Written by Mrityunjay Sharma
A puzzle has engaged everyone in Bihar over the last few months: Whether Nishant, Nitish Kumar’s son, will join politics. Ever since his first public appearance in January, appealing to the people to vote for his father, political circles have been abuzz. Media speculation has only intensified, with significant political figures from both within and outside the JD(U) pitching for Nishant to take up the reins of the party. The latest to join this chorus is Upendra Kushwaha, Nitish’s old ally and currently the leader of an NDA constituent, Rashtriya Lok Samta Party. In a recent comment, Kushwaha urged Nitish to hand over the party’s leadership to Nishant, warning that any delay may cause irreparable damage.
While Kushwaha’s statement may carry political undertones, what he said appears to reflect the JD(U)’s only viable option. In the ever-evolving landscape of Indian politics, dynastic succession is no longer a surprise; it is a pattern. Nishant, an engineering graduate from BIT Mesra, has consistently maintained his disinterest in politics and expressed a personal inclination toward spirituality. What also makes Nishant’s case particularly intriguing is that for years, Nitish has positioned himself as a leader different from Bihar’s family-driven political model. Unlike his contemporaries — Lalu Prasad and Mulayam Singh Yadav — who openly groomed their sons as successors, Nitish Kumar never gave any such indication. Yet, as age catches up, the absence of a clear successor has begun to haunt the JD (U), making a once-unthinkable family transition appear increasingly inevitable.
In Indian politics, where legacy often triumphs over merit, dynastic succession is more of a norm than an anomaly. From the Nehru-Gandhi family in the Congress to the Yadavs of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, the Thackerays of Maharashtra, the Badals of Punjab, and the DMK’s dominance in Tamil Nadu, leadership succession through family ties is more of a survival strategy than a coincidence. The case of Nishant Kumar is merely another instance of this larger trend where smaller political parties, rather than fostering new leadership, pass on the reins within the family to ensure continuity.
While some may argue that dynastic politics is more common in larger parties like the Congress, it is far more pronounced — and often necessary —for regional and smaller parties. Unlike national parties, which have the backing of a larger ideological structure and grassroots cadre, regional parties are often built around one strong leader. When such a leader ages or retires, the most obvious successor is someone from the family, seen as a natural inheritor of the party’s legacy and vote base.
While Nitish Kumar tried to groom several potential successors, all eventually fell out of favour. R C P Singh, once his closest aide, was sidelined due to his proximity to the BJP. Upendra Kushwaha, seen as an OBC leader from his kindred Koeri caste, clashed with Nitish and was ousted. Prashant Kishor, despite Nitish’s fondness, was never fully embraced due to his independent streak. Some speculate Manish Verma, a new entrant from the bureaucracy, as a future leader, but the JD(U)’s history suggests that no one outside the Kumar surname will be able to match themselves up to Nitish.
What the JD(U) is moving towards is a lesson learned from Indian politics: Parties without a clear family succession have struggled to survive. While Mulayam Singh Yadav’s SP and Lalu Prasad’s RJD continue to thrive after handing over power to their sons, Mayawati’s Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) has struggled to pass on the baton to her nephew, Akash Anand in a bid to salvage her legacy. The late Ram Vilas Paswan’s LJP offers another example. The original party split, and most of the party leaders went with Late Ram Vilas’s brother, Pashupati Nath Paras, following a feud. However, the electorate still associates the LJP with Chirag Paswan, who has now reclaimed the party’s legacy under a new political entity. Similarly, the BJD in Odisha faces uncertainty post-Naveen Patnaik era, with no clear family succession line. The trend is visible beyond the Hindi heartland as well. While DMK has been holding power in Tamil Nadu following a clear dynastic succession, the AIADMK has suffered in the absence of clear leadership post-Jayalalithaa.
Unlike the BJP and Left parties, which have largely distanced themselves from dynastic politics and promoted second-rung leadership, regional and smaller parties often do not have the luxury of a strong ideological foundation. Their entire political existence is tied to the charisma of one leader. When that leader fades, keeping power within the family is often seen as the easiest way to ensure continuity.
But this also raises critical concerns. Does dynastic succession hinder democratic party structures? Does it prevent the rise of talented grassroots leaders who are not part of the family? In many cases, the answer is yes. Regional parties rarely develop a robust second line of leadership, making it almost inevitable that leadership is passed within the family.
Unlike the RJD or the SP, which have strong caste-based vote banks, the JD(U)’s voter base is fragmented, spread across voting blocs such as those of the EBCs and women voters. Nitish Kumar himself has relied on his good governance image and coalition politics rather than caste-based mobilisation. If Nishant Kumar does step into politics, he will have his task cut out. His success will hinge on whether he can craft an independent political identity or merely serve as a symbolic extension of his father’s legacy. Complicating matters further, Nishant will face stiff competition from other political scions like Tejashwi Yadav and Chirag Paswan — both of whom have not only inherited political capital but also years of head-start in navigating Bihar’s complex political terrain.
While no confirmation has come yet, the speculation around Nishant Kumar suggests that even a party like the JD(U), which prided itself on governance and ideology, is finding it difficult to break free from dynastic patterns. This reflects a broader crisis in Indian politics, where family remains the strongest political capital, and where survival, more than ideology or governance, dictates leadership transitions.
As long as political parties continue to be personal enterprises rather than institutional entities, the cycle of family-driven leadership will continue, no matter how much the electorate criticises it.
The writer is a BJP Leader and author of Broken Promises: Caste, Crime and Politics in Bihar
