In a remarkable turn of events, Shashi Tharoor, the Congress MP known for his forthright opinions, has sparked a fresh debate on dynastic politics in India, eliciting praise from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) while drawing sharp responses from his own party. Tharoor’s recent article in Project Syndicate, titled “Indian Politics Are a Family Business”, critically examined the prevalence of dynastic succession across the political spectrum, highlighting the implications for India’s democracy.

Tharoor’s Perspective: Dynastic Politics Across Parties

In the article, Tharoor specifically addressed the Nehru-Gandhi family, acknowledging their historical contributions while pointing out that their political prominence has also cemented the idea that leadership can be a birthright rather than a merit-based achievement. Tharoor wrote, “India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, prime ministers Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi, and current opposition leaders 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.”

While the piece mentioned Congress leaders, it also highlighted that dynastic politics is not confined to any single party. Tharoor argued that this practice persists across states and political affiliations, pointing to the broader structural implications of family-controlled leadership in India.

Congress Response: Legacy, Sacrifice, and Leadership

Unsurprisingly, Tharoor’s comments provoked reactions from Congress leaders, who defended the Nehru-Gandhi family’s leadership as grounded in sacrifice, service, and competence. Congress MP Pramod Tiwari argued that leadership in the party comes from merit rather than mere lineage. “Leadership always comes from merit. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru was the most capable Prime Minister of this country. Indira Gandhi proved herself by sacrificing her life. Rajiv Gandhi served this country by sacrificing his life,” he said.

Tiwari challenged the notion of political inheritance, emphasizing that the Gandhi family’s commitment and service distinguish them from other political dynasties. “If someone talks about the Gandhi family as a dynasty, then which other family in India had the sacrifice, dedication, and ability that this family possessed? Was it BJP?” he asked.

Congress leader Udit Raj acknowledged that dynastic influence exists in multiple sectors of Indian society—including politics, business, judiciary, and even the film industry—but stressed that the Gandhi family’s legacy is intertwined with India’s democratic and freedom struggle. He said, “A dynastic approach exists in almost every sector in India. A doctor’s son becomes a doctor, a businessman’s child continues in business, and politics is no exception. Election tickets are often distributed along caste and family lines.”

Raj also cited examples across political parties to show that dynastic influence is widespread: “From Naidu to Pawar, DMK to Mamata, Mayawati to Amit Shah’s son, there are many such examples. The loss is that opportunities remain confined to families alone. Dynastic influence is not limited to politics; it extends to the bureaucracy, judiciary, and even the film industry.”

BJP Welcomes Tharoor’s Article

In contrast, the BJP welcomed Tharoor’s critique and used it as an opportunity to highlight what it sees as the inherent limitations of family-controlled politics within the opposition. Union Minister Dharmendra Pradhan said, “I welcome the statement of Shashi Tharoor. Whatever he said must be correct. He would have said this on the basis of his experience. His remarks will obviously hurt the Congress party and the RJD because their politics are limited to a family. They cannot think outside their family.”

BJP spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla praised Tharoor as a “khatron ke khiladi” for openly critiquing the Gandhi family, stating that his article accurately exposes how Indian politics has become a “family business.” Poonawalla highlighted the broader implication of dynastic succession, suggesting that Tharoor’s analysis will make RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav and Congress leader Rahul Gandhi uncomfortable, particularly in the context of upcoming elections such as Bihar’s assembly polls.

Poonawalla remarked, “A very insightful piece has been written by Dr. Tharoor on how Indian politics has become a family business. In the opening of that piece, he has explained how the first family of the Congress party, the Gandhi-Vadra dynasty, has been responsible for cementing this negative thought that political position and power can be a matter of birthright.”

Context: Political Timing and Repercussions

Tharoor’s article comes at a politically sensitive time, weeks after his controversial comments on the India-Pakistan conflict and diplomatic outreach following the Pahalgam terrorist attack. His statements during that episode, which diverged from Congress’s official stance, had already triggered internal criticism, raising questions about his loyalty and intent.

In this instance, Tharoor’s observations on dynastic politics again show his willingness to critique his own party’s structure while pointing out the systemic nature of family-controlled leadership across Indian politics. Analysts note that such critiques gain added weight in the run-up to state elections, such as Bihar’s assembly polls, where the role of political families like the Gandhis and Yadavs is highly prominent.

Dynastic Politics in India: A Broader Debate

The debate ignited by Tharoor’s article is far from limited to Congress. Across India, dynastic politics has long been a subject of public scrutiny, criticism, and sometimes admiration. Parties like the BJP, DMK, Shiv Sena, RJD, and regional outfits have all witnessed the emergence of second-generation leaders inheriting political clout. While supporters argue that political acumen can be nurtured within families, critics contend that such practices limit democratic choice, restrict opportunities, and perpetuate elite dominance.

Tharoor’s framing, therefore, serves as a timely reminder that Indian democracy is as much about systemic structures as individual leadership, prompting broader questions about meritocracy, representation, and governance.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Shashi Tharoor’s article has reignited debates around dynastic politics, meritocracy, and political inheritance in India. While the BJP applauds his critique as exposing the limitations of family-driven politics in opposition parties, Congress leaders defend the Nehru-Gandhi family’s unique legacy of sacrifice, service, and competence. The article underscores that dynastic succession is a pervasive phenomenon across Indian politics, but its implications for democracy, public trust, and governance remain contested.

As India approaches critical state elections, these discussions are likely to gain further prominence, shaping public perception and political discourse in both national and regional arenas.