Power, in theory, is meant to reside in institutions. In democracies, it is vested in constitutions, cabinets, parliaments and elected leaders. But history repeatedly shows us that between the supremo and the people there mostly arises another force: the coterie. Invisible in formal charts of authority, unaccountable to public scrutiny, and operating through proximity rather than legitimacy, the coterie becomes the shadow government of regimes. Indeed, there are times when the leader himself appears less consequential than those who surround him.
In India, one of the most famous examples was that of R. K. Dhawan, the long-serving private secretary to prime minister Indira Gandhi. (Getty)
The reason is simple. Information is power. Access is power. Interpretation is power. The individual who controls who meets the ruler, what files reach him, which voices are amplified and which are silenced, acquires enormous influence. Such people do not need constitutional authority. Their authority derives from intimacy. They become the gatekeepers of power.
In India, one of the most famous examples was that of R. K. Dhawan, the long-serving private secretary to prime minister Indira Gandhi. Over time, Dhawan became far more than an efficient aide. He knew the psyche of his boss. Srikant Verma, well-known poet and senior Congress leader, once told me an interesting story. Verma was the editor of the Congress flagship publication. He needed to get an editorial urgently cleared by the PM. Dhawan told him he would get it done, provided Srikant remain absolutely silent during the meeting. He himself would deliberately—and randomly—raise a doubt or query about a sentence or para; Indira Gandhi would, he knew, brush his objections aside, and the editorial would be approved in five minutes. This is exactly what happened.
In more recent times, a striking example is the power that Pandian, an IAS officer, who was the principal secretary to former chief minister Navin Patnaik, wielded. In many ways, his critics allege, he was the de facto CM. Our history is replete with such examples.
The coterie’s greatest strength is ensuring that the leader only hears what he wants to hear. One of our elderly PMs, used to hear better with one ear. The coterie—unlike others—knew this ensuring that only their whispered advice always hit the mark. Slowly, the leader begins to inhabit an artificial reality manufactured by those around him. Outsiders are portrayed as enemies, critics as conspirators, and independent minds as threats. Leaders, especially powerful leaders, gradually lose contact with unfiltered opinion. Human nature conspires in this process. Most rulers prefer reassurance to contradiction. Courtiers quickly learn this. The result is an echo chamber where inconvenient truths are screened out. Over time, the ruler ceases to hear the nation and hears only the coterie.
The court of the last Russian Tsar offers a striking illustration. Grigori Rasputin, a wandering mystic of dubious credentials, acquired extraordinary influence over Tsarina Alexandra because of his apparent ability to alleviate the suffering of her haemophiliac son. As the authority of Tsar Nicholas II weakened, Rasputin’s influence grew. The decay of institutions accelerated the collapse of the regime itself.
Adolf Hitler cultivated competing circles around him. Figures such as Martin Bormann became extraordinarily powerful because they controlled access to Hitler. Bormann mastered the bureaucratic machinery of the Nazi state and ensured that information reaching Hitler was carefully filtered. Historians have noted that many officials often found it nearly impossible to approach Hitler directly without passing through Bormann’s network. In effect, Bormann became the custodian of the Führer’s political universe.
Similarly, Joseph Goebbels shaped not only public opinion but Hitler’s perception of public opinion. Totalitarian regimes thrive on insulation. Once the ruler is sealed within layers of loyal intermediaries, illusion replaces reality. Hitler continued to believe in victory long after Germany’s defeat had become inevitable.
Modern democracies are not immune. The presidency of Donald Trump has repeatedly demonstrated the enormous influence of advisers, family members such as his son-in-law Jared Kushner, and ideological loyalists. Trump’s style of governance — intensely personal, instinctive and distrustful of institutional constraints — has naturally enhanced the importance of the inner circle. Officials perceived to be insufficiently loyal have been removed; those who reinforced his worldview have prospered.
This phenomenon is not confined to politics. Corporate empires, monarchies, revolutionary movements and even spiritual organisations generate coteries. The pattern is almost universal because power attracts intermediaries, and intermediaries seek permanence by tightening their grip around the source of authority.
Unfortunately, when those who ringside leaders work only for their own self-preservation and benefit, the state suffers. This truth was summed up best by Tulsidas:
Sachiv baida guru tini jaun priya bolahin bhay aas
Raja dharma tana tini kara hoi begahin nasa
If the counsellor, the guru and the physician
Speak sweet words only out of want or fear
Then the state, dharma and bodily health
Will soon disappear.
(Pavan K Varma is an author, diplomat, and former member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha). The views expressed are personal)
