Rajendra Shekhawat campaigning in Amravati, where his parents once held elected office. His opponents belittle any suggestion that his family did not orchestrate his candidacy and call him a carpetbagger

Rajendra Shekhawat, nicely polished in a pressed white shirt and neatly parted hair, his face sunburned from campaigning in the south Indian sun, says he is running for office as a common man. His pink cheeks suggest otherwise, though, since common men in India usually toil outdoors without requiring sunscreen.

Another clue is the elephant in every room in which he campaigns in this city in the state of Maharashtra: Mom. She is Pratibha Patil, the president of India.

“I’m not using my parents’ name at all,” Mr. Shekhawat, 42, stated in an upstairs office in his parents’ home, which he is indisputably using as a campaign headquarters. “I’m running on my own. But for sure, being in a political family for so many years does help me, and gives me easy accessibility for doing the work of the people.”

Democracy is built on the oft-tarnished ideal that any man or woman can get elected, but in India, home to the world’s biggest democracy, it helps to be part of a political family. The Nehru-Gandhi dynasty, scions of the governing Congress Party, is India’s version of the Kennedys. But other political dynasties, large and small, have proliferated so rapidly that many analysts believe nepotism is corroding the political system.

India’s chaotic politics can sometimes seem democratic to a fault: the election cycle rarely pauses and the country has roughly 1,050 registered national and regional political parties. But most of the major parties, including the majority Congress Party, are internally undemocratic; there are no primaries and party leaders discourage public dissent. Party bosses select candidates and have shown an increasing tendency to select their own relatives.

Here in Amravati, the decision by Congress Party leaders to run Mr. Shekhawat for Tuesday’s elections in Maharashtra State has provoked an angry backlash. He is running for a state assembly seat in the same district where his parents once held elected office. But to put him there, Congress leaders pushed aside Mr. Sunil Deshmukh, a former radiologist and two-term Congress incumbent with broad local support. Leaders offered Mr. Deshmukh the chance to run elsewhere, but he rebelled and is seeking his own seat as an independent.

“This is a fight against injustice,” declared Mr. Deshmukh, warming to his role as political insurgent. “If he is defeated, that will send a very strong message to all parties, no? If the person is only the son or daughter or a nephew of an important person, you can’t just thrust him on the people.”

Across India, political families are entrenched at every level of government and politics. At least nine of the 32 members of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s cabinet either descended from political families or have children seeking or holding office. Parliament is littered with political families; a recent study found that 31 of the 58 women elected had a husband, brother, father or father-in-law in politics.

The trend is even more glaring at the state level. In Maharashtra, analysts estimate that 30 or more party candidates running this month are from political families. The state’s chief minister, the top executive post, is the son of a former chief minister. This is also the case in two other states while the Congress Party is strongly considering replacing the late chief minister of Andhra Pradesh with his son.

“It has gotten into the DNA of the Indian political system,” said Jagdeep Chhokar, a founding member of the Association for Democratic Reform in New Delhi. “To control the workings of the party, the leader depends on trusted people. And one of the traditions of Indian culture is that you trust family members more than outsiders.”

Indian politics have a high turnover rate and voting blocs can be defined by region, religion, caste or community. Yet analysts say Indian voters favor a familiar family pedigree, partly because of a cultural reverence for the family and because of habits in some regions that trace back centuries. Several of the royal families who ruled over feudal states have today evolved into political families.

Modern India’s political marketplace is so crowded with parties and candidates that the “brand” of a familiar family name can bring an advantage, several analysts say. And the closed nature of political parties often perpetuates the dynastic problem; in several cases, rebels who broke from one party have formed their own and installed relatives around them.

Few political families are eager to step away from the power and lucre of office. In the state of Haryana, which has several local political dynasties, a recent study concluded that incumbents running for re-election had increased their personal wealth, on average, by 388 percent during their five years in office.

“Every political family these days is keen to keep someone in the field,” said Suhas Palshikar, who teaches politics at Pune University in Maharashtra. “Lots of resources are involved. Lots of networks are involved. And to put it crudely, a lot of money is involved.”

Mrs. Patil, 74, the Indian president, has less than three years remaining in her term. The position of president is largely ceremonial, with real power invested in the prime minister and his cabinet, though the presidency does command deference. Mrs. Patil’s press officer said the president had not been involved in her son’s candidacy but that the son, like anyone, has a constitutional right to seek office.

