Nepotism basis of casteism: Our ancients knew its pitfalls
Best articulated in the Shrimad Bhagavad Gita, it was not for nothing that our ancients based the varna system on gunas. It was to encourage us to choose a line of work centred on our own unique inclination and temperament. It was a warning against the dangers of dynasty and the nepotism it breeds. It was to create a society where worth was held in higher esteem than birth. That, despite this teaching from our most revered, our society deteriorated into jaati, branded “caste” by our colonial masters, tells us how much we must guard against the dangers of descending into anything like it again. Which means that if we value merit, we must seriously consider what our ancients warned us against. The current debate on nepotism is therefore welcome.
The makings of caste can be found in any group of people who inherit exclusive privileges or are perceived as distinct. Next only to our political parties, this is all too apparent in the film industry. Both nurture the institutionalisation of dynasty and the nepotism that surrounds it. While Rahul Gandhi represents privilege without calibre in politics, there are any number of representatives from the other side, especially in the film industry. Understandably so, given its popularity quotient. So we find the highest level of calibre struggling to find its rightful place in an industry that is all too insecure in the face of it. Why? Because it is fraught with second, third, even fourth generation dynasts who prefer to favour their own.
To be fair to the film industry, it is not as if generation after generation of dynasts from the same family are bestowed with the highest chair. One could perhaps say this is because there is a high table instead. But then deserving outsiders have managed to get breaks despite the oligarchy of dynasts that sit at this table. Not to mention that if dynasts with talent have found a place all too easily in the industry, dynasts without talent have been eased out. Yes, the easing out has come only after they were given far more breaks than they deserved but should this bother us? Isn’t it perfectly natural to want to pass on whatever is in one’s domain to one’s children? Furthermore, it would be tough to find an area where nepotism doesn’t exist. From big business to seminaries, it’s a tendency we display despite knowing it lowers standards.
The widespread display of the tendency however is no reason to give nepotism a clean chit. There is talent to consider and, unlike wealth, there’s no guarantee that it be passed on to one’s children. Take politics for instance. Despite the declining fortunes of the Congress under his leadership, some nine relaunches and the availability of superior talent, the party still awaits the dynast’s nod to lead the party again. Until then the Italian mother keeps the chair warm for her son. The only hope for young emerging leaders is to stay a sycophant indefinitely or to leave and start anew. As for the film industry, however great the talent, the struggle is always painful for the outsider. Talent often gets shafted in awful ways thanks to an ecosystem that values pedigree over it. PR agencies, media, award functions all march to the tune of the big guns. Production houses take advantage with unfair contracts. They offer nothing but peanuts as compensation, often even tying aspirants down like bonded labour to prevent them from taking up other prestigious offers. It is this that destroys any semblance of a level playing field over and above the advantage dynasts invariably have.
The question that must be answered finally is why pick only on political parties and the film industry if nepotism exists everywhere. Well, because given their high visibility, the influence they wield is disproportionate. In fact, we should add cricket to this list of high-power influencers as well. For those who have doubts, the number of dynastic parties, shorn of any merit that abound, offers conclusive proof. It is this humongous influence that they exert that makes it so important for all such spaces to raise the bar. Any lowering of standards to accommodate one’s own eventually destroys them as well as others by creating an ecosystem that generates sub-standard output. We all know what happened to our cricket team when players from one region were given preference over others. We all know what is happening to the most dynast-ridden party of them all. Once the grand old party of the country, today, it is not even a pale shadow of itself. We all also know how easily Bollywood dishes out what Hollywood already has. Sometimes even what Pakistan has!
In the time when we had the varna system, it is said that based on their gunas, the teachers would guide the student’s choice of varna: Brahmin or scholar, Vaishya or wealth creator, Kshatriya or warrior, Shudra or worker. This suggests the prevalence of an ecosystem that favoured merit. In a country where dynasty has gone so far that even a dynast, such as the late actor Rishi Kapoor, was forced to question why everything was named after the Gandhis, we definitely can’t afford to be complacent any more. We need to recognise the pitfalls of dynasty and nepotism and create a milieu for our times that will throw up talent and allow it to flourish. The difference this makes shows in the level of cricket our team plays today. Now imagine the difference if the film industry and political parties, and, by and by, the country were to create such a milieu. There would be innovation and originality instead of sorry imitation. We would lead instead of trail and follow. Become healthy role models for future generations. Serve to make a nation we would all be proud of.
As said earlier, it was not for nothing that our ancients based the varna system on gunas. Let us learn from their wisdom. Let us not make the same mistake twice.
Gunjan Sinha is a Bengalurubased advertising veteran and a consultant in the strategy and positioning for consumer and industrial brands