Calcutta University, Department of History.
November 1, 2025.
The morning light falls through the tall colonial windows of the Ashutosh Building, scattering across worn teak benches and the slow hum of ceiling fans.
Professor Anirban Sen, Thirty-two,spectacles resting halfway down his nose, stands before the blackboard. On it, written in sharp chalk:
> "The Congress System and the Legacy of Hereditary Power"
He turns to his students — fifty in total, seated in semicircular tiers. MA students in History and Political Science. Phones in silent mode. Notebooks open.
---
Professor Sen (opening line):
> "History doesn't repeat, my friends — it inherits."
A pause.
> "And sometimes, what it inherits is corruption dressed as tradition."
He paces.
> "We have to talk about how the Republic of India — a modern democracy — became the world's most sophisticated dynastic network."
---
Student 1 (Riya):
"Sir, you mean Congress, right? The Nehru–Gandhi family?"
Professor Sen:
"Ah, yes, the obvious face of the problem. But let me ask you this — if the Congress had not existed, do you think corruption, patronage, and political feudalism would not have found another host?
The Congress merely provided the blueprint."
He draws a timeline on the board:
1947 → 1951 → 1975 → 1991 → 2014 → 2025
> "When the British left, India was meant to be a meritocratic experiment — a democracy rooted in consent, not bloodline. But what did we inherit? Congress was already a coalition of princely egos and feudal loyalties dressed in khadi. It centralized legitimacy around one surname: Nehru."
He turns.
> "And once legitimacy is inherited, corruption becomes structural."
---
Student 2 (Aamir):
"But sir, isn't it unfair to blame the entire Congress system? They did lead independence, they built institutions—"
Professor Sen:
"Indeed. That's what makes it tragic. You see, in history, corruption rarely begins with thieves. It begins with idealists who refuse to step aside.
After Nehru's death, the party could have become a federalized democratic organism. Instead, it became a royal court — and that court still dictates the grammar of Indian politics."
He underlines two words:
"Congress DNA"
> "Every party that followed — regional, national, left, right — carries this DNA. Even those who hate Congress, imitate it."
---
Student 3 (Kavya):
"You mean BJP, sir?"
Professor Sen:
"Exactly.
Congress invented vote-bank politics. BJP perfected it.
Congress built personality cults. BJP industrialized them.
Congress used state machinery to reward loyalty. BJP digitized that machinery."
He smiles faintly.
> "That's evolution, not reform."
---
Student 4 (Sagnik):
"But sir, BJP is ideologically opposite to Congress. One stands for secularism, the other for Hindutva."
Professor Sen:
"Ah, ideology — the perfume sprayed on power to hide its rot.
You see, both parties are creatures of state capitalism.
They fight in Parliament but feed from the same bowl — the corporate-state nexus."
He walks to the projector and clicks.
A slide appears:
> "Reliance & Rajiv — GMR & Indira"
> "From the 1950s to now, India's industrial houses have always learned one rule: to survive, you must bend with the regime.
Reliance flourished under Indira's license raj, and later under Rajiv's liberalization promises.
The GMR and GVK groups emerged in the 1980s as 'infrastructure allies' of Congress state governments.
Under BJP, Adani and Ambani merely became the new currency of political survival."
---
Student 5 (Nihal):
"So you're saying capitalism here isn't free — it's managed?"
Professor Sen:
"Precisely.
What you're witnessing is State-Controlled Capitalism, a hybrid system where the government doesn't own production — it owns access to opportunity.
And in India, that access flows through party dynasties."
He picks up a yellowed book — Rajni Kothari's Politics in India (1964) — and reads:
> "Kothari called it the 'Congress System,' a self-reinforcing organism that monopolized consensus. What he couldn't foresee was that this system would mutate — into BJP, TMC, DMK, YSRCP, and dozens more. Each one a local dynasty pretending to fight another, while feeding on the same structure."
---
Student 6 (Rachit):
"Then sir, why only two major national parties survive? Why can't a third front ever stay alive?"
Professor Sen:
"Ah, the heart of the paradox."
He writes on the board:
'The Indian Political Organism: Two Heads, One Stomach.'
> "When facing the world — China, the West, wars, sanctions — India's polity behaves like a single organism.
Congress or BJP, doesn't matter. It unites to protect its control over the economy and the people.
When the threat passes, the two heads resume fighting.
That's why no third force can last — the body rejects it like a foreign transplant."
---
The class murmurs — a mix of intrigue and discomfort.
Phones light up with recorded notes; someone whispers, "he's going to get trolled online for this."
Sen ignores it.
He looks out the window — the skyline of Kolkata half-hidden in haze, cranes rising where old factories once stood.
> "We built a republic of institutions. But we run it like a family business.
Even if BJP one day becomes a hereditary party — and it might — it won't be an aberration. It will simply be Congress reborn under saffron light."
He closes his book.
> "Remember — power in India doesn't change hands. It changes costumes."
A long silence.
He turns back to the class.
> "Alright. Let's begin the discussion. Who wants to defend the system?"
Fade to black.
(End of Prologue 1 — Lecture Opening Scene)