While the Nehru–Gandhi family is often at the center of conversations on political dynasty in India, the truth is that dynastic culture permeates parties and regions across the nation — from north to south and east to west.
This trend is so deeply embedded in Indian politics that several families today not only span ideological divides but also operate across different states, writes M Hasan.
Lucknow, October 30: As Bihar goes to polls, a renewed debate has emerged on India’s rising tide of dynastic politics — a phenomenon not limited to the Congress’s Nehru–Gandhi lineage or the Yadavs of Bihar.
Instead, dynastic power has now become an ingrained feature of Indian democracy, transcending party boundaries and state borders.
Although the Nehru–Gandhi family remains the most visible symbol of this trend, the culture of political inheritance thrives from the Hindi heartland to the southern and eastern regions of the country.
The sheer scale is striking — some political families have members spread across rival parties and different states.
Available data reveal that among 5,294 current legislators in India — comprising MPs, MLAs, and MLCs — 1,174 belong to 989 dynastic families.
Regional parties such as the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and Janata Dal (United) in Bihar, Samajwadi Party (SP) in Uttar Pradesh, Telugu Desam Party (TDP) and Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party (YSRCP) in Andhra Pradesh each have more than 25 percent of their elected representatives coming from political families.
Among national parties, the Indian National Congress has 33.25% dynasts, while the Bharatiya Janata Party has 18.62%.
There are currently 149 families that have more than one member holding office in Parliament or state legislatures.
Despite Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s assertion from the Red Fort on August 15, 2024, that his government would dismantle dynastic rule, the data clearly indicates that political inheritance remains prevalent even within the BJP.
Indian democracy cannot be allowed to be concentrated in the hands of emerging “democratic oligarchs” — families that perpetuate hereditary political power.
Dynasty-driven leadership has expanded in almost every political party, and the key challenge today is identifying ways to curb its influence, as it is unlikely to disappear anytime soon.
British historian Patrick French highlighted this trend in his work India – A Portrait, where he examined MPs in the 15th Lok Sabha.
His research showed that every MP younger than 30 and 65% of MPs aged 31–40 came from political families — a pattern then more prominent in the Congress than the BJP.
The dynastic imprint has historically been stronger in northern states such as Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, and Punjab, in Bihar, and in Andhra Pradesh in the south.
Even the Left, once believed immune to such tendencies, has seen a creeping rise in family-based politics, though its electoral presence has shrunk considerably over the past two decades.
Nepotism and parivarvaad are, therefore, neither new nor confined to certain parties.
With most candidates fielded by major parties being wealthy “crorepatis,” ordinary grassroots workers struggle to secure tickets.
These affluent candidates are often preferred due to their perceived “winnability factor” — an important consideration for parties that prioritize electoral success and political recognition.
Their vote share, seat tally, and national or regional party status determine access to state support and political funding.
In the 2025 Bihar elections, women contest only around 12–14% of seats across leading parties.
This raises a critical question: how will parties ensure 33% female representation in the 2029 Lok Sabha elections under the Women’s Reservation Act unless many of those candidates come from established political families?
Dynastic politics, of course, are not unique to India. American and European politics have also witnessed the rise of powerful political clans.
Dynasty, therefore, is a symptom — the core issue lies in the functioning of Indian political parties and the absence of genuine inner-party democracy.
Political parties today largely act as election-oriented machines, mobilizing grassroots workers only during campaigns to serve as booth managers, rally mobilizers, and poll agents.
Historically, party workers acted as the organization’s “eyes and ears.”
That role has now been outsourced to political consultants and corporate strategy firms that shape campaigns, shortlist candidates, gather voter insights, and influence leadership decisions.
This shift has sidelined traditional party workers in favor of back-room strategists who directly interact with top leaders.
The pervasive “high-command culture” ensures that decisions flow from top leaders downward, with little scope for bottom-up feedback.
Most parties lack institutional mechanisms to influence public policy; instead, policies are largely driven by government agencies, while ruling parties simply endorse decisions rather than critically evaluate them.
The Bharatiya Janata Party highlights its modern party offices in more than 650 districts as institutions to empower grassroots workers, offering meeting spaces and interaction platforms.
Digital technology ensures rapid message dissemination — yet communication largely remains one-way, reinforcing top-down leadership.
Ahead of Bihar’s first phase of polling on November 6, the Prime Minister digitally addressed party workers — reflecting this centrally controlled communication approach.
Strengthening internal democracy within parties remains the most effective solution to counter dynastic politics and rejuvenate democratic participation.
(M Hasan is a former Chief of Bureau, Hindustan Times, Lucknow)
#DynastyPolitics #IndianDemocracy #PoliticalFamilies #InnerPartyDemocracy #Parivarvaad #IndiaPolitics #BiharElections #PoliticalReform #DemocraticValues #LeadershipCrisis #HasanWrites
