Special Report: Tavleen Singh, Sanjay Jha Debate The Future Of Family-Run Parties In India

India Today

On this special report, Rajdeep Sardesai hosts a debate on the role of family-based parties in Indian politics with columnist and author Tavleen Singh and political analyst Sanjay Jha. The discussion covers whether dynastic politics is a legitimate, voter-approved phenomenon or a form of 'democratic feudalism' that harms the nation's democratic principles. Singh argues that it is an ugly, anti-democratic reality, stating, 'You don't have the right to hand over Maharashtra to your heirs or, you know, or India'. Jha counters that family dynasties are an accepted part of Indian politics, similar to caste, and derive legitimacy from electoral mandates, pointing to data showing their prevalence across all major parties, including the BJP. The conversation also touches upon the recent Bihar election results, the role of the Gandhi family, and whether criminalization of politics and funding are more significant challenges facing India's democracy.

Transcript

00:00Okay, let's widen that debate on family-based parties. Joining me now, two special guests,

00:05Tableen Singh, columnist and author joins me, and Sanjay Jha, formerly of the Congress, now a

00:13suspended Congress spokesperson, joins me and political analyst. Appreciate both of you joining

00:18us. Tableen Singh, to you first. I just had Karthi Chidambaram tell me that family-based parties or

00:24dynasties are a South Asian phenomenon. The people support them. So why should pundits oppose them,

00:31is what he says. You should ask him if anyone would dare to oppose them. That's the question.

00:37When you have, for instance, when it started actually in my early journalistic career with

00:45Sanjay Gandhi, under the emergency, where he was very insidiously brought in by Indira Gandhi

00:51and handed over not just the Congress party, but India, right? Who was going to oppose Sanjay Gandhi?

00:58In the statesman office, we would get instructions every day from the PIB saying, put his picture on

01:04the front page, etc. So, you know, these guys, they talk like that without realizing that nobody can

01:11oppose them. And do you think it's subject to diminishing returns, Tableen Singh? You spoke about

01:17the 1970s, how Indira Gandhi institutionalized almost the idea of dynasty within the Congress

01:24Party. Now, everyone's taken a cue across regional parties, across every party. Is 2025 very different?

01:30You believe India has changed in some way? The voters have changed?

01:34I think they have. I think that in Bihar, the rejection of Dejasvi is a sign of that. Because do you

01:42remember that earlier on, it was Rabri that he handed over Bihar to? And there wasn't that much

01:49opposition. But this time, they've actually voted against. So I think that there is, and now when I

01:56travel, I haven't been in Bihar this time. But whenever I've traveled and asked people during an

02:02election, whether they like this, they laugh, right? And they sometimes, you know, because the

02:08thing with political dynasties is that they're very powerful. So, you know, I mean, when you have a

02:15daddy or a mummy who's extremely powerful, you know, people are scared that they're kind of

02:21bahubalis in a different way. But they cause much damage to Indian democracy.

02:29It's interesting the way you're putting it. Because, Sanjay Jha, are we clear that this is

02:33now subject to diminishing returns? Because we've seen a number of them return to power also,

02:38including family-based parties. We've seen the National Conference win in Jammu and Kashmir only

02:43last year. We've seen the DMK win, the Thinamul Congress, the Telugu Desam. Should we read too much

02:49into this Bihar verdict and what's happened to the first family of the Yadavs subsequently?

02:57Rasip, my view is very explicit here and an emphatic no. Like caste, family dynasty in Indian

03:06politics is a reality. And let's look at some hard data. Actually, I looked up some data before your

03:13program. Out of the 5,203 MLAs, MPs, MLCs put together, around 21%, that's one-fifth of the

03:23elected people or even indirectly elected people are from family dynasties. And this cuts across all

03:31political parties. Very interestingly, Rajdeep, 18% of BGP's elected legislators, both in parliament

03:39and in states, are from political families. So this is basically, in my opinion, the hard

03:46truth that we need to accept. No, but is there a difference, if I may just intervene, a difference

03:51between people becoming MPs and MLAs because someone in the family is also an MP in MLA and

03:57family-run parties where the leadership is almost an entitlement to someone from a particular

04:03family than whether it's the Congress party or whether it's some of these regional parties?

