Dynastic politics 'grave threat' to Indian democracy: Shashi Tharoor

New Delhi: Senior Congress leader Shashi Tharoor has said that dynastic politics across the political spectrum poses a "grave threat" to Indian democracy and asserted it is high time that India traded "dynasty for meritocracy".

He said that when political power is determined by lineage rather than ability, commitment or grassroots engagement, the quality of governance suffers.

In an article for international media organisation Project Syndicate, the Thiruvananthapuram MP pointed out that while the Nehru-Gandhi family is associated with the Congress, dynastic succession prevails across the political spectrum.

Tharoor's remarks come weeks after the row over his comments on the India-Pakistan conflict and the diplomatic outreach after the Pahalgam attack. His comments were at variance with the Congress stand and many party leaders took a swipe at him, questioning his intentions.

In the article titled 'Indian Politics Are a Family Business', Tharoor said that for decades, one family has towered over Indian politics and the influence of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty -- including independent India's first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru, prime ministers Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi, and current opposition leader Rahul Gandhi and MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra -- is bound up with the history of India's struggle for freedom.

"But it has also cemented the idea that political leadership can be a birthright. This idea has penetrated Indian politics across every party, in every region, and at every level," Tharoor said.

Pointing out that dynastic succession prevails across the political spectrum, Tharoor said that after the passing of Biju Patnaik, his son Naveen won his father's vacant seat in the Lok Sabha.

The Maharashtra-based Shiv Sena's founder Bal Thackeray passed the mantle to his son Uddhav, whose own son Aditya is waiting visibly in the wings, he said.

"The same goes for Samajwadi Party founder Mulayam Singh Yadav, a former chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, whose son Akhilesh Yadav later served in the same post; Akhilesh is now an MP and the president of the party. In Bihar state, the leader of the Lok Janshakti Party, Ram Vilas Paswan, was succeeded by his son Chirag Paswan," Tharoor said, citing more examples of political dynasties.

Beyond the Indian "heartland", Jammu and Kashmir has been led by three generations of Abdullahs, with the principal opposition party dominated by two generations of Muftis, he said.

"In Punjab, the Shiromani Akali Dal, long commanded by Parkash Singh Badal, has been taken over by his son Sukhbir. Telangana is currently witnessing a battle for succession between the son and the daughter of the Bharat Rashtra Samithi's founder, K Chandrasekhara Rao. In Tamil Nadu, the late M Karunanidhi's family controls the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam party, with his son M K Stalin now serving as chief minister and his grandson anointed as heir apparent," he said in his article.

Tharoor also argued that this phenomenon is not limited to a handful of prominent families but is rather woven deeply into the fabric of Indian governance, from village councils to the highest echelons of Parliament.

"To be fair, such dynastic politics are practised across the Indian subcontinent," he said, citing examples of the Bhuttos and Sharifs in Pakistan, the Sheikh and Zia families in Bangladesh, and the Bandaranaikes and the Rajapaksas in Sri Lanka.

"But they appear particularly incongruous with India's vibrant democracy. Why then has India embraced the dynastic model so fully? One reason might be that a family can serve effectively as a brand: candidates with built-in name recognition do not have to work as hard to attract voters' attention or build their trust. If voters accepted a candidate's father, aunt or sibling, they would probably accept the candidate -- no credibility-building required," Tharoor said in the article published October 31.

However, he noted that with the literacy rate approaching 81 per cent and mobile-internet penetration exceeding 95 per cent, other forces must also be at work.

"Perhaps the most important arises from internal party dynamics. Indian political parties are largely personality-driven (with a few exceptions). Leadership-selection processes are often opaque, with decisions made by a small clique or even a single leader -- figures with little interest in rocking the boat. As a result, nepotism generally trumps meritocracy," he said.

Tharoor asserted that dynastic politics pose a grave threat to Indian democracy.

"When political power is determined by lineage rather than ability, commitment or grassroots engagement, the quality of governance suffers. Drawing from a smaller talent pool is never advantageous, but it is especially problematic when candidates' main qualification is their surname," he said.

In fact, given that members of political dynasties are likely to be insulated from the challenges faced by ordinary people, they are often particularly ill-equipped to respond effectively to their constituents' needs, Tharoor said.

"It is high time India traded dynasty for meritocracy. This would require fundamental reforms, from imposing legally mandated term limits to requiring meaningful internal party elections, together with a concerted effort to educate and empower the electorate to choose leaders based on merit," Tharoor said.

As long as Indian politics remain a family enterprise, the true promise of democracy -- 'government of the people, by the people, for the people' -- cannot be fully realised, he said.