Dynastic previlege

In his article, ACCIDENTS OF BIRTH, in The Hindustan Times (June 25, 2006) , Vir Sanghvi states his discomfort with dynasties ruling the day in Indian politics, business and the film industry. He argues that this gives the progeny of already successful people a leg up and makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for someone from the general populace to try, succeed and rise to the top.

He also gives the example of the US, where the winning presidential ticket could include a member of just two families, if either Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush win the 2008 elections, form 1981 through at least 2012. Still, he believes that things are more transparent in the US than in India, and a person can be successful solely on his merit.

Well, dynasties are as old as civilization (if that’s the correct word) itself. This, in a way, is the basis of caste system that exists in India, and the class system everywhere else. Since schooling was not so formal a few thousand years ago, it is natural that the son of a priest became a priest, a warrior’s son a warrior and a businessman taught his craft to his. Even then, the caste system did not consolidate till the Gupta period; before that any one could be a priest, warrior or a businessman, because India had a relatively young Aryan civilization at that time.

Similarly, the concept of the United States is barely over a couple centuries old. It was formed expressly in reaction to the ‘dynasties’ of Europe. When there was a talk of keeping George Washington as the head of state for life, he didn’t like it and stepped down after his term. As America ages, and consolidates, it is starting to get the flavor of the old world, albeit slowly.

Many migrants, for example, called the ‘undocumented aliens’ are despised and bills are in the Congress to arrest them and send them back where they came from. This may seem ironic as this country was built on immigrants, a whole lot of them arriving at Ellis Island with a big WOP – Without Papers – sign hanging from their necks. However, there was a general welcome to these ‘migrants without documents”. To be fair, the latter did go through proper processing, and amalgamated with the prevailing culture and mores while changing it a bit, as well.

The same goes with hereditary privilege. A young America had brave men and women to dared to go into unknown circumstances and establish themselves. Of course, without any lineage to draw from in a new country, meritocracy had to prevail.

Modern America is developing a class system. As Mr. Sanghvi observes, merit is still important in success in the US, though it is easier of a person of privilege to exploit contacts and ventures. It is like running in a 100-meter dash 10 meters ahead of the starting line. It is so natural. Taking advantage and using an edge is basic human nature, and nothing to complain about.

Nonetheless, I can understand Mr. Sanghvi’s gripe about people taking undue advantage because of their accident of birth. With rampant corruption, lack of law and order, and that of transparency augment the negative aspects of genetic advantage. These are the things that should be addressed, and others will fall in place.

To read a full article, go to: http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1727652,00300001.htm