Congress MP Shashi Tharoor has sharply criticised India’s tradition of hereditary politics, arguing that the continuation of dynasties in public life threatens the foundations of a true democracy and undermines merit-based leadership. Writing for the international platform Project Syndicate in a piece titled Indian Politics Are a Family Business, he asserted that India must urgently move toward a system where ability, performance, and public engagement take precedence over family background.
Tharoor wrote that when leadership positions are passed down through bloodlines rather than earned through competence and grassroots work, it weakens the quality of governance. He noted that relying on a narrow pool of people whose primary qualification is their family surname limits national progress and creates a culture where entitlement replaces accountability. For this reason, he argued, India needs sweeping reforms such as enforced term limits, genuine internal elections within political parties, and a stronger focus on voter education to promote meritocracy.
The article gave prominent attention to the Nehru-Gandhi family, describing it as the most influential political dynasty in India’s history. Tharoor referenced figures from Jawaharlal Nehru to Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi, as well as current leaders Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, acknowledging their central role in the country’s political evolution and the Independence movement. However, he stressed that their long legacy has also normalised the idea that political authority can be inherited as a right, a belief that has now spread across parties and regions in India.
In addition to the Congress family, Tharoor highlighted that dynastic leadership exists across the political spectrum. He mentioned leaders like Odisha Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik, who took charge after his father, and Uddhav Thackeray and his son Aaditya Thackeray in Maharashtra’s Shiv Sena. He also pointed to family-driven leadership models in parties such as the Samajwadi Party, Rashtriya Janata Dal, DMK, and Shiromani Akali Dal, illustrating that dynastic influence is a nationwide pattern rather than an isolated phenomenon.
His remarks sparked pushback from within his own party. Congress leader Udit Raj dismissed the criticism, saying dynastic succession is common across professions in India — not only in politics but also in medicine, business, the bureaucracy, the judiciary, and the entertainment industry. Raj stated that children frequently follow their parents' professions as a natural social trend, not simply because of privilege or entitlement, and argued that heredity-based advancement reflects broader societal behaviour, not a political anomaly.
Raj also noted that electoral dynamics in India often revolve around caste and family recognition, meaning tickets are frequently distributed along those lines. He listed examples across multiple parties — from Nehru to Pawar, from DMK to Mamata Banerjee’s political sphere, and even extending to Amit Shah’s son — to argue that dynasty exists everywhere, with the real downside being that opportunities remain concentrated among a few families.
Tharoor’s article follows a series of recent remarks in which he has praised some aspects of the central government’s work and complimented opposition-ruled states, drawing criticism from Congress leadership for appearing to deviate from the official party standpoint. His comments have reignited debates about intra-party democracy, leadership structures, and the future direction of political culture in India.
The broader discussion sparked by Tharoor’s piece has once again placed dynastic politics under scrutiny, raising the question of whether India can transition toward a political system where leaders emerge through merit, public service, and performance rather than legacy and inheritance.
