Senior Congress leader and Member of Parliament Shashi Tharoor has found himself in a rare position of earning praise from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) after penning a scathing opinion piece on dynastic politics in India. Published on Project Syndicate under the title “Indian Politics Are a Family Business”, Tharoor’s article critiques the entrenched system of political dynasties in the country, drawing explicit attention to the Nehru-Gandhi family and other political lineages across various parties. The piece has triggered reactions not only within Congress circles but also across party lines, with BJP leaders publicly lauding Tharoor for taking a “direct and honest” stand on an issue that is widely debated but rarely addressed so bluntly by insiders.

In his article, Tharoor examines the phenomenon of family-led politics in India, pointing out the ways in which political power often becomes a matter of birthright rather than merit. He references multiple parties, including the Indian National Congress, the Samajwadi Party, the DMK, the Trinamool Congress, and the National Conference, noting that the tendency for dynastic succession is not limited to one political formation but is a broader feature of India’s democratic ecosystem. The article specifically criticises the Congress party’s Nehru-Gandhi lineage, suggesting that the party’s leadership culture has been unduly shaped by dynastic inheritance and has constrained internal debate and merit-based advancement.

Following the release of Tharoor’s piece, several BJP leaders publicly voiced their support, marking an unusual instance of cross-party acknowledgment of internal critique. BJP national spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla described Tharoor as a “Khatron ke Khiladi”—a term denoting someone who is daring or audacious—for his willingness to call out Congress scion Rahul Gandhi, whom he referred to as a “nepo kid.” Poonawalla told ANI that Tharoor’s article was insightful in highlighting how the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty has “cemented the negative notion that political position and power can be inherited rather than earned.”

Poonawalla also suggested that leaders such as Tejashwi Yadav of the Rashtriya Janata Dal and Rahul Gandhi himself might take the article personally, but emphasized that Tharoor’s frankness deserved applause despite the expected backlash. According to him, the article exposes the Congress leadership’s reliance on familial privilege and raises critical questions about internal party democracy.

Another BJP spokesperson, CR Kesavan, described Tharoor’s article as a “truth bomb,” underscoring the assertion that the Nehru-Gandhi family has monopolized leadership in Congress in an undemocratic manner. In his statements to ANI, Kesavan stressed that Tharoor’s critique is a reflection of the suppression of voices within Congress who wish to challenge dynastic dominance. He further added, in a post on X, that Tharoor’s commentary demonstrates the stifling effect that dynastic control has had on party members, including Tharoor himself.

Within Congress, reactions to Tharoor’s article have been varied. While some insiders acknowledge the validity of his arguments about dynastic influence, others have treated the piece as a veiled attack on Rahul Gandhi and the broader Gandhi family leadership. The article comes at a politically sensitive time, just days before the Bihar Assembly elections, where the ruling NDA alliance led by the BJP and JD(U) is contesting against the Mahagatbandhan coalition led by the RJD and Congress. Analysts suggest that Tharoor’s piece could indirectly influence narratives in Bihar, especially regarding perceptions of leadership legitimacy and intra-party democracy.

Political commentators note that dynastic politics has long been a contentious issue in India, cutting across party lines. While the BJP often criticizes the Nehru-Gandhi family for monopolizing leadership in Congress, insiders like Tharoor bring additional credibility to such criticisms because they come from within the party itself. By openly discussing the limitations imposed by dynastic structures, Tharoor’s piece has reignited debates about meritocracy, internal democracy, and the role of political families in shaping party direction and policy decisions.

The timing of Tharoor’s article has also drawn attention. Published amid preparations for state elections and in a context where regional dynastic politics are prominent, the piece serves as both a critique and a reflection on the broader state of Indian democracy. Tharoor’s arguments highlight how dynastic control can influence policy, decision-making, and the opportunities available for emerging leaders within parties. The discussion is not merely academic but has tangible implications for electoral strategy, candidate selection, and voter perceptions.

BJP leaders, by praising Tharoor, have strategically amplified the critique of Congress’s dynastic structures while also signaling that the issue resonates beyond party lines. This cross-party recognition is unusual in Indian politics, where internal critiques are often dismissed or marginalized. By publicly lauding Tharoor, the BJP is able to reinforce its long-standing narrative that the Nehru-Gandhi family has disproportionately shaped Congress leadership and decision-making over generations, potentially influencing voter sentiment ahead of critical elections.

Meanwhile, Tharoor himself remains a prominent figure in Kerala and national politics, known for his incisive analysis and articulate expression on matters of governance, democracy, and foreign policy. His willingness to critique the party he belongs to reflects an evolving dimension of political discourse in India, where internal debates, dissent, and self-reflection are increasingly visible in the public domain. Analysts suggest that this episode may embolden other party members to raise concerns about leadership, succession, and organizational democracy within political parties.

In conclusion, Shashi Tharoor’s opinion piece on dynastic politics has generated rare cross-party attention, earning him recognition from the BJP while simultaneously sparking debate within Congress. By explicitly critiquing the Nehru-Gandhi family’s stranglehold on Congress leadership, Tharoor has highlighted broader concerns about dynastic politics across India. The discussion is timely, coming ahead of crucial state elections, and raises critical questions about meritocracy, internal party democracy, and the implications of inherited political power. Whether this will influence internal reforms within Congress or shift voter perceptions in upcoming elections remains to be seen, but the article has undoubtedly positioned Tharoor as a significant voice in the ongoing discourse on the role of political families in Indian democracy.