Her son’s opponents belittle any suggestion that his family did not orchestrate his candidacy and call him a carpetbagger who has spent much of his life away from Amravati, returning only in the past year after his political ambitions had been kindled.

“His only asset is his mom,” said Dr. Pradeep Shingore, 56, a cardiologist who is the Bharatiya Janata Party candidate for the seat. “Politics is being used as ancestral property.”

On a cloudless morning in one of the city’s slums, the incumbent, Mr. Deshmukh, led supporters on a padyatra, or foot march, a ritual in Indian politicking. Sprinkled in the crowd were the mayor and 20 other local officials from the Congress Party who are defiantly supporting him.

“People are very angry,” said Ashok Dongre, the mayor. “These families are not good for democracy because the common person, the party worker in the field, should be encouraged to go for higher positions. If you do not do that, how will the party succeed?”

Many observers consider Mr. Deshmukh the favorite in the race, though he faces practical obstacles. Every candidate on the ballot is accompanied by a party symbol, which provides a guide for illiterate rural voters. The Congress symbol, an open hand, is iconic in India. But as an independent, Mr. Deshmukh had no symbol; after considering choices offered by the election bureau, he decided upon an image of a television.

“He has come to seek your blessing!” a campaign worker shouted in the slum as others waved banners with the television image. “His symbol is television! Tee-vee! Tee-vee! Tee-vee!”

For his part, Mr. Shekhawat, the president’s son, brushes aside criticism of his candidacy. He is making his first run for office after working for an educational institute controlled by his family and has spent more than a decade working inside the Congress Party. He says Mr. Deshmukh has failed to promote development projects adequately and accuses him of the political sin of disloyalty.

“This kind of defiance shows indiscipline,” Mr. Shekhawat said. “Nobody is above the party. Nobody.”

Nepotism presents an especially complicated question for the Congress Party and the Gandhi dynasty. Rahul Gandhi, the presumptive heir to the party, has been visiting poor villages while promoting the idea of making the party more open and internally democratic. As part of his tour, Mr. Gandhi appeared Friday in Amravati for a rally with local Congress candidates.

On the stage with him was the president’s son.

Today star sons and their sons are ruling the Hindi Film Industry. Every aged star is eager to bring their son or daughter to the industry. The bollywood has now become full of star sons and daughters. There is hardly any space for outsider. Even producers and directors are bringing their sons. Earlier, there were only one or two star sons. But now it has become a norm.

When a son of a star enters the industry, he has every thing ready for him. People know him because, he is the son of star. And for the same reason he gets free media attention. People wait eagerly for his film. He gets producers ready at his door step with lots of money and distributors ready to buy his film. His call sheet becomes full before his first film is even released. Even if his first film flops at the box-office, he still gets films. He gets film until he becomes a big star, like Amitabh Bachan’s son Abhishek Bachan. Abhishek’s all earlier films were big flops one after the other. Even his first film, the much hyped film was a flop, even though it was directed by the big director, JP Dutta. In spite his flop films he still got films until he become a star. If he was not the son of a star he would have never reached this position.

Well, bollywood is famous for being very clannish. There is a very long list of clans in Bollywood. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bollywood_film_clans. Because of this nepotism, I think talented people would have a great difficulty in getting a chance in this industry. I think we want new faces, who doesn’t have the resemblance of earlier star, either in looks or in their acting style. Film industry has become a family business. I think nepotism is more prevalent in Bollywood than any other Indian film Industry. But this trend is slowly creeping into other industries also.

Like in Tamil film industry, it is producers and directors, who are bringing their siblings to this industry. In Telugu, there are already a lot of actors who either are son of actors or their brothers, cousins or nephews. In Malayalam this trend is less prevalent. One reason is that there is less space for others, because it is a small industry.

I think, Directors and producers should bring in more fresh talents, to this industry rather than choosing who already were there. Fresh talents should be given chance in every field of the cinema, than only we can get good quality films. It is this outsiders like, Ram gopal Varma, Manoj Vajpayee, Irfan Khan, Madhur Bhandarkar who had made a difference in the Hindi film world. Among them, I think Ram Gopal Varma had a big influence in Hindi cinema.

I hate nepotism. I think, now its time that bollywood industry should become more professional. In Hollywood, I think nepotism is looked with disdain.  For eg. Nicolas Cage is actually Nicolas Coppola, who is the nephew of director Francis Ford Coppola. To avoid been seen as nepotism he changed his surname. But here nepotism is taken as a matter of pride. Most of the siblings of great stars even don’t know acting. They merely survive on the basis of the names of their parents. I wonder how they become stars. For eg. Abhishek Bachan, I don’t what is in him that makes him a star. He doesn’t have any looks. He has all the mannerism of Amitabh Bachan, his father. You cannot spot anything special in his acting. Well, I think, I should understand that in Bollywood there are no actors, only we have are showmen.

