The result of the Lok Sabha election of 2019 is historically in such a way that after 48 years, the people of India, after completing the absolute majority, sat on the throne of Delhi with full majority. This is a positive vote against Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s full faith in leadership skills and unlike the 2014 election. Apart from the other things, an important message of this election is also the declaration of the end of the politics of familyism in a way in Indian politics. In the victory speech after his victory, when Modi reiterates his resolve that I will never do anything for myself, then separate himself from this familyhood. Here itself means ‘Modi’ for himself, as well as his family dynasty.
The democratic system differs from monarchy or dictatorship in the form of that in the monarchy, the rule of people of the same family and lineage goes on generation generation, while in the democracy, the public promotes the people. Under the sociological terminology, American polytechnosocial anthropologist Ralph Linton has stated in his famous book ‘The Study of Man’ that there are two types of socio-political situations- the given situation and the acquired situation. In the given situation, the person is received on the basis of rank, authority and prestige, birth, caste or caste, not on the basis of merit and performance, on the other hand, in these circumstances, Are achieved only on the basis of execution. Ralph Linton also states that the situation provided is characteristic of closed societies like tribal, monarchy and dictatorships, while the acquired situation is favorable to open societies, which are modern democratic systems. Unfortunately in India or in different countries of the Third World, despite the democracy, the situation provided is dominated. In politics, some families seem to have monopolized. In the context of India, the father of this family or dynastic politics is a Congress party. It is tragic that this family virus has been infected in the families born in opposition to Congress. Besides the domination of the Nehru-Gandhi family at the national level, family of Lalu Yadav or Ram Vilas Paswan in Bihar at the regional level, family of Mulayam Singh Yadav or Ajit Singh in Uttar Pradesh, family of HD Deve Gowda in Karnataka, NT Rama Rao in Andhra Pradesh – Chandrababu Naidu Khanadan, K Chandrasekhar family of Telangana, Karunanidhi family in Tamil Nadu, Abdullah in Jammu Kashmir Ulla and Mufti family, Badal family in Punjab have chosen to remember the monarchy in a number of instances in which democracy. The parties here have become a family private limited company. Mayawati’s BSP and Mamta Banerjee’s TMC are also on the verge of family diversification. The Bharatiya Janata Party and the Communist Parties are the two main parties, which are relatively far from familyist politics, but the problem of the Communist Party is that they are the slave of an imported ideology and Indian society has almost rejected it.
Familyism politics has many adverse consequences. In the first place, leadership is a family pension. Even if the heir is not with the qualities of leadership, it will be the same as the coronation. For example, for the last time when Lalu Yadav had to go to jail, despite the many capable leaders, Lalu’s leadership of RJD was handed over to Rabri Devi. Secondly, for such parties, public interest – family life is more important than country. It is not unintentional that this country or the general public of different states on one side, being trapped in the clutches of these political families, is cursed to live in poverty and poverty even after seven decades of independence. On the other hand, these political families are collecting huge wealth for themselves. Thirdly, the true-capable genius arising from the land that understand the aspirations of the public should not be allowed to flourish in the family, so that the dynastic leadership can not get any challenge. In English which is called aspirational politics, i.e. aspirational politics, it is crushed under the feet of this dynasty. See an example Pranab Mukherjee It is said that after the assassination of Indira Gandhi, Pranab Mukherjee had filed a claim for leadership, but due to the overwhelming majority of familyist political culture Pranab Mukherjee was given exile for Congress for a long time. Due to the same familyist political culture, once the emerging leader Hemant Verma of Assam demanded a big role in Assam politics, it was sidelined that the then Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi had succumbed to his son Gaurav Gogoi Wanted to hand over. Fourth, familyist politics gives rise to such a court culture, whose main work is to serve and praise the family like charans. In exchange, they also get the royal cream to eat.
It is not wrong for the second generation to come into politics, but the claim on political leadership is based on their merit-skill and performance, rather than in the form of birth rights. It is India of 21st century youth and aspirations which is equipped with the knowledge of technical and global conditions, and therefore is challenging the leadership provided based on the situation given that is the basis of birth control. In Amethi, Rahul Gandhi, Lisa’s daughter Misa, Mufti’s daughter Mehbooba, Mulayam’s daughter-in-law Dimple, Lok Dal’s Ajit and Jayant, JMM Supremo Shibu Soren, KC’s daughter Kavita and Chandrababu Naidu’s son Nara Lokesh defeats in elections or Akali Dal Switching to two seats is a sign of India changing. Leaders like LJP and Shiv Sena have won the rally by riding on the storm. The victory of Naveen Patnaik and Jagan Mohan is achieved on the basis of hard work of the years rather than the dynasty. This is a new India, where instead of the given situation, the importance of skill-skill is being given more importance. Family parties should understand this