RIGHT ANGLE – Containing The Dynasts

Is Indian politics increasingly becoming a family business?

It seems so, if one goes by the Congress Member of Parliament Shashi Tharoor. In a prestigious international news outlet, he has written how the belief that members of political dynasties are uniquely suited to lead is woven deeply into the fabric of Indian governance, from village councils to the highest echelons of parliament.

The timing of this piece by him is significant in the sense it appeared on the eve of the ongoing elections in Bihar, where the principal opposition block is led nationally by Rahul Gandhi, the supreme leader of Tharoor’s Congress party. Gandhi is a political dynast of the highest order right from the days of his great grandfather Jawaharlal Nehru to grandmother Indira Gandhi to father Rajiv Gandhi. In fact, right now, three members of his family – he himself, mother Sonia Gandhi and sister Priyanka Gandhi – are members of the Indian Parliament.

And at the state level in Bihar, Gandhi-led alliance has projected electoral ally Rastriya Janata Dal’s leader Tejashwi Yadav as the state’s next chief minister. Tejaswi is the son of former chief minister Lalu Yadav and his sister is a member of the Lok Sabha.

Incidentally, a recent investigation by The Indian Express newspaper revealed that more than 22% of India’s nearly 5,300 legislators in Parliament, and state Assemblies and Councils have familial ties to current or former legislators.

Apart from mentioning the famous political dynasties, Tharoor has revealed that 149 families are represented by multiple members in state legislative assemblies, with 11 central ministers and nine chief ministers also having family connections. He has quoted a study of the 2009 elections that “two-thirds of MPs under 45 already had a close relative in politics, and younger MPs had almost all inherited a parliamentary seat, usually from a parent. Across all parties, 70% of female MPs were from a dynastic background. Even women politicians who have no direct heirs, such as Mamata Banerjee and Kumari Mayawati, have selected nephews as their successors”.

In fact, in a chapter entitled “India’s Political Dynasties” that I had authored in a book, “Party System in India: Emerging Trajectories” ( Lancer Publishers, 2013), I had argued that India has many more political dynasties today than it had in the past. Taken together, there might be at least 1,000 to 1,500 political families in India that have successfully promoted dynastic successions at various levels, national or provincial. So much so that with each general election, more and more dynasts are entering politics, and that too successfully.

Major examples of political dynasties in modern India include:

• Nehru–Gandhi Family: The most well-known dynasty, which has dominated the Indian National Congress (INC) since independence. Three family members (Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi) have served as Prime Minister. Current prominent members include Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, and Priyanka Gandhi.

• Abdullah Family (Jammu and Kashmir): Key to the Jammu & Kashmir National Conference (JKNC), with Sheikh Abdullah, Farooq Abdullah, and Omar Abdullah all serving as Chief Minister of the region.

• Yadav Family (Uttar Pradesh/Bihar): A powerful force in regional parties like the Samajwadi Party (SP) and Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD). Key figures include Mulayam Singh Yadav, Akhilesh Yadav (former UP CM), Lalu Prasad Yadav (former Bihar CM), and his wife Rabri Devi (former Bihar CM), as well as their children who hold various political positions.

• Karunanidhi Family (Tamil Nadu): Dominant in the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party. M. Karunanidhi served as Chief Minister multiple times, a legacy continued by his son M. K. Stalin (current Chief Minister) and daughter Kanimozhi (MP).

• Badal Family (Punjab): A major family in the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) party, with Parkash Singh Badal serving as Chief Minister of Punjab multiple times, and his son Sukhbir Singh Badal also a prominent leader.

• Pawar Family (Maharashtra): Influential in Maharashtra politics within the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) faction. Sharad Pawar and his daughter Supriya Sule are key figures.

• Deve Gowda Family (Karnataka): H. D. Deve Gowda served as Prime Minister of India, and his sons H. D. Kumaraswamy and H. D. Revanna are prominent state-level politicians, with others from the family also in politics.

• Soren Family (Jharkhand): Prominent in the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) party, with Shibu Soren and his son Hemant Soren both serving as Chief Minister of the state.

• Scindia Family (Madhya Pradesh): This family has members in both the INC and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), illustrating how dynastic influence can cross party lines.

Of course, dynastic politics is not something peculiar to Indian democracy. The United States, famous for the saga of the Kennedy clan, has already witnessed the father-son duo (Bushes) occupying the country’s highest office. Elections in Japan have seen even grandsons of prime ministers occupying the same positions. Nearer home, there are examples of the Bhutto family in Pakistan and those of Bandaranaike in Sri Lanka, Koiralas in Nepal, Rahmans in Bangladesh, Sukarno in Indonesia and Suu Kyi in Burma ; all these families dominate their respective country’s politics even today.

It could be argued that in a democracy ultimately it is the people who through elections legitimise the dynastic successions. Children of famous parents enjoy the initial advantage of public recognition and political connections and one cannot do much against it as long as people approve of it through a democratic exercise.

However, it may be noted that unlike in India where we are witnessing now too many cases of political successions, in the United States or other comparable democratic countries, their number is not proliferating. It is rare to see in India three members of the Gandhi family being members in the parliament. Not long ago, five members of the late Mulayam Singh Yadav’s family were MPs.

In the Indian context it may be noted that almost all the important regional parties are essentially family-affairs. It is the concerned families, rather than the cadres, that determine all the party-activities. Given the fact that the era of coalitions in India is likely to continue in the foreseeable future, these family-driven regional parties will continue to play important roles in Indian politics.

There is no doubt that emotional content because of the contributions of famous parents is an important factor behind the success of the offsprings. But more important than this are the factors of monetary and administrative resources that come aplenty for the children of established and ruling politicians, whether directly or indirectly.

After all, only when political lineage is buttressed by money and other factors, political succession is guaranteed, not otherwise. If lineage were enough, then the blood-relatives of Mahatma Gandhi, Raj Gopalchari, Rajendra Prasad and Jay Prakash Narayan would have been ruling India today. In fact, grandsons of Mahatma Gandhi have lost Indian elections.

As Tharoor rightly writes, “Dynastic families typically possess considerable financial capital, which they have accumulated over years in power. Moreover, they have access to ready-made election machinery, including networks of donors, party workers, and local thugs. This gives them an enormous advantage over political newcomers”.

One cannot agree more with Tharoor when he says that if elected office is treated like a family heirloom, the quality of governance inevitably suffers. But I will like to go further by saying that while one can understand an offspring joining his or parent’s profession of politics, as is the case in other professions such as bureaucracy, law, medicine and engineering, it is a serious blow to democracy when these offsprings automatically inherit the leadership positions of their respective parties – see the likes of Gandhis, Yadavs, Abdullahs, Pawars and Stalins.

Therefore, my view is that it is high time the country devised ways to “contain”, if not eliminate, the undemocratic growth of political dynasties.

In fact, one really cannot “eliminate” the phenomenon as in a democracy all, including the dynasts, have the right to contest elections. And the best way to “contain” is to have a suitable amendment in the constitution to limit the ministerial positions (including that of the prime minister and chief ministers) at the centre and states to two successive terms and preventing the immediate blood relatives of outgoing ministers (after two successive terms) for a period of at least one term of the respective legislatures from succeeding in the vacated offices.

Let the worthy sons and daughters of the dynasties wait and work among the masses for five years to earn, not inherit, the popular mandate.