Across a spectrum of opinion there is consensus that what happened in Maharashtra was an enormous political upheaval. But that upheaval cannot be explained simply through the loss or gain of power by one section or another faction; one party or another; one coalition or an alternate. It cannot be circumscribed to the usual idioms and axioms of treachery, conspiracy, revenge, dance of Mammon and death of democracy. It appears that a more fundamental political change has been attempted by Narendra Modi and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
For the longest period, the most sustained rhetoric on the lips of Modi and the entire Sangh Parivar has been about dynastic politics in the Indian context. The construction of an exclusive ideological family has been idolised, but the perpetuation of the blood line in politics has been harshly problematised. It is primarily the Congress that has been at the receiving end of this diatribe. Modi has not stopped short of desiring a ‘Congress-mukt Bharat’, which in essence has meant a Congress party minus the Nehru-Gandhi family. Although the liberal quarter has interpreted this as an attempt to annihilate opposition in the country, Modi has always given ‘parivaar-vaad’ a larger spin and has deftly equated it with democratic deficit.
This has gone on for a sufficiently long time, and it sharpened after 2019. The current state of the Congress party, the transfix it is in amidst a steep fall in its electoral fortunes, the legal mess that it finds its top leadership in, the rebellion within, and large-scale desertion, has created an impression that Modi has executed his plan to perfection. Even though the Congress has not helped itself, has not innovated despite successive defeats, has been lying supine for eight years, Modi seems to have cornered all the credit in the popular imagination for its existential crisis. It is now almost being presented as Modi’s mission accomplished.
However, for Modi and the BJP the mission does not seem to have stopped with the Congress. If one is reading it correctly, his gaze has now shifted to the rest of the political dynasties across India. The fiefdoms that survive and thrive in regional spaces. The severe jolt delivered to the Thackeray name by not just snatching away power but also snatching away their organisation may be an indication of what is going to come across India. The Thackerays were after all one of the most feared and popular political dynasties and the unsettling of their empire has acquired a dynamic that has the potential to change the Indian political landscape.
It turned out lucky for Modi that this time the destiny of the Thackerays was entwined with the Pawars. And sinking one has implied the sinking of the other too. The dynasty that Sharad Pawar has led so far has been the most resourceful and nimble-footed. But now, after the decimation of the coalition government in Maharashtra, the vulnerabilities of the Pawars have also been exposed. In fact, they have been snapped at the heels for some years now. This makes it three political families at one go – Thackerays, Pawars and of course the Nehru-Gandhis.
The installing of Eknath Shinde as Chief Minister of Maharashtra may be a shrewd political game to ensure the survival of a deceptively cobbled government, but no one can look away from the symbolism enshrined – he is being presented as the original man from the street, a former autorickshaw-man as chief minister presiding over one of India’s richest states. This, while a tea-man governs the nation, and an ‘unattached’ saffron-clad oversees India’s largest state. These can be viewed as structural changes that have been initiated to end patriarchies, dynasties, privilege and entitlement.
Liberal commentators may speak in terms of constitutional subversion and upending of democratic convention, and cite the misuse of central agencies, but in the minds of common folk it will play out as a bold language of empowerment and the end of elite capture. For decades, they have anyway witnessed how political dynasties have operated with feudal impunity and through coteries. Emotional attachment to big political surnames that accrued electoral dividends ensured that the halo around them were kept intact, but that has been disrupted by Modi in the last eight years. If the Nehru-Gandhis have lost brand capital, then the rest of the smaller dynasties become fair game for the BJP.
If one takes a quick glance, from Kashmir to Kanyakumari, the Indian political landscape is filled with dynastic parties – the Abdullahs, the Muftis, the Badals, the Rajes, the Yadavs, the Patnaiks, the Gogois, the Gowdas, the Raos, the Reddys, the Sorens and the Chautalas among others. They control significant vote shares in their respective states. Most of these parties are being presided over by ageing patriarchs with an anachronistic set of rules. In some cases, the succession may look convincing, but Modi’s game has been highlighting their baggage and privilege at every bend. Not everything may move according to script in politics, but at least for now Modi carries the narrative strength against them. The dynastic parties too are getting increasingly restless against the BJP, and that is bound to invite a bulldozer-like reaction. Within the BJP itself, Modi has dismantled patriarchal figures like LK Advani with great tact.
Logically, to consolidate 2024 for the BJP, the regional czars may be Modi’s next big project. It may not be a democracy project for him, but he will present it as one. It may also lead to default electoral reforms because regional parties will have to massively restructure themselves and innovate to survive. They may have to begin scouting for talent outside their parivars. Modi will make it extremely difficult for any of the patriarchs and their progeny to occupy the highchair, which was until yesterday unchallenged. He would probably like to remain the only surname, the only personality and the only phenomenon.
Sugata Srinivasaraju
Senior journalist and author
(sugata@sugataraju.in)