04:07Well, you know, let me answer that by telling you, that's a very convenient classification,

04:12right? Which is what the BGP has used to target the Gandhis. You know, they come and say, well,

04:17you know, we have, we agree that Dushyan Singh and whether it's ex-Jayati Raditya Sindhya and

04:22Anurag Thakur, Piyush Goel, et cetera, but we are, they're not leaders, but they could be leaders

04:27unless the BGP is sending out the message that these guys will never become the head of the BGP.

04:32But even look at Bihar, I think Tavlin mentioned Bihar. I can tell you in Bihar, RGD is still the

04:38single largest party in vote share. Chirag Paswan, in my opinion, is the X factor of the Bihar

04:45elections. I don't know how people have missed that. It is his six to seven percent votes that

04:50have made the NDA the formidable player in Bihar in this election and highly successful.

04:55If you look at Akhilesh, Samajwadi party did remarkably well in Uttar Pradesh last year.

05:02And that was the year of the Ram Janam Bhumi and the Ram Temple's consecration. So I do believe

05:07that we got to accept the truth that family dynasties have a legitimate right to be there

05:14in politics for the simple reason that they get a public mandate. And I am not going to argue for

05:19it against it. I do believe that, yes, as long as performance is recognized, even within a family

05:25structure, nothing is wrong. But I will concede, right, that the problem with family parties is

05:30that they end up being parochial. They even become monarchies. And end of day, you will say this is

05:36not democratically a feasible long term solution to the problems.

05:40Okay. You know, Tablin Singh, that's interesting what Sanjay Jha is attempting to suggest that he says

05:48if people choose, the argument made is if people choose these parties, then these parties derive a

05:56certain legitimacy. Do you believe that that legitimacy only comes from elections or does it come

06:02or are they fundamentally anti-democratic? The idea that a particular post is reserved for someone from

06:10a family is anti-democratic. It can happen in corporate boardrooms. It shouldn't be happening

06:16with political parties in a democracy. No, but the whole point about coming into public life

06:22is you come to serve the people. When you have these dynastic parties, and particularly, and Sanjay is

06:29quite wrong, when you have a political party as your inheritance, it's very different to coming from a

06:37political family and standing for election. You own that political party. And then the state that you rule

06:43becomes like a few, it's democratic feudalism. It's electoral feudalism. And it has seriously harmed

06:52Indian democracy, in my view, because people who have a desire to serve the public are often

06:59rejected in favor of some little useless heir who's never held a job down before. So, you know, I mean,

07:06it is a reality, but it's an ugly reality. And we shouldn't call it legitimate. It is feudalism.

07:13But how will that change? How, in your view, will that change? We saw Prashant Kishor, for example,

07:18in B.R., claiming that he was the outsider, that he was going to challenge these sort of the

07:23entrenched party loyalties. What happened? He ended up with a zero. So I just wonder, how is any of this

07:28ever going to change, even as we see this Yadap Parivarwad play out in public?

07:33It takes, oh, well, that's the hope, that they all start fighting with each other. And then they

07:40destroy themselves. Because really, what they're doing is, they've turned politics into, it's not

07:47a company. It's in a corporation. You have a right to hand that over to your children. You don't have

07:54the right to hand over Maharashtra to your heirs. Or, you know, or India. Please, let's be serious

08:01about this. It is a reality. It's an ugly reality. And the quicker they start fighting with each other,

08:08the bigger our hopes of real democracy.

08:11You know, so, in conclusion, Sanjay Jha, the word that Tavlin used, which struck with me, is democratic

08:17feudalism. It is democratic feudalism. Now, you would hope that a modern democracy in the 21st century

08:24would challenge feudal tendencies. And you and I should be encouraging that, rather than saying,

08:30look, this is the reality. We can't do anything about it.

