Updated on: Nov 04, 2025 | New Delhi

A political stir erupted on Monday after Congress MP Shashi Tharoor critiqued the role of dynastic politics in India, prompting reactions from across the political spectrum. The controversy centers on an October 31 opinion piece by Tharoor published on Project Syndicate, in which he highlighted how lineage-driven politics can undermine governance, drawing attention to the Nehru-Gandhi family and other prominent political dynasties.

The BJP seized upon Tharoor’s remarks, framing them as a critique of Rahul Gandhi and Tejashwi Yadav, dubbing them “nepo kids” and leveraging the narrative to question Congress’s credibility.

Congress Leaders Step In

While the party has not issued an official response, several senior Congress leaders publicly addressed Tharoor’s statements, defending the Nehru-Gandhi family and contextualizing his critique.

Udit Raj, a Congress leader, acknowledged the broader prevalence of dynastic influence beyond politics:

“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 told ANI.

He further cited examples of dynastic influence across political parties, including leaders such as Amit Shah, Mamata Banerjee, Sharad Pawar, and regional parties like the DMK, emphasizing that opportunities in politics are frequently confined to families.

Pramod Tiwari, Congress MP, defended the Nehru-Gandhi legacy, highlighting their merit, service, and sacrifices:

“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. So, 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 the BJP?”

Rashid Alvi, another Congress leader, emphasized democratic choice and rejected restrictions on political entry based on family background:

“The public makes the decisions in a democracy. You cannot impose a restriction that says you cannot contest elections because your father was an MP. This is happening in every field. What way will you find for this?”

Tharoor’s Critique of Nepotism

In his article, Tharoor highlighted the tension between meritocracy and birthright in political leadership. He wrote:

“The influence of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty… 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.”

Tharoor further warned of the governance implications of such a system:

“When political power is determined by lineage, rather than ability, commitment, or grassroots engagement, the quality of governance suffers… it is especially problematic when candidates’ main qualification is their surname.”

While Tharoor acknowledged the historical context and the contributions of the Nehru-Gandhi family, his focus was on the broader structural issues arising from dynastic politics, a stance that the BJP seized upon to attack Congress.

Internal Tensions and Political Fallout

Tharoor’s comments also highlighted the internal dynamics within Congress. His recent selection by the government to lead the Operation Sindoor delegation, despite the party not recommending him, sparked criticism from some quarters. Udit Raj, for instance, labeled Tharoor as the BJP’s “super spokesperson” after he praised the 2015 Uri strike during his Panama leg.

The row underscores ongoing debates within the Congress regarding political leadership, meritocracy, and the party’s reliance on the Nehru-Gandhi family’s influence. Tharoor’s remarks, while critical of dynastic politics in general, inadvertently fueled political attacks from opponents while prompting party leaders to defend their legacy.

Broader Implications

The controversy has renewed attention on India’s dynastic politics, a recurring point of debate in Indian electoral discourse. Critics argue that concentration of political power within families undermines democratic ideals and merit-based leadership. Proponents, however, emphasize public accountability and the historical contributions of political families.

As the political debate unfolds, Tharoor’s article has become a focal point in discussions about merit, legacy, and governance in Indian politics, highlighting the fine line leaders navigate when critiquing entrenched structures while remaining loyal to their party and its historical figures.

In the coming days, Congress is expected to clarify its official stance, balancing Tharoor’s critique with a defense of the party’s leadership legacy. Meanwhile, the BJP continues to leverage the controversy to question Congress’s credibility on leadership and governance.