Our Political Desk
Chennai: In the ever-evolving landscape of Indian politics, the persistence of dynastic rule—or “parivarwad”—continues to cast a long shadow over the opposition. While the ruling BJP-headed NDA government consistently works to educate the electorate about the dangers of family-based politics, these efforts appear to have fallen on deaf ears. Meanwhile, opposition parties across the political spectrum not only embrace dynastic leadership but also exhibit alarming tendencies by reinstating individuals with tainted backgrounds, including those convicted or accused of serious crimes such as money laundering. This trend raises pressing concerns about the future of democratic governance in India.
The Congress, India’s grand old party that prides itself on leading the country to independence, is no exception to the trend of dynastic politics. Under the leadership of the Nehru-Gandhi family, the party has struggled to break free from its dependence on family legacy. Rahul Gandhi’s leadership, coupled with Sonia Gandhi’s influence, reinforces the narrative that the Congress is firmly entrenched in “parivarwad.”
This is not an isolated case. Congress joins a long list of opposition parties, including Lalu Prasad Yadav’s RJD, the Samajwadi Party of Mulayam Singh Yadav, and MK Stalin’s DMK, where leadership succession is dictated by bloodline. The likes of Mamata Banerjee’s Trinamool Congress and Uddhav Thackeray’s Shiv Sena only solidify the perception that family reigns supreme in the opposition.
The Congress, which once symbolized India’s independence movement, now grapples with the same pitfalls as other opposition parties, reinforcing dynastic rule. The trend is compounded by the growing reintegration of convicted or tainted leaders back into key positions. The judiciary’s leniency in granting bail to leaders involved in corruption scandals, such as money laundering, has emboldened these parties to reinstate figures once jailed for their crimes.
For instance, while the BJP took a decisive stance by forcing the resignation of its leader M.J. Akbar after sexual harassment allegations during the #MeToo movement, the opposition shows little hesitation in shielding tainted leaders. This contrast in ethical governance reflects a significant challenge for the BJP-led NDA government’s efforts to educate voters about the consequences of dynastic and corrupt politics.
Despite the BJP’s attempts to raise awareness, voters in many states continue to support dynastic parties, reflecting a deep-rooted cultural preference for family loyalty over democratic merit. The Congress, along with other dynastic political entities, seems to be reaping the benefits of this voter apathy, despite clear failures in internal democracy and ethical governance.
As the country inches closer to its next electoral cycle, the stakes for Indian democracy are high. Will voters choose to move away from dynastic politics and embrace leadership rooted in accountability, or will they remain ensnared in a system where political power is a family heirloom? Only time will tell, but the current trajectory suggests the struggle for true democratic reform is far from over.
India’s political opposition is increasingly dominated by families who treat political parties as their personal fiefdoms. From the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) of Lalu Prasad Yadav, the Samajwadi Party of Mulayam Singh Yadav, to MK Stalin’s Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), a striking pattern of hereditary leadership persists. These parties have managed to perpetuate their legacies by placing family members at the helm, often disregarding meritocracy and stifling internal democratic processes.
Lalu Prasad Yadav, who has served time in prison due to his involvement in the infamous fodder scam, has seamlessly passed the reins of the RJD to his son Tejashwi Yadav. Similarly, the Samajwadi Party, founded by Mulayam Singh Yadav, is now firmly in the control of his son, Akhilesh Yadav. In Tamil Nadu, MK Stalin took over leadership of the DMK from his father, the long-time stalwart M. Karunanidhi. Such transitions are repeated across the country, with parties like Sharad Pawar’s National Congress Party (NCP), Mamata Banerjee’s Trinamool Congress (TMC), the Shiv Sena under Uddhav Thackeray, the Abdullah family’s National Conference, and the Badal family’s Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD), among others, following similar paths.
In Telangana, K. Chandrashekar Rao (KCR) has firmly embedded his family within the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (now Bharat Rashtra Samithi, BRS), where his son K.T. Rama Rao and daughter Kavitha Kalvakuntla hold key positions. So was Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Nara Chandrababu Naidu, who made his son, Nara Lokesh a cabinet minister with key IT portfolio. Dynastic politics is no longer an exception but has become the norm, and it sends a clear message: political power in India’s opposition circles remains concentrated within a few families.
The dynastic problem is further compounded by the troubling tendency of opposition parties to reinstate leaders tainted by serious criminal allegations, particularly those convicted of financial crimes. For instance, Lalu Prasad Yadav, despite being convicted in the multi-million rupee fodder scam and serving a prison term, remains a key figure in the RJD. His son Tejashwi Yadav, currently leading the party, continues to seek political counsel from his father, further cementing the idea that criminality does not bar one from political leadership.
Even more concerning is the leniency of the judiciary in granting bail to high-profile political figures embroiled in money laundering and corruption cases. These individuals often return to the political arena without facing significant long-term consequences. The message is clear: political connections can shield leaders from accountability, undermining public trust in the justice system.
In contrast, the BJP has taken a different approach by holding its own leaders accountable. The case of M.J. Akbar, a prominent BJP figure and former journalist, is a testament to this commitment. Accused of sexual harassment during the #MeToo movement by several female journalists, Akbar was forced to step down from his position. The allegations, though not proven in court, were severe enough for the BJP to distance itself from Akbar, signaling a zero-tolerance policy toward such behavior within its ranks. Akbar’s departure from politics was a stark reminder that ethics must prevail over political expediency.
This stands in stark contrast to the opposition, where allegations and even convictions are often brushed aside. The BJP’s willingness to sacrifice a high-profile leader like Akbar demonstrates a commitment to maintaining a higher moral ground, something that appears lacking in the opposition’s dynastic and corruption-ridden approach.
Despite the BJP’s attempts to educate voters about the perils of dynastic politics and the dangers of allowing tainted individuals to return to public office, these warnings have largely been ignored. In many states, voters continue to support parties with deep-rooted dynastic ties, valuing family loyalty over democratic values. This voter apathy reflects a larger crisis in Indian politics—an inability to break free from the allure of charismatic families who dominate the political narrative.
The Indian electorate’s reluctance to embrace change poses a significant challenge for the BJP and the larger democratic framework. While voters decry corruption and call for accountability, they simultaneously elect leaders with checkered pasts and dynastic pedigrees. It is a contradiction that threatens the integrity of India’s democratic institutions.
The promotion of dynastic rule by India’s opposition and the reintegration of leaders with criminal backgrounds represent a dangerous trend for Indian democracy. While the BJP has made strides in holding its own members accountable and attempting to shift the electorate’s focus toward ethical governance, the opposition’s brazen promotion of family politics and its tolerance of corruption continue to dominate the political landscape.
As India moves toward its next electoral cycle, the country faces a critical choice: embrace a future of meritocratic, accountable leadership, or remain ensnared in the cycle of dynastic rule and political criminality. The responsibility ultimately lies with the voters, who must decide the direction of the nation’s political future. (Photo source: INDIA TODAY)
