For over a decade, the loudest political slogan from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its alliance, the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), has been the promise to dismantle dynastic politics in India. The party positioned itself as the ideological opposite of family-run parties and repeatedly mocked the “parivarvaad” culture of rivals such as the Congress. The narrative was simple: the BJP represented merit and organisational discipline, while others represented entitlement by birth. But politics, as always, has a way of exposing the gap between rhetoric and reality. Today, the BJP-led NDA appears increasingly comfortable with the very dynastic politics it once condemned. Not only has the alliance accommodated dynastic ambitions among its partners, it has also quietly nurtured similar tendencies within its own ranks. What was once portrayed as a moral battle now looks more like a convenient political slogan. Take the case of the BJP’s key ally in Bihar, the Janata Dal (United) led by Nitish Kumar. For years, the BJP attacked regional parties for promoting family members. Yet it continues to embrace alliances where political lineage remains a defining feature. If dynastic politics were truly an unforgivable sin, ideological consistency would have demanded a more principled stand. The same contradiction becomes even more visible in Andhra Pradesh. The Telugu Desam Party (TDP), led by N. Chandrababu Naidu, has long been associated with the rise of his son Nara Lokesh as the party’s political heir. Lokesh’s rapid ascent within the TDP hierarchy has never been subtle. Yet the BJP, which once thundered against dynastic succession, now stands shoulder to shoulder with such political arrangements under the NDA umbrella. The contradictions do not stop with allies. Within the BJP itself, several leaders who rose to prominence carry unmistakable political lineage. Consider Anurag Thakur, a prominent BJP leader and former Union minister whose father, Prem Kumar Dhumal, served as the Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh. Or Pankaja Munde, whose political career is closely tied to the legacy of her father, Gopinath Munde, one of the BJP’s most influential leaders in Maharashtra.
Similarly, Jayant Sinha entered Parliament carrying the political legacy of his father, Yashwant Sinha, a former Union finance minister. In Rajasthan, Dushyant Singh continues the political lineage of his mother, Vasundhara Raje, herself a towering BJP leader and former chief minister. None of these individuals may lack competence. Many are capable politicians in their own right. But that is not the point. The BJP’s critique of dynastic politics was never about individual merit; it was about principle. The party argued that political power should not be inherited like family property. Yet today the BJP seems to have adopted a far more flexible interpretation of that principle. When political lineage existed in rival parties, it was denounced as the greatest threat to democracy. When similar patterns emerge within the NDA ecosystem, they are quietly accepted—or conveniently ignored. This selective morality weakens the credibility of the BJP’s long-standing political narrative. If dynastic politics is truly harmful to democratic culture, then it must be opposed universally, not selectively. If it is acceptable within one’s own ranks or allies, then the moral outrage directed at opponents begins to look like little more than political theatre. The deeper concern is not merely hypocrisy; it is the erosion of political honesty. Voters were promised a decisive break from the culture of entitlement that has long dominated Indian politics. What they are witnessing instead is a familiar pattern dressed in new ideological clothing. Dynasty in politics is not unique to one party or ideology. It is a structural problem that cuts across the political spectrum. The BJP had an opportunity to set a new benchmark by consistently rejecting it. Instead, the party now risks becoming yet another participant in the same system it once claimed to challenge. In politics, credibility is built not through slogans but through consistency. And on the question of dynastic politics, that consistency is beginning to look increasingly fragile.Top of Form
Absolutely well said. But people seem to have no problem with dynasty politics or politicians. They have reconciled to the reality that when in all professions parents have their kin as doctors, engineers, why not politicians. Yes, people expect them to be a shade better than the ancestors rather than bringing disrepute to the lineage. But things are changing. No doctor or engineer or even a politician is able to enforce their kids to become one nor are the latter really interested to step into the shoes of their parents. Yes, instead of criticising or encouraging dynasty in any profession , it is better to stay away debating this and leaving it to people to judge the kin on their individual merit. So, if Nitish’s son makes it in election, so be it. The editor has very rightly said that we should not be selective in our criticism and get away by having the cake and eating it too.