Few political slogans have defined the Bharatiya Janata Party’s rise as sharply as its relentless attack on dynast or parivar politics. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, more than anyone else, has weaponised this narrative—projecting himself as the antithesis of inherited power, a leader who rose from the margins, armed only with merit, discipline and political instinct. Yet, a closer examination of ground realities raises an uncomfortable question: is the BJP truly walking the talk, or merely practising selective outrage?
On the one hand, Modi never misses an opportunity to target the Congress’s Gandhi family or regional parties such as the Samajwadi Party, Rashtriya Janata Dal, DMK or National Conference for perpetuating family-centric politics. His speeches portray dynastic culture as a moral corruption that corrodes democracy, suffocates internal party democracy, and blocks genuine talent. On paper, the argument is persuasive—and electorally rewarding.
On the other hand, the BJP’s own conduct increasingly tells a different story.
Take the oft-cited incident during a recent water contamination crisis, where the son of a senior minister was reportedly seen attending an official-level meeting. While no formal designation was disclosed, the optics were damaging. The BJP, which routinely questions the legitimacy of unelected family members exercising influence in Opposition-ruled states, offered neither clarification nor corrective action. Silence, in politics, is rarely neutral.
More striking is the BJP’s indulgence towards allies whose political ecosystems are unapologetically dynastic. The Telugu Desam Party under Nara Chandrababu Naidu offers a textbook case. Naidu’s son, Nara Lokesh, is not merely a politician but is widely perceived as the designated heir, holding cabinet rank and reportedly acting as a gatekeeper for administrative access. Yet, the BJP—otherwise vociferous in condemning such arrangements—appears remarkably accommodating when electoral arithmetic demands it.
This contradiction is not confined to Andhra Pradesh. Across states, the BJP has fielded sons, daughters, spouses and close relatives of sitting MPs and MLAs, often justifying it as “individual merit” while denying similar latitude to rival parties. The problem is not whether relatives are competent; the problem is the absence of a consistent moral standard.
If dynastic politics is inherently corrosive, it must be rejected universally—not selectively. If it is acceptable under certain conditions, then the BJP owes the electorate an honest admission that its opposition to dynasty is conditional, not principled.
Narendra Modi’s political brand has been built on the promise of “na khaunga, na khane dunga” and “reform, perform, transform.” Central to that brand is the perception that he says what he means and means what he says. But credibility is fragile. Repeated exceptions, rationalisations, and strategic silences slowly erode public trust.
The danger for the BJP is not immediate electoral backlash; it is something deeper—the slow dilution of moral authority. Voters may tolerate political compromises, but they are far less forgiving of perceived hypocrisy, especially when it comes from a leader who has made ethical consistency a hallmark of their leadership.
History offers a cautionary lesson. Political movements that abandon their founding principles for short-term gains often struggle to regain credibility. The Congress learned this the hard way. The BJP would be wise not to repeat it.
The time has come for Narendra Modi to clarify, unequivocally, where his party truly stands on parivar politics. Is dynasty wrong in principle, or only when practised by opponents? Is merit the sole criterion, or does lineage still open doors quietly within the system?
If this ambiguity continues, the day may not be far when even Modi’s most ardent supporters begin to question whether the Prime Minister still embodies the “walk the talk” leadership he once so convincingly represented.
And that would be a loss not just for the BJP, but for the very political alternative it once promised to India.