“I would go to the length of giving the whole congress a decent burial, rather than put up with the corruption that is rampant.” — Mahatma Gandhi May 1939

This was the outburst of Mahatma Gandhi against rampant corruption in Congress ministries formed under 1935 Act in six states in the year 1937.  The disciples of Gandhi however, ignored his concern over corruption in post-Independence India, when they came to power. Over fifty years of democratic rule has made the people so immune to corruption that they have learnt how to live with the system even though the cancerous growth of this malady may finally kill it.  The recent Tehelka episode surcharged the political atmosphere of the country but it hardly exposed anything, that was unknown to the people of this biggest democratic polity.  

Politicians are fully aware of the corruption and nepotism as the main reasons behind the fall of Roman empire, the French Revolution, October Revolution in Russia, fall of Chiang Kai-Shek Government on the mainland of China and even the defeat of the mighty Congress party in India.   But they are not ready to take any lesson from the pages of history.   

The history of corruption in post-Independence India starts with the Jeep scandal in 1948, when a transaction concerning purchase of jeeps for the army needed for Kashmir operation was entered into by V.K.Krishna Menon, the then High Commissioner for India in London with a foreign firm without observing normal procedure.  Contrary to the demand of the opposition for judicial inquiry as suggested by the Inquiry Committee led by Ananthsayanam Ayyangar, the then Government announced on September 30, 1955 that the Jeep scandal case was closed.  Union Minister G.B.Pant declared “that as far as Government was concerned it has made up its mind to close the matter.  If the opposition was not satisfied they can make it an election issue.”  Soon after on February 3,1956 Krishna Menon was inducted into the Nehru cabinet as minister without portfolio.   

In 1950, A.D.Gorwala, an eminent civil servant was asked by Government of India to recommend improvements in the system of governance.  In his report submitted in 1951 he made two observations: “One, quite a few of Nehru’s ministers were corrupt and this was common knowledge.  Two, even a highly responsible civil servant in an official report as early as 1951 maintained that the Government went out of its way to shield its ministers” (Report on Public Administration, Planning Commission, Government of India 1951)    

Corruption charges in cases like Mudgal case (1951), Mundra deals (1957-58), Malaviya-Sirajuddin scandal (1963), and Pratap Singh Kairon case (1963) were levelled against the Congress ministers and Chief Ministers but no Prime Minister resigned.   

The Santhanam Committee, which was appointed by the Government in 1962 to examine the issue of corruption in its report submitted in 1964 observed: “There is widespread impression that failure of integrity is not uncommon among ministers and that some ministers, who have held office during the last sixteen years have enriched themselves illegitimately, obtained good jobs for their sons and relations through nepotism and have reaped other advantages inconsistent with any notion of purity in public life.” 

The following comments of Nehru on the memorandum of charges against Pratap Singh Kairon submitted to the President of India by the non-Communist opposition in Punjab suggest his approach on corruption – “The question thus arises as to whether the chief minister is compelled to resign because of adverse findings on some questions of fact by Supreme Court.   The ministers are collectively responsible to the legislature.  Therefore, the matter was one, which concerned the assembly.  As a rule therefore, the question of removing a minister would not arise unless the legislature expressed its wish by a majority vote.” (Pathology of Corruption by S.S.Gill) 

Thus, we find that while Nehru’s tolerance of corruption among his ministers legitimized this malady, his daughter Indira Gandhi institutionalized it by holding both the posts of the Prime Minister and party president.  By doing so she was herself controlling the party funds, which gave birth to the money power in politics.  The famous V.P.Malhotra (Chief Cashier of State Bank of India) case in which he got a telephone call believing from Indira Gandhi to pay Rs,60 lakhs to one Nagarwal remained a mystery.   Corruption cases like Fairfax, HBJ Pipeline, and HDW Submarine deal came up since then.  The famous Bofor’s deal is well known.  Narsimha Rao was the first Prime Minister being prosecuted in corruption charges.  Cases like Rs.2500 crore -Airbus A-320 deal with France involving kickback (1990), Harshad Mehta security scam (1992), Gold Star Steel and Alloys controversy (1992), JMM bribery case, Hawala scam of Rs. 65 crore and Urea scam (1996) also came up during the period of Narsimha Rao Government. 

