Never mind the rants against nepotism. Overlook the barbs and counter barbs in the political arena about promoting kith and kin. In the end, it is only a question of degrees, a recent report has established.
The Congress leads with 32 per cent of its sitting MPs, MLAs and MLCs belonging to dynastic backgrounds followed by Bharatiya Janata Party(BJP) with 17 per cent. Regional parties follow at 22 per cent.
The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) in its report released this month, has found that 21 per cent of sitting MPs, MLAs and MLCs in the country, across parties, are dynasts.
“Out of the 5,203 sitting MPs, MLAs and MLCs analysed, 1106 (21%) sitting MPs, MLAs and MLCs have dynastic backgrounds. Notably, dynastic representation is highest in the Lok Sabha at 31 per cent, and lowest in state assemblies at 20%. These figures indicate that a significant share of current elected representatives belong to established political families,” the ADR report entitled Analysis of sitting MPs, MLAs and MLCs in India with Dynastic Political Backgrounds, recently released said.
Among the national parties, 3,214 sitting MPs, MLAs and MLCs were put under the lens and 656 or 20% have dynastic backgrounds.
In other words, barring the Left, political parties have families to keep them going. “Smaller parties such as the CPI(M) show minimal dynastic influence, with only 8% of their sitting MPs, MLAs and MLCs from dynastic backgrounds,” the report notes.
‘Feudal Political leadership’
Says political economist and author, Arun Kumar: “India is a feudal country. Both, the political leadership and the public are feudal, so it is acceptable to all that power remains within the family. In addition, elections are expensive affairs, and it is difficult for an ordinary candidate to raise money. For the family to invest in its own heritage is something that is acceptable to all.”
Regional parties, pretty much, follow the national pattern. According to the report, 1,808 sitting MPs, MLAs and MLCs were put to scrutiny and 406 (22%) have dynastic backgrounds.
“Parties like NCP-Sharadchandra Pawar (42%), Jammu and Kashmir National Conference or JKNC (42%), YSRCP (38%), TDP (36%) and NCP (34%) exhibit strong dynastic tendencies, often rooted in regional family dynasties. Conversely, the All India Trinamool Congress or AITC (10%) and AIADMK (4%) have lower rates, possibly due to charismatic non-dynastic leadership. The Samajwadi Party, Janata Dal (United), Asom Gana Parishad and Rashtriya Janata Dal also exhibit high dynastic influence, with nearly 30% or more of their elected representatives being from political families,’’ the report said.
More than twice as high among women
As for Independents, nearly 24% out of 94 sitting independent MPs, MLAs and MLCs analysed have dynastic political backgrounds. “ This reflects a moderate level of dynasticism, likely driven by politicians capitalizing on family networks while operating outside formal party structures,’’ the report observed.
For those justifiably worried about women empowerment, the Indian political system reveals the original paradox. Dynastic representation is more than twice as high among women as compared to men. “ Among 539 sitting female MPs, MLAs and MLCs, 251 (47%) are from political families,’’ says ADR.
“Female dynastic prevalence (47%) being much higher than males (18%) indicates that women’s entry is systemically mediated by family connections. In states like Jharkhand (73% of women dynastic) and Maharashtra (69%), nearly all women in politics rely on family networks. This shows that while dynasticism opens doors for women, it simultaneously limits space for first-generation non-dynastic female politicians,” the report said.
Dynastic representation is higher in the Lok Sabha
Interestingly, it says dynastic representation is higher in the Lok Sabha (31%) than in state assemblies (20%). This suggests that national-level visibility and prestige are more tightly controlled by established political families, while state politics allows somewhat more entry to outsiders.
*** The report’s numbers suggest that dynasticism is not merely about “inheritance of seats,” but a structural feature across geographies, parties, and genders.
*** Data shows that dynastic politics is not evenly spread — it thrives in smaller states/UTs, women’s representation, and national-level offices, while cadre-based ideological parties – like the CPM – act as partial checks.
*** It is as much about access to politics as it is about continuity of family power.
Saying that the early signs of dynastic rule started appearing in national and regional politics in the 1970s in the realm of both party organisation and representative institutions, ADR says that dynastic politics divides the society by creating a birth based ruling class.
‘Family names to back them not enough’
“The prevalence of dynastic politics is also attributed to India’s strong family traditions that justify dynasts in the eyes of voters,” it says, adding that India’s political parties habitually give dynastic contenders a leg-up in the ticket allocation process without any fear of public audit or inspection.
Political analyst Manisha Priyam offers an alternative perspective. “Even if the ADR report suggests that more than 20% of our public representatives are dynasts, the fact is that the rest 80% are non-dynastic! And there are nuances. Not all regional party heads have got it on a platter. Both Akhilesh Yadav and Stalin have had to fight their way through their families. Even Rahul Gandhi is having to struggle. To be sure, dynasts have family names to back them, but that is not enough.”
India is a feudal country. Both, the political leadership and the public are feudal, so it is acceptable to all that power remains within the family.
She says that while it is easy to tarnish regional parties as dynastic entities, it is equally true that the poorest of the poor get their chances to rise dramatically within these political outfits.
ADR is a non-profit organisation working on electoral reforms for over 25 years. A petitioner in landmark poll reform petitions before the Supreme Court, it has become the monopolistic single data point for information/analysis of background details (criminal, financial, and others) of politicians and of financial information of political parties.
About the Author
