Why political dynasties are here to stay

The rajas of the past were now ordinary citizens, their princely states territory of the Indian republic, and their dynasties a relic of the bygone past. Except not quite.

The monarchs of the old became political dynasts of modern India, even as electoral politics gave birth to new dynasties. While often critiqued by parties across the political spectrum, dynasties today are a central feature of Indian politics, one that is unlikely to go away any time soon.

What the data show: one nation, a few parivars

A recent investigation by The Indian Express revealed that, as of September 20, at least 1,174 of India’s 5,294 legislators in Parliament and state Assemblies — MPs, MLAs, and MLCs — have links to current or former legislators. This amounts to more than 22% of all legislators in the country.

Among these 1,174 who belonged to 989 families, there are at least 337 legislators from 149 families that have more than one member in Parliament or the state legislatures, or both. Twenty-three families have more than two members in the legislatures.

With nearly 19% of its legislators coming from political dynasties, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party fares slightly better than the likes of Congress (33%) or Samajwadi Party (almost 35%). But individuals from established political families of other parties are increasingly securing tickets within the BJP, the data show.

As the Express investigation read: “Sons and daughters of MLAs, MPs, Ministers and party chiefs, all getting into the party, then getting a ticket to the legislature and the government — in state after state, party after party, a trend that’s sweeping in both scale and scope…”.

How dynasties came to rule: the Congress template

The shadow of the freedom struggle loomed large over the first three general elections. Many candidates had actively taken part in the movement to end British rule, and as such were highly conscious of their conduct, often going out of their way to ensure that members of their family did not exploit their political power.

The elections in 1952, 1957, and 1962 overwhelmingly favoured the Congress. But as the party leadership aged, tensions emerged. Several stalwarts in Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s cabinet, seen as potential successors at the Centre and states, were sidelined through the Kamaraj Plan in 1963; while he lay on his deathbed, this was Nehru’s strategy to clear the decks for his daughter Indira Gandhi.

Nehru died in 1964, and after two-years with the scrupulous Lal Bahadur Shastri at the helm, Indira assumed control of the party and the country in 1966. Thus began the Nehru-Gandhi family’s consolidation over the Congress, the effects of which can be felt till date.

In 1969, the Congress split into a pro- and anti-India faction, the latter comprising many of the old guard who had taken part in the freedom struggle. But Indira’s charisma and astute political management prevailed, and over time and amid many subsequent splits, the faction loyal to her and the Nehru-Gandhi family consistently prevailed.

Meanwhile, the Congress’ party organisation also gradually weakened. Like many parties around the world which come to power on the back of a national movement, as the memories of the struggle became more distant, so did the values that the movement stood for; corruption and nepotism took root as a result. For several years, the roles of Congress president and Prime Minister were played by the same person, blurring the lines between party and the government, and further entrenching those in power.

Soon, children and spouses of leaders began receiving preference over ordinary party workers; even the three sons of Shastri were no exception. After Indira’s assasisination, her son Rajiv took oath as Prime Minister the very same day. The Nehru-Gandhi family’s dominance remained unchallenged; those who rebelled, broke off to form their own party.

In the 1990s, as the Congress’ dominance in Indian politics eroded, the party was largely sustained by loyal political families that it had once patronised. Political scientist Gilles Vernier had written in The Indian Express in 2019: “…parties try to maximise their chances at winning seats by fielding candidates that tick most of the winnability boxes. The fact remains that locally, being a dynast remains by and large more an asset than a liability”.

No exceptions: those critical of Congress went same way

Amid a flux in the party, several Congress leaders defected around the 1967 elections. Among the most prominent was Chaudhary Charan Singh, who alleged, among other things, that the Congress was indulging in dynastic politics. Charan Singh would lead a coalition government in Uttar Pradesh in 1967 and1970, before having a short stint as Prime Minister in 1979.

In the 1969 mid-term polls in UP, less than two years after he left the Congress, Charan Singh’s wife Gayatri Devi, fielded by his newly formed party Bharatiya Kranti Dal (BKD), became an MLA. She would later sit in Parliament. His son Ajit Singh and daughter Gyanwati too would enter politics and be in high office. The party is now being led by his grandson, Jayant Chaudhary.

This is a simple glimpse of how many a party in the country, even those who were critical of the Congress’s dynastism, mirrored its family-centric party control at the state level.

In the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, weakened, regional satraps kept emerging. Leaders like Biju Patnaik in Odisha, Charan Singh and Mulayam Singh Yadav in UP, Lalu Prasad in Bihar, the Karunanidhi family in Tamil Nadu, the N T Rama Rao family in Andhra Pradesh, the Badals in Punjab, the Devi Lal, Bansi Lal, and Bhajan Lal clans in Haryana, and the Sheikh Abdullah clan in Jammu and Kashmir would all form parties that were (and are) tightly controlled by their families and kin.

While these parties also provided opportunities for several first-generation leaders from marginalised communities, most became family fiefdoms. Often, rival groups within a party are floated to claim tickets so that dynasts can be brought in later as “consensus” candidates. While the rank and file, and even the mid-level leadership may be diverse, the top leadership remains in the hands of a chosen few.

Even the BJP and Left parties, often seen as ideology- and cadre-driven, have gone this way. The recent investigation by The Indian Express found that Left parties now have several second-generation legislators from political families, while the BJP increasingly fields turncoat dynasts as well as young second-generation leaders, often sidelining loyal cadre.

Question of winnability: behind hold of dynasties

In his 2024 Independence Day speech, Prime Minister Narendra Modi promised to bring one lakh first-generation youth into politics. However, the question remains: what role will they play?

If they are to simply strengthen party organisations, such workers already exist. If they aspire to contest in Assembly and Parliament elections, the challenge is significant.

BJP sources indicate that ticket allocation prioritises a candidate’s winnability and resources over party loyalty. Over the years, elections have become increasingly expensive, meaning candidates with established networks, manpower, and financial backing —often from owning educational institutions, networks of cooperative societies, hospital chains, or private industries — have an edge. Educational institutions, for instance, provide a ready campaigning team of teaching and non-teaching staff.

What this has done is create a cycle that has entrenched dynastic politics: once a family amasses significant power (and as a result wealth), it is better poised than a newcomer to win elections. And winning elections, in turn, allows the family to amass even more power and influence.

The Constitution does not prohibit dynastic politics or family dominance within political parties, despite enshrining principles like democratic socialism and the fundamental right to equality. But these principles are undermined when a handful of parivars hold so much sway over a country of more than a billion people.

The Representation of the People Act, which governs elections and regulates political parties, lacks provisions to address this issue. As such, political parties, integral to the political system, enjoy significant autonomy; this has almost always led to the emergence of dynastic control.