Has India become a democracy for promoting and preserving dynasties? Have all the freedom fighters fought to build dynasties to thrive in the newly born republic looking at the prospects of power and wealth? Is dynasty politics compatible with democracy?
While India won freedom and adopted a democratic form of government, at the economic front what was followed was a socialistic pattern. Gandhian economic prinicples, free enterprise and market economics were totally ignored. What emerged we all know. A convenient socialist model that suited the ruling elites of the time!
Mahatma Gandhi and his principles kept away. People who adhere to free enterprise and free market as well as Gandhian economic ideas were kept away safely from influencing policies. Gram Swaraj and entrepreneurship culture was killed, in fact systematically. The spirit of enterprise was curtailed. What emerged were so called public sector units, where the new dynasty representatives ruled like former Maharajas.
As the new dynasties, not just in Delhi, but across all State capitals, strengthened their grip, democracy and free enterprise culture failed. Political democracy thrived as a one part rule. While on the economic front there was no democracy, however there was conducive atmosphere for those capitalists who won’t cause a threat to the new political class that ruled the country.
In the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin after the period Vladimir Lenin built communism. Dictatorship and communism matched well. When Indira Priyadarsini visited Soviet Union in 1927, she was excited about the Soviet experiment.
Market economy and political democracy would go hand in hand. The soviet model socialism that Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Priyadarshini were excited about where, public sector had a dominating presence in the economic sphere, was certainly conducive for the sustenance of dictatorship, indeed for the dynasties as well.
But the crucial question is how far dynasties and democracies would go hand in hand?