Anyone becoming a part of a family is accidental. It just happens. It is also true for Gandhi family.
When they are elected by a party or people they are dynasts, but not others.
It is unfair and contradictory to call India the largest democracy and Gandhi family a ‘dynasty’.
/1
When they are elected by a party or people they are dynasts, but not others.
It is unfair and contradictory to call India the largest democracy and Gandhi family a ‘dynasty’.
/1
Rajiv, Sonia were not keen but Indira needed their support so made entry. Nehru carefully avoided indicating his successor. It was only the destiny that decided the course, not the ‘dynasty’.
In a democracy everything is possible. A seller of tea or lies can become a dictator.
/2
In a democracy everything is possible. A seller of tea or lies can become a dictator.
/2
What matters is how the leader concerned functions whether as a democrat or a dynast or a dictator.
In a truly functional democracy, there cannot be a dynast or dictator if its independent institutions freely, fairly discharge their duty professionally safeguarding democracy.
/3
In a truly functional democracy, there cannot be a dynast or dictator if its independent institutions freely, fairly discharge their duty professionally safeguarding democracy.
/3
All members of the Gandhi family were good listeners. They allowed space & the required freedom to everyone in the party or the administration to operate within the permitted precincts of law to ensure natural justice to people in delivery of governance and service to society.
/4
/4
Since when staunch believers, practitioners of democracy are called dynasts.
Democracy has given everyone a right to aspire for any post. That includes Gandhi family. But people have to decide that.
This is a political weapon used by opponents to confuse perception of people.
/5
Democracy has given everyone a right to aspire for any post. That includes Gandhi family. But people have to decide that.
This is a political weapon used by opponents to confuse perception of people.
/5
There were always divergent views & thoughts. There were tussles but no disruptions in the democratic process.
It also existed in Nehru, Indira era. But the evolution of decisions was collective. It may be by leaders, experts, bureaucrats & final decisions by those in charge.
/6
It also existed in Nehru, Indira era. But the evolution of decisions was collective. It may be by leaders, experts, bureaucrats & final decisions by those in charge.
/6
Indira turned out to be assertive, confident and not the ‘Goongi gudiya’ she was expected to be.
She had political acumen to read the pulse of the people and earn their trust.
If leaders listen to people and deliver what is good for them then they are democrats, not dynasts.
/7
She had political acumen to read the pulse of the people and earn their trust.
If leaders listen to people and deliver what is good for them then they are democrats, not dynasts.
/7
The above excerpts are part of my new blog post: ‘The Invisibles behind perceptions.'
Subhead: The ‘dynasty’ and democracy;
Website link: wp.me/p8Fpl7-fM
(727 words - 4 minutes read)
Comments, opinion, retweets are welcome.
8/8
Subhead: The ‘dynasty’ and democracy;
Website link: wp.me/p8Fpl7-fM
(727 words - 4 minutes read)
Comments, opinion, retweets are welcome.
8/8
Footnote:
The New York Times article ‘Who after Nehru’ dated 19th Jan 1964, when he was ill, will help in understanding the truth and has relevance to some of the issues referred to in the above thread.
nytimes.com/1964/01/19/arc…
The New York Times article ‘Who after Nehru’ dated 19th Jan 1964, when he was ill, will help in understanding the truth and has relevance to some of the issues referred to in the above thread.
nytimes.com/1964/01/19/arc…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
