiri citizens of india have any thing to say to that? Would you like to secure another 30-50 years by giving away Ladaky or the northeast states to India’s other friendly neighbor? Maybe we could give up on the concept of India as a nation altogether?
oops, Ladaky meant Ladakh
This is a good read on the topic. The author was a gen. sec. with BJP till recently.
Wow, Pravin, I can only hope thatw as tongue in cheek
What next ? Let Assam go, then Nagaland , then Mizoram and while we are at it – why not MAhrashtra ,Gujarat etc? Please, lets get realistic here.
I am reminded of a story that happened during the 1st Indo Chinese war. One politican said “Let the Chinese grab the land.Not a blade of grass grows there in any case” And I beleive it was Patel who answered “:”Take a look at my head- not a hair grows there.Does that mean that if someone wants to cut my head, I should offer it to them?”
chachaji – “All of the Nehru-Gandhis, perhaps including Motilal, but certainly everyone including and following Jawaharlal – have been extremely fair of skin.”
so what? if what you say were correct, only fair skinned pols [there is no dearth of those in india] would be elected to any office in india, no?
so Rahul is not the sharpest tool in the kit–not to worry. That’s what they said about dubya.
this entire discussion of fairness in the context of the gandhi succession is completely off-base. look at the local politicians in up/bihar – mayawati, mulayam singh yadav, laloo prasad yadav, and so on. in all my knowledge of indian electoral politics, fairness has never been an issue (by that logic, advani should have been a no-brainer over vajpayee as pm). things like caste, communities, religions, and lineages play a role, not the consumption of fair and lovely/handsome.
But if you had a tumor, would you keep it? Kashmir is in that phase now. You can’t force people to be something they don’t want to be. India was never one big country before independence. Lahore was probably more integral to India than Kashmir. Compromises have to be made. The time for action was back then. India fucked up their chance to consolidate Kashmir back then thanks to Nehru. Let people become their own country. Russia did not lose its identity by the breakup of the USSR.
The thing is this- when it costs that much money and lives to keep a state in the union that was never emotionally fully integrated, why bother?
I agree about the myths of fairness and politics in India. Fairness gets you a good Bollywood role. But it doesn’t guarantee you anything in Indian politics. Despite the dynastic emphasis of the Congress party and caste based pandering by some parties, there is a lot more diversity in Indian politics than our politics in the US.
Pravin,
Should Hyderabad also be a separate state? Would you solve the Palestinian -Israeli conflict the same way?
Wow.. there is nothing more i can say but wow..
If you look at the history of the separatist movement in Kashmir, it has only recently (10-15 years) become really violent because of the externally funded terrorist organizations.. The role of the local Kashmiri in most militant activity in Kashmir is in fact a minority..
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7562829925012382816&q=rahul+gandhi&total=10&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
I guess with all the discussion about him, someone might as well provide a video link of how the guy speaks in public. He does speak Hindi. And I noticed a big pic of Priyanka Gandhi. I guess they are pretty much saying that even a non political member of the family is more important than anyone else in the party’s membership.
Adding to 74, or Belgium?
this might be, but there is definitely a lot of disenchantment locally with india given that the army has ridden roughshod these past years during the conflict.
personally, i think there is enough blame to go around vis-a-vis kashmir, and the only reasonable (and potentially practical) solution would be a semi autonomous province in the disputed area, although that might still have the bad effect of leading to de facto ethnic separation, and all the associated trauma of displacement. that is the only reason i would not be for a separate state.
kashmir and hyderabad are not equivalent, hyderabad is a province right in the center of india and would not be able to lead an independent existence in any case.
Search on the comments. I have already addressed it. I agree with D Lurker on this.
Not might – it will definitely lead to ethnic separation. This is a slippery slope and mere expediency of the geography of Kashmir is in no way a valid argument for leting it secede.Why stop at Kashmir only then? Why not Assam,Sikkim et al?
