This article explores the making of a political dynasty in action in a district in western Uttar Pradesh. The founder of the dynasty is a dabang: a self-made violent political entrepreneur. It is argued that the figure of the dabang offers a special ethnographic entry point to contrast forms of power that are achieved versus forms of power that are acquired (inherited) and examines the existing tensions between paternalistic and autonomous models of power. Importantly, such exercise highlights the challenges that dabangs have in cultivating their individual charismatic authority and simultaneously establishing their Parivar Raj (rule of family) by using force and money. On the whole, the presented case study helps us to reflect on the very diverse ways in which dynasties form and work according to the type of authority that is passed through generations.
AriasE. D. (2016). Criminal enterprises and governance in Latin America and the Caribbean. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
2.
ArmaoF. (2015). Mafia-owned democracies: Italy and Mexico as patterns of criminal neoliberalism. Revista de Historia Actual, 1, 4–21.
3.
AssayagJ. (2006). Sur les chasses du temps. Histoire et Anthropologie chez Eric J. Hobsbawm. Revue d’Histoire Moderne et Contemporaine, 53(4), 100–113.
4.
BanfieldE. (1958). The moral basis of a backward society. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
5.
BjorkmanL. (2014). ‘You can’t buy a vote’: Meanings of money in Mumbai elections. American Ethnologist, 41(4), 617–634.
6.
BlokA. (1974). The Mafia of a Sicilian village, 1860–1960: A study of violent peasant entrepreneurs. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
7.
BrassP. (1997). Theft of an idol: Text and context in the representation of collective violence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
8.
BrassP. (2003). The production of Hindu-Muslim violence in contemporary India. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
9.
ChandraK. (2016). Why ‘forward castes’ have a dynastic advantage. In ChandraK. (Ed.), Democratic dynasties (pp. 12–55). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
10.
ChauchardS. (2016). Disadvantaged groups, reservation, and dynastic politics. In ChandraK. (Ed.), Democratic dynasties. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
11.
ChhibberP. (2011). Dynastic parties: Organization, finance and impact. Party Politics, 19(2), 277–295.
12.
ForbessA., & MicheluttiL. (2013). From the mouth of god: Divine kinship in contemporary popular politics. Focaal—Journal of Historical and Global Anthropology, 67, 3–18.
13.
FreemanL. (2007). Why are some people powerful? In AstutiR., ParryJ. & StaffordC. (Eds), Questions of anthropology (pp. 281–306). Oxford, UK: Berg.
14.
GambettaD. (1993). The Sicilian Mafia: The business of private protection. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
15.
GambettaD. (2000). Mafia: The price of distrust, Chapter 10. In GambettaD. (Ed.), Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations (Electronic edition, pp. 158–175). Oxford, UK: Department of Sociology, University of Oxford.
16.
GayerL. (2014). Karachi: Ordered disorder and the struggle for the city. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
17.
HansenT. B., & StepputatF. (Eds) (2005). Sovereign bodies: Citizens, migrants, and states in the postcolonial world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
18.
HansenT. B., & VerkaaikO. (2009). On everyday mythologies in the city. Critique of Anthropology, 29(1), 5–26.
19.
Harriss-WhiteB., & MicheluttiL. (Eds) (forthcoming) Wild east? Criminal political economies in South Asia. London, UK: UCL Press.
20.
HobsbawmE. (1969). Bandits. New York, NY: Delacorte Press.
21.
HoqueA., & MicheluttiL. (forthcoming). Brushing with organized crime: Jugaad as democracy. Journal of Asian Studies.
22.
JaffeR. (2012). The popular culture of illegality: Crime and the politics of aesthetics in urban Jamaica. Anthropological Quarterly, 85(1), 79–102.
23.
JaffeR. (2013). The hybrid state: Crime and citizenship in urban Jamaica. American Ethnologist, 40(4), 734–748.
24.
JaffrelotC., & KumarS. (Eds.) (2009). Rise of the plebeians? The changing face of the Indian legislative assemblies. Delhi: Routledge.
25.
KakarS. (1977). Authority in work organizations. Vikalpa, 2(4), 253–264.
