The Myriad Facets Of The Elixir Of Power

 Lust for Power is the aphrodisiac that, paradoxically, helped build as well as deflowered empires; Genghis Khan built a sprawling one while Mir Jaffer’s lust deflowered a glowing one - leading to Siraj –Ud –Daulah’s abject surrender, to the British, in the Battle of Plassey, 1757 that led to the immediate British control over the prosperous Bengal province – a springboard used later to capture India. The myriads of power, thus, make for a fascinating debate.

Power in simple terms is control/authority over others. Early man - Hunter gatherers - assumed it vide physical strength instilled through threat of retaliatory violence; later with the establishment of village settlements, power was sought via the sword – by a class that evolved into the Kshatriyas caste in India or the warrior/nobles class in Europe. The growth of Religion provided an alternate power centre – the Brahmins caste, in India, or the Priestly class in Europe.  While agriculture was the primary occupation in ancient civilized societies, the largely self-sufficient village still needed to buy what they did not produce or produced less than their necessities; that led to the genesis of the trader class – the Vaishya caste in India or the Merchant class in Europe. Later, with the emergence of currency, the opportunity of intermediation - to collect accumulated savings & route it to the needy even while claiming a margin - led to the emergence of the banking class – perhaps, an extension of the broker class during the barter trade period.  The heredity of occupation – that determined class hierarchy - was enforced by law even during the Roman Empire which, in India, took the form of caste. The lowest class of peasants/Farmers, in Europe, or Shudras in India, were, unfortunately, bereft of power.

While power remained largely the preserve of the warrior class who ran kingdoms, there were times when the priestly class wielded more power – like the Pope during the crusades. Florence or Genoa, in Italy,  emerged as successful examples of the merchant class ruling Republican city states.

History is replete with examples of two of these interested groups coming together to secure power. The family of Saud in Arabia entered into a symbiotic alliance, with religious leader, Mohammed Wahhab, in 1744, to support the “Hanbali” form of Islam in lieu of which the latter granted a religious shield that moralized the regime’s expansionism. The banias in India – like the Jagat Seth’s of Bengal – became the chief financiers of the state in lieu of which they secured favourable trade/tariff deals. The Medicis – the merchants of Florence – funded the election of their preferred candidates as Popes & secured the lucrative Papal banking account in return which provided them with ample liquidity to plan the expansion of both their business & power base.

There have been interesting times in history when some leaders coalesced 2 class identities to eliminate power sharing. A king also becoming a religious leader is one such case – Caliphate in the Muslim world; George VIII, already the King of England, since 1509, became the head of the Church of England, in 1536  Lorenzo Medici copied the template & sowed the seeds that, over time, secured control of the Papacy by having their family members as Popes – Pope Leo (1513-1521) & Pope Clement VIII (1523-1534).

Monopoly of power by certain classes/castes inevitably leads to the emergence of an aspirational class amongst the denied. It takes of form of revolts & revolutions. Attempts by the peasant class in Europe or the shudras in India were crushed mercilessly under feudal regimes until the French Revolution – with principles of Liberty, Equality & Fraternity – of 1789, became the bedrock of the Democratic model & the Russian communist revolution, of 1917, provided successful templates. The basic communist manifesto of each citizen getting as per his need & paying as per his ability to create an egalitarian society did attract adherents but over time suffered as the dictatorship of the proletariat quickly degenerated into the dictatorship of the Politburo or the dictatorship of a strongman – Stalin or Mao kinds.  Power flows from the ‘barrel of a gun” averred Mao justifying violence unlike Democracy that calls for a peaceful time bound transfer of power respecting a majority opinion.Thus Democracy, despite its flaws, is the best model on offer.

Democracy, in modern societies, with a universal adult franchisee has done more to usher in equality & herald a reduction in inequity; constitutions propagate justice & fairness. While most of the elected representatives in India, after independence, belonged to the forward castes – Brahmins, Kshatriyas & Banias – power transition to the OBCs (Other Backward classes) was work in progress even before VP Singh, announced Mandal Commission reservation because the latter boasted of greater numbers – the key in a one person one vote scenario.  in, 1990. Mulayam Singh Yadav in UP & Lalu Yadav in Bihar were formidable mass leaders who went on to became CMs in 1989 & 1990 respectively, Mandal commission implementation accelerated the power shift. Likewise, Mayawati – a Dalit- became CM, of the largest state in India, UP, in 1995.

Democracy, in India, has taken a different trajectory unlike in Europe or Americas. The erosion of class was a welcome development in occidental nations while in India we have taken the route of caste/religious alignment to secure a majority in the first past the post ballot arrangement as Madhavsinh Solanki did in 1980’s, in Gujarat, vide the KHAM (Kshatriya-Harijan-Adivasi-Muslim) coalition; likewise, Mulayam & Lalu cobbled together the Muslim-Yadav (MY) coalition to become CMs of India’s most populous states. Mayawati stitched together a Brahmins-Dalit alignment in 2008, to become the CM of UP. Nitish Kumar, like Karpuri Thakur earlier,  attempted to strengthen his hold on power by segregating the OBC into Extremely backward classes (EBCs); he created a coalition of the forward castes with Non-Yadav OBCs & the non Paswan Dalits; meanwhile, the BJP, in UP, rode to power, in 2017,  following a similar template – a coalition of forward castes with non Valmiki Dalits & non Yadav OBCs - & Installed a Kshatriya Yogi Adityanath – who also heads a religious Institution (Goraknath Math) as a CM.

Such coalitions, though a legitimate exercise in the pursuit of power, often carry the risk of creating social schisms. Caste polarization is as dangerous as religious polarization. Urbanization & increasing literacy levels were recommended, by Ambedkar, as the surest way to usher in equity & annihilation of caste; hopefully, India shall achieve such an objective