Dynasties in Indian Politics: Why Parivars Persist

Why in the News?

1. A recent investigation found that over 22% of India’s roughly 5,300 legislators have familial links to current or former lawmakers.
2. The persistence of dynastic politics across parties (national and regional) raises questions about winnability, party culture and democratic renewal.
3. The report prompts debate on whether legal or institutional reforms can curb family-based control of political power.

Key Highlights

1. From monarchy to democratic republic — an unfinished social change
   1. In 1950, India adopted the Constitution and formally ended monarchic titles and princely states.
   2. Former royals and elites did not disappear; many transitioned into electoral politics and used their social standing to win democratic offices.
   3. Thus, a formal end to monarchy did not end family-based political influence.
2. Early post-Independence politics and the Congress model
   1. The Congress dominated the first three national elections, drawing leaders from the freedom movement.
   2. As leadership concentrated, the party’s top posts and government offices became linked, creating space for family succession (notably the Nehru–Gandhi family).
   3. Over decades, party organisation weakened and personal networks replaced mass-based structures, enabling dynastic continuity.
3. Regional satraps and the spread of family-based parties (1970s–1990s)
   1. During this time, many strong regional leaders like Biju Patnaik, Mulayam Singh Yadav, and Lalu Prasad Yadav became powerful in their states.
   2. These leaders started their own political parties, often controlled by their families.
   3. Over time, their parties turned into family-run organisations, where leadership passed from one generation to the next.
   4. This made people accept the idea that politics can run like a family business, where the family name itself becomes a political brand.

4. Dynasties across the spectrum — adaptation and absorption
   1. Parties that once criticised dynasties (e.g., non-Congress groups) later adopted similar family practices when politically convenient.
   2. Even ideology-driven parties have second-generation entrants from political families.
   3. The dominant logic became winnability: parties prefer candidates with local networks and resources, often supplied by political families.
5. Structural drivers: money, networks and institutional gaps
   1. Modern elections are expensive, favouring those with access to money and organisational manpower.
   2. Families often control businesses, institutions and patronage networks, giving their members a distinct advantage.
   3. The Representation of the People Act and party autonomy leave no legal barrier to dynastic selection, embedding the practice into ordinary politics.

Implications

1. Concentration of power: Dynasties concentrate political power in a few families, narrowing democratic competition.
2. Merit and motivation: Preferential selection of relatives can demotivate party workers and limit merit-based leadership emergence.
3. Policy capture risk: Families that control politics for long periods can shape policy to favour entrenched interests.
4. Social mobility and representation: Dynastic dominance may block fresh voices, including youth and marginalized groups, from political office.
5. Electoral calculus persists: Until elections become cheaper and parties reform candidate selection, dynasties will remain electorally useful and thus resilient.

Challenges and Way Forward

Conclusion

Dynastic politics in India is rooted in historical legacies, electoral incentives and institutional gaps. Family networks remain powerful because they offer resources, recognition and organisational reach — all valuable in a high-cost electoral system. Reducing dynastic dominance will require systemic reforms: campaign finance regulation, stronger internal party democracy, local institution-building and active measures to nurture new leaders. Without changing incentives, family politics will continue to reproduce itself.