Criminalisation of politics is another facet of corruption.  N.N.Vohra, Union Home Secretary in his report (1995) on this issue observed:- “A network of mafias is virtually running a parallel Government pushing the state apparatus into irrelevance.  Quoting some ‘DIB’ sources, he added, “….there has been a rapid spread and growth of criminal gangs, armed senas, drug mafias, smuggling gangs and economic lobbies in the country, which have over the years developed an intensive network of contacts with bureaucrats, government functionaries at local level, politicians, media persons and strategically located individuals in non-state sector.  Some of these syndicates have also international linkages including the foreign agencies.” 

Against the above-discussed historical background of corruption during last fifty years, the only contribution of Tehelka is that the exposure has forfeited the right of the BJP to claim itself to be a party with difference.  So long the BJP was in opposition, it was by and large known as a party with moral integrity, but when it aligned with the political leaders with shady background for the sake of power, the malady of corruption infected this party too.  Once the moral integrity is compromised it opens the door of corruption.  Perhaps the BJP leadership deliberately went for ideological compromise for capturing power at centre.  L.K.Advani put the responsibility on middle class when he reacted to a suggestion by an important ex-National Executive member of the party against the “dubious coalition politics”.  Advani reportedly said: “ The middle class does not like compromises and tends to be idealistic.  At the same time, it is unhappy if we lose power.  It wants power as well as ideological integrity.  This is the dilemma of the party”.  ( Inside BJP by Dr. Jay Dubashi published in Times of India dated March 22,2001).  Advani might have philosophised the situation but he cannot escape from the responsibility for the ideological compromise the BJP made for the sake of power. 

Corruption is an abstract term.  According to World Bank report 1997 abuse of public power for private gains is described as corruption.  But this appears to be too simplistic explanation of corruption.  In fact it is a multi-faceted evil, which gradually kills a system.  A basic conflict between the ethos and system has weakened the Indian polity.  The feudal outlook of the ruling class polluted the people’s mindset, which judge the status of an individual on his capability to flout the law to favour them.  This is the reason why corruption is no more viewed by people with abhorrence in Indian society.  Leaders like Laloo, Jayalalitha, Sukhram and others, who are facing corruption charges, continue to have wide range of people’s support.  Transparency, responsiveness, accountability, probity in public life and good governance are now only slogans.  The legislature has failed to make the judiciary, executive and even media sensitive to the cause of the common people.  The failure of the political leadership to take a principled stand against corruption has clouded the system to the extent that it is now difficult to understand whether the system is alive or dead.  

In the present context corruption is so much linked with power that our politicians have adopted a cynical attitude toward political morality.  Maneuvering the anti-defection law for electoral politics with the help of both money and muscle power and other unfair means for the sake of power have affected the political morality of all the political parties and as such none of them can claim themselves to be faithful to nation in true sense.  It was pathetic to see an excellent orator  of congress struggling to brush away the past of the congress in the recent “Big fight” programme of Star TV.  

The collapse of  the Janata Party Government (1977-80), fall of V.P.Singh and Chandrashekhar Government (1990-91), turning his minority Government into majority by Narsimha Rao, split in Telugu Desam Party (1994), defection of Ajit Singh with his supporters to Congress (1993), defection of S.S.Vaghela from BJP, maneuvering defection by Kalyan Singh to keep the BJP led Government in power in UP are some of examples to prove that a sizeable number of our politicians are not immune to corruption.   

With Tehelka exposure, we may like to refer to our ancient law book, which said, “That monarch, whose subjects are carried from his kingdom by ruffians, while they call aloud for protection, and he barely looks on them with his ministers, is a dead, and not a living king.” (Manusmriti VII/143)  Tehelka is simply an addition to thousands of past and present eruptions in the cancerous body polity of the country. 

 Manu may not be relevant to the present century, but as human nature more or less remains same and states either in monarchy or democracy are governed by the same human beings, he is still relevant.  License to govern does not mean license to be corrupt. Mahatma Gandhi believed in the need for creating a social climate against corruption, which meant creation of an atmosphere in which the corrupt could not thrive.  The need of the hour therefore, is to wipe off the tormenting system, which could be possible only after its thorough overhaul.   For this our national leadership is expected to devise a political mechanism to create a social atmosphere by empowering of people.  The on going war cry against corruption, which is nothing but a mad fight to replace one corrupt system by another is not going to transform the beleaguered nation to a sustainable social order.