It would be nice to hear from a Kashmiri Pandit – who are as displaced as the Sri Lankan Tamils for example- what they think.Anyone here?
I’d like to really see the same argument applied to the Palestinian -Israeli conflict and other disputed teritories around the World.In one fell swoop, we commenters here at SM would have solved every border dispute
Priyanka gets my vote simbly because she’s super hot!
I say Rahul Gandhi never makes it to PM. It simply will not work out. The face of the electorate and its priorities are changing. Younger people do not identify with these dynastic politics and are more likely to root for a person they identify with. The Congress will never come to power with this guy at the helm.
It does not exist now?
This is a slippery slope and mere expediency of the geography of Kashmir is in no way a valid argument for leting it secede.Why stop at Kashmir only then? Why not Assam,Sikkim et al?
slippery slope arguments never lead anywhere. everyone draws different lines on the slippery slope. nations have no ontological right to exist, they’re negotiated. i could name many reasons why assam is different from kashmir (and more less different from the central tendency of india than kashmir, the hindu majority being one primary one). you might not find the argument persuasive, but that doesn’t invalidate the coherence of the perspective.
there is a difference between the realities on the ground and majority opinions in assam and sikkim, and kashmir. the same is true of israel-palestine. this is a bogus strawman.
the specter of religious conflict in kashmir was raised the moment religion based partition was proposed and executed, and i do not see how insisting on holding on to kashmir is improving their current day-to-day life. i have kashmiri pandit friends who have been displaced from there already, and it would be wonderful if we could foresee a future of harmony there, but i do not see a reality where they will get back their lives. hanging on to kashmir by force is not the solution.
Assam and Sikkim are different cases. You want a slippery slope? Those states are a major slippery slope for Chinese mischief potential.
Dude, Razib.
Kashmir is a very tricky situation.
First, the demographics of Kashmir is not what it was in 1946-47. Hindus have be driven out.
What happens with Askai Chin? Do you think China will roll over (like our esteemed SM commenters) and give that region up. Last I heard they have been talking of giving up Tibet too.
How do even defend Leh, and Jammu? When you have lost all the high ground to Azad Kasmhir, and China.
Do we have some commenter here on Chinese payroll? It seems like that.
PS: Indian soldiers entered Kashmir after Hari Singh had signed the ascension to the Union of India. He asked his Kashmir to be defended from during Operation Gibraltar.
67 Runa
I am reminded of a story that happened during the 1st Indo Chinese war. One politican said “Let the Chinese grab the land.Not a blade of grass grows there in any case” And I beleive it was Patel who answered “:”Take a look at my head- not a hair grows there.Does that mean that if someone wants to cut my head, I should offer it to them?”
–> I didnt know there were multiple indo-chinese wars. To my recollection, there was one in ’62 by which time Patel was already dead for a long time.
71 Pravin
But if you had a tumor, would you keep it? Kashmir is in that phase now. You can’t force people to be something they don’t want to be.
–> Removing the tumour can involve treating it with medicines, right ? A tumour once removed from the body has no self-sustaining properties of its own, right ? So you would rather allow kashmir as a region to starve out of existence instead of co-opting along with your growth ?
India was never one big country before independence. Lahore was probably more integral to India than Kashmir. Compromises have to be made. The time for action was back then. India fucked up their chance to consolidate Kashmir back then thanks to Nehru. Let people become their own country. Russia did not lose its identity by the breakup of the USSR.
–> Why is this trite piece of crap being bandied about as the cause to current day problems? Given the fact of india’s integration after independence, does it mean everytime there is trouble with a state, we give it away ? Maybe we should go back to 500 petty kingdoms.
Break up of USSR just led to multiplication of unsavoury characters leading small states in a region where there was one(communist head honcho). To argue Russia did not lose its identity brushes aside a much bigger problem , the instability of that neighbourhood as a whole.
Razib, I totally do not get your point here – if you were trying to make one and not merely bait me .I could turn around adn say much the same!
