The ruling ritual of riling predecessors

Since the time of the Mughals - a dynasty ruling various parts of the Indian subcontinent in variable capacities from the early 16th century to the mid-19th - and even much earlier, deposed rulers have been brought to justice for crimes, perceived or otherwise, by their successors. In its modern format, there are plenty of examples of such 'badla' not just 'badal', the latest one being played out in America. With ex-president Donald Trump being arraigned for campaign fund hera-pheri charges, the new dispensation is not just taking things out on the old, but is also trying to ensure that Agent Orange (Haired) doesn't pose as a full-on challenger in the presidential elections next November.

The ruling ritual of trying to punish one's predecessor - through courts with charges as varying as libel, corruption and incitement - whether deserved or not serves the prime function of telling any challenger to the incumbent not to challenge. In the past, such matters could have been dealt with assassinations. We are far more polite and charming now. On the flip side, though, unlike liquidating an ex-ruler, setting the dogs of justice on a predecessor-cum-challenger that can lead to political suspension or even jail, can inject a has- been with much will-be value. An issue that is both sobering and encouraging for incumbents who will one day be ex-es.