08:32Well, Razdeep, as a lateral, as an outsider in Indian politics, I actually came from out of the

08:38blue into politics. I should be speaking against the family dominance in Indian politics. But I don't,

08:45because I'm very pragmatic and practical about the realities of India. You know, it's good to think

08:50of a utopian concept, yes. But at the end of the day, I also recognize I've seen family leaders at very

08:56close quarters. And I realize they have magnetic power. I mean, it's some kind of an emotional hold.

09:01And that is the right of the people of the country. I am no one to deny the rights of the choices that

09:08people make. I want to make two points to what Tavlin added. You know, I agree that there are issues

09:13that we need to resolve. But I would worry about the fact that in our country, we don't address the

09:19fundamental problems that are much bigger than Parivarwad. 46% of our MPs in the Lok Sabha are criminals.

09:26They have criminal antecedents. And Rajdeep, some of them are serious. Around 31% are serious,

09:32including rape, murder, arson, loot. And we are okay with that. We are kosher with that.

09:38But we are worried about a family. And what's your second point?

09:41We need to be very clear there. The second is political funding. You know, if you don't,

09:46electoral bonds is history. And to my mind, that was the most corrupt mafia operation

09:50in political legitimacy in this country. So democracy has bigger challenges, in my opinion.

09:57Parivarwad is not such a big issue. It becomes very emotive because the Gandhi family is a low-hanging

10:02fruit. Everyone loves to whack left, right and center. But I do feel we should address the bigger

10:07problems of criminalization of Indian politics.

10:10You make a good point. You make a good point. I'll give Tavlin the final word then.

10:14Sanjay Jha says, focus on the criminalization of politics, the capture of the state apparatus.

10:19That's where the real anti-democratic tendencies are. Parivarwad, at the end of the day,

10:24can be, in a sense, justified. Because according to him, if that's what the people want,

10:29that's what they'll get. Should we be focusing on Parivarwad and making the Gandhis, as he claims,

10:34a soft target? He works for the Gandhis. He can't speak against them, okay? So I'm not...

10:41He used to work for them, but I... Yeah, but go ahead.

10:43You know, you can't say anything against the Gandhi family if you've had anything to do with the

10:48Congress. No, what you need to think about, Mr. Jha, is that why do they want to be in politics?

10:55They're not coming in for public service. They're coming in to make money. And to me,

11:01corruption is as bad as, you know, anti-democratic as criminals in politics. You know, those criminals,

11:09these are also, in a way, criminals because they are in politics to make money. There's no other

11:15reason. They're not there for public service. But that's not true only of families, Tablin.

11:19That's true of a number of politicians who may not even be linked to politics, who are also

11:24corrupting our political landscape. So... Absolutely, absolutely. But, you know,

11:28these guys come with a head start. Okay. Let me leave it there.

11:33Give me 10 seconds, Raz. Okay, 10 seconds only. Yes, Sanjay. 10 seconds.

11:37You know, Tablin, firstly, I don't work for the Gandhis. In fact, I have been critical of them

11:40when they have gone wrong. You have admired Mr. Modi, but let me tell you, you have been

11:44critical of the Gandhis in your book, Delhi Darbar, which I read. And guess what?

11:50Maneka Gandhi and Varun Gandhi, famous Gandhis, by the way, are part of the BJP that Mr. Modi

11:55actually uses. And that's the great paradox of Indian politics.

11:59What's your point? What's your point?

12:02My point is that BJP is the BJP is in the optimistic politics like nobody else.

12:10Okay. They are using the Gandhi name, for God's sake.

12:12The BJP is not the personal property of a family. The BJP so far is not.

12:20Neither is the Congress, for that matter.

12:22Okay. Let's leave it there. Let's leave it there. We've heard two sides.

12:26And I appreciate two very fine guests for joining me and putting their point across.

12:30Tablin Singh, Sanjay Jha, pleasure to have you on the show. Thank you very much.

Category

Transcript

Be the first to comment

Recommended