In 2014, Narendra Modi burst upon the national scene declaring war on the dynastic. He sallied forth vowing never to rest, until the dynastic is uprooted from India. Modi did not declare then -and this we must note in fairness to him- that he would rebuild democracy on its pure foundation.

We readily agree with Modi that the dynastic is incompatible with the democratic. But we must do so on some understanding of why it blights the spirit of democracy. The problems with the dynastic vis-à-vis the democratic are straightforward, and can be listed as ready-reckoners. The dynastic excludes citizens by confining the centre of power to a family tree. It is important to note that the essence of the dynastic is exclusion and ‘family’ serves as the framework for that exclusion. The prescription that only the son or daughter of the incumbent king can succeed him serves to institutionalize exclusion.

The idea of the dynastic originated on a different footing, though. It began as a mechanism of inclusion. The right to wield supreme power was deemed the preserve of the most meritorious -the most valorous, the most efficient, or the most virtuous. Why was this evolved? Because it was assumed, and rightly too, that the safety and welfare of the people was safest in the hands of such a person, the ‘pride of the flock’. Assuredly, the idea of exclusion as such was not operative in the inception of the dynastic. The dynastic, in its early history, was open to the best in the group or collectivity. ‘Virtue,’ not genealogy, as Aristotle points out, was the insignia then of the dynastic. Gradually it came about that the best was to be found within a particular family tradition.

That signalled the beginning of the shift in dynasty from inclusion to exclusion. It is vital for us today to be aware of, and understand, the reality and rationale of this shift. What began as virtue, or merit-based dynasty degenerated into DNA-driven dynasty thanks to the genetic enfeeblement of the dynastic stock. It is common knowledge that hereditary power has a dulling, deadening effect on the human. When we say ‘power corrupts’, what it means primarily is that power degrades and exhausts the human stock. All through history the lust for power per se has been a symptom of mediocrity. Palaces, as Immanuel Kant pointed out, are nurseries inhospitable for breeding virtue, genius or greatness. Moral degradation in the form of cruelty, perversion and venality are only the consequences. That, then, is the second major demerit of the dynastic vis-à-vis the democratic. The emphasis that democracy places on diversity as well as the culture of freedom and tolerance is meant to keep our gene pool rejuvenated and vitalized. The dynastic as a mechanism of exclusion is cancerous to democracy.

Now, consider what we are being bombarded with day after day. Modi is absolutely right that the mantle of leadership falling on Rahul for no other reason that he was born into the Nehru-Gandhi pedigree is embarrassing for all of us. No one can claim any merit for being born wherever. He/she had nothing to do with it. So, we are in agreement with Modi as far as ridiculing the dynastic ‘heir apparent’ is concerned on this one principle.

But we cannot swallow the twist he introduced on assuming office. He stated his intention to rule India for fifteen years. He was applauded for this sure-footedness. I felt disturbed, not because I did not admire Modi less, but because I care for democracy more. To me it seemed that Modi was putting the nation on notice that he would exclude everyone -including aspirants from the BJP too- from the charmed circle of supreme power. It struck me as a resurrection of the dynastic, attired in a different costume. The dynastic prescription that only one who springs from the loin of the incumbent king can succeed him is, in its essence, a form of self-perpetuation.

Amit Shah took up from where Modi left off consolidating the dynastic. He has decided that the BJP will rule India for the next fifty years! Put directly, this declaration means that no non-BJP political upstart, none underived from the BJP blue-blood, will be allowed to occupy the throne. Modi will be succeeded by one of his ideological stock. Ideology has dethroned genealogy; that’s all. The outcome will remain unchanged.

Make no doubt, the dynastic is not overthrown. It has been re-invented with altered colours and contours, like displacing the old thousand-rupee notes with new two thousand-rupee notes. Dynasty, like the rupee, will stay. Instead of a biological son/daughter succeeding the father, ideological progeny of BJP will succeed Modi to the throne he has established.

The hallmark of democracy is that it keeps the door of opportunities open to all; those outside a party as well as those within the party. Wherever the dynastic suppresses the democratic in Indian politics, inner-party democracy remains in suspended animation. The champions of democracy will not tolerate democracy at home! Not surprising, really. Is not hypocrisy the country cousin of the lust for power?

The dynastic peril for the democratic is not limited to the exclusion of merit and the institutionalization of mediocrity. Its most worrisome effect is the legitimization of intolerance. In the dynastic context, it is treasonable to think of an alternative to the reigning monarch. Such prospects have no place within the dynastic. Hence the current outcry that those who do not fall in line should find their refuge in Pakistan or in any country other than India. An outcome of this outlook is the elimination of free-thinkers, who are readily mistaken for fifth columnists as their advocacy of rationality, equality of opportunity and tolerance destabilizes the dynastic monolith. It is not free-thinking per se that provokes extreme reprisal. It is the challenge it implies to the dynastic principle.

The dynastic, as compared to the democratic, has a certain ritualistic and cultic potency. Democracy, as the Greek philosophers pointed out and Alexis de Tocqueville reiterated, stands and swears by numbers. This shifts the nucleus of power from the aristocratic to the plebian, from the elect to the elected. Theology is as important for a dynasty to endure as brute force is. It is impossible to separate historical dynasty from doctrines like the Divine Right of Kings, or the divine pedigree of kings, as in Athens. Kings in the past served also as high priests, combining secular and supernatural powers in themselves. Even today a Queen heads the Church of England. Napoleon was de facto the head of the church in France in his days. Attempts to deify Modi and to develop a cult around him is consistent with historical patterns and processes.