I would like to see the same spirit towards secession of say Vermont or Alaska from USA as has been expressed towards Kashmir.
How easy it is to say “Let Kashmir secede” and loftily pronounce that “nations have no ontological right to exist, they’re negotiated”.
Kashmir is a very tricky situation.
1) i don’t care that much about it, and sure it’s tricky 2) i’m not arguing about this topic with you, i’ve gotten into it with indians on the web about this topic and it’s like talking about pedophile rights in a room full of parents with elementary school children 3) speaking of which, i was just saying that slippery slope arguments never lead anywhere. you find them plausible or persuasive depending on the angle of the slope that you assume, to use a metaphor. i’m sure runa finds it to be a real good argument, but it has zero power with anyone who disagrees. so why even bring it up? stick to specific talking points (like you did)
I would like to see the same spirit towards secession of say Vermont or Alaska from USA as has been expressed towards Kashmir.
well, i favor breaking up the USA. so no tears from me. so your gambit doesn’t work at all
Krishnan # 86,
I did mention and reiterate -that I cannot remember the 2 entities between whom this happened but it did happen .I meant the 62 war and not any other skirmishes that followed.Happy now?
I would like to see the same spirit towards secession of say Vermont or Alaska from USA as has been expressed towards Kashmir.
speaking of analogies, a better one is quebec and canada. they do it through plebiscites. how do you feel about letting the population of kashmir decide? 😉
Razib, I am not playing games – you are.And in any case my argument was with another commenter not you. If you believe in secession as a solution everywhere ,I have nothing more to say to you on this topic.
If you believe in secession as a solution everywhere ,I have nothing more to say to you on this topic.
i didn’t say that, you did. you took the specific argument re: kashmir and started making analogies all over the world and in other cases and brought up the slippery slope. you should take responsibility for the can of worms you opened. so don’t try to flip this back on me.
To get back on topic, Rahul Gandhi in April 2007 claimed that his family was responsible for Taking India into the 21st century AND PARITION OF PAKISTAN. Whoever upthread spoke about the George Bush similarity may not be far from truth.
Krishnan,
Runa might be right about Sardar Patel quote, I am not sure though. Sardar Patel died in 1950, so it is possible he made statement during early arguments about MacMohan line. It is possible.
Yes, there was one war, 1962. Even in 1950s, after the Tibetan crisis, and Dalai Lama’s asylum, the specter of war was real for long time.
However, the border problem with China is very old, to the origins of MacMohan Line. It goes back to numeruous outposts India would have (almost totally undefended or poorly defended), some of them even north of MacMohan Line. Chinese, after 1948 spent a whole decade or more building roads, garrisons, and all to strengthen and prepare them for their claims.
Speaking of families in India politics like Balasaheb Thakrey and family, Milind Deora and Muril Deora, Rajesh Pilot and his Son Sachin, Vishwanath Pratap Singh and his Son Akhilesh, Chaudhary Charan Singh and Ajit Singh, Rajmata Scindia, Vasundhara Raje, MadhavRao and his son Vikramaditya, the list is endless.
Last off topic post from me :
Actually – I feel quite good about it 🙂
What started the rant was I do not feel good about SM commenters in the USA – myself included – deciding that Kashmir should just be let go because its simply not worth the loss of life etc .
how do you feel about letting the population of kashmir decide? 😉
Which population?
From 1946-47
From 1988
From 2007
Please take your pick? Because the demographics has changed massively.
What I dislike most about this is the mother-son thing going on– if it were Priyanka, I’d tolerate that better. So maybe we’ll hear from Varum/Vroom/Varun– what’s he about? Apart from BJP that is– do Mutineers know?
Please take your pick? Because the demographics has changed massively.
i don’t care, so i’ll say 2007. the pandits are as likely to go back to kashmir as palestinian refugees are likely to get their lands back in israel proper (or native americans their traditional lands or eastern european germans their property that they lost after world war ii during expulsion).