26.
MartinN., & MicheluttiL. (2017). Protection rackets and party machines. Comparative ethnographies of Mafia Raj in North India. Asian Journal of Social Science, 45(6), 692–722.
27.
MicheluttiL. (forthcoming). Lady dabang. In MicheluttiL., HoqueA., MartinN., PicheritD., RollierP., RuudA. E. & StillC. (Eds.), Mafia Raj: The rule of bosses in South Asia. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
28.
MicheluttiL. (2010). Wrestling with (body) politics: Understanding ‘Goonda’ political styles in North India. In PriceP. & RuudA. E. (Eds.), Power and influence in South Asia: Bosses, lords, and captains. Delhi: Routledge.
29.
MicheluttiL. (2014). Kingship without kings. In PiliavskyA. (Ed.), Patronage as politics in South Asia (pp. 283–302). New Delhi: Cambridge University Press.
30.
MicheluttiL. (2017). The cult of the boss. Seminar, 693, 58–64.
31.
MicheluttiL., HoqueA., MartinN., PicheritD., RollierP., RuudA. E., & StillC. (forthcoming). Mafia Raj: The rule of bosses in South Asia. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
32.
PaoliL. (2003). Mafia brotherhoods: Organized crime Italian style. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
33.
PiliavskyA., & SbriccioliT. (2016). The ethics of efficacy in north India’s Goonda Raj (rule of toughs). Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 22(2), 1–19.
34.
PineJ. (2012). The art of making do in Naples. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
35.
PriceP., & RuudA. E. (2010). (Eds.)Power and influence in South Asia: bosses, lords, and captains. Delhi: Routledge.
36.
QuigleyD. (Ed.) (2005). The character of kingship. Oxford, UK: Berg.
37.
SahlinsM. (1963). Poor man, rich man, big man, chief: Political types in Melanesia and Polynesia. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 5(3), 285–303.
38.
SealG. (2009). The Robin Hood principle: Folklore, history, and the social bandit. Journal of Folklore Research, 46(1), 67–89.
39.
SennettR. (1980). Authority. London, UK: Faber and Faber.
40.
SidelJ. (1999). The usual suspects: Nardong Putik, Don Pepe Oyson, and Robin Hood. In RafaelV. (Ed.), Figures of criminality in Indonesia, the Philippines, and Colonial Vietnam (Studies on Southeast Asia, No. 25, pp. 70–94). Ithaca, NY: Southeast Asia Program Publications, Cornel University Press.
41.
SinghR. (2016). The politics of Zilla Parishads: The case study of Saharanpur district (Master dissertation). Ashoka University.
42.
SircarN. (2018). Money in elections. The role of personal wealth in elections outcomes. In KapurD. & VaishnavM. (Eds), The cost of democracy. Political finance in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
43.
VaishnavM. (2017). When crime pays: Money and muscle in Indian politics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
44.
VerniersG. (2014, June7). The root of the Goonda Raj: Why there is so much violence in Uttar Pradesh. Scoll.in. Retrieved from http://scroll.in/article/666450/The-roots-of-Goonda-Raj:-Why-there%27s-so-much-violence-in-Uttar-Pradesh/
45.
VolkovV. (2002). Violent entrepreneurs: The use of force in the making of Russian capitalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
46.
Von LampeK., & JohansenP. O. (2003). Criminal networks and trust. Paper presented at the 3rd Annual Meeting of the European Society of Criminology (ESC) Helsinki, Finland, 29 August. Retrieved from http://www.organized-crime.de/criminalnetworkstrust.htm
47.
WeberM. (1978). Politics as a vocation. In RuncimanW. G. (Ed.), (trans. MatthewsE.) Weber: Selections in translation (pp. 212–225). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
48.
WilsonI. D. (2015). The politics of protection rackets in post new order Indonesia: Coercive capital, authority and street politics. London, UK: Routledge.
49.
WitsoeJ. (2009). Territorial democracy: Caste, dominance and electoral practice in postcolonial India. Political and Legal Anthropology Review, 32(1), 64–83.
