If Indian politics is to move on, it’s time to cut the family ties

Political dynasties in India show that surnames are favoured over competence, which Amrit Dhillon says increases the risk of widespread corruption.

In India, political constituencies have become the private "property" of influential families.

In essence, politics has become a family business. If daddy is a member of parliament, then his darling son or daughter regards the constituency as their rightful inheritance.

If you look at the candidates in next month’s elections, you will see family connections across the board in almost every single political party.

An Indian party’s criteria for choosing a candidate is not who will best represent the interests of the constituency. It has little to do with merit, a track record in public life, knowledge or even good character. All that really counts is having the right surname. Sitting MPs automatically assume that if they are going to give up a seat or retire, then their children or relatives should get the tickets instead. Or, if they are contesting, then their offspring should be given a ticket for another constituency.

Three years ago, in a study of the current Indian parliament, the author Patrick French unearthed some troubling data. He found that 100 per cent (yes, you read that right – 100 per cent) of MPs in the lower house of Parliament under the age of 30 are from families with a political background – a fact that would be astounding anywhere else in the world. Of the MPs who were aged 40 and above, two-thirds were what Mr French dubbed as “hereditary MPs”.

“If the trend continued,” wrote the author, “it was possible that most members of the Indian Parliament would be there by heredity alone, and the nation would be back to ... rule by a hereditary monarch and assorted Indian princelings.”

Judging by the names chosen for the forthcoming elections, India is moving towards Mr French’s assessment.

It is bad enough that the Indian electorate tends to vote not for the person who is best for their area and best for their country, but for the candidate of the same religion or caste as them. Now another layer of irrationality sits on top of this prejudice. Namely, voting for someone because of his or her surname.

In an odd divergence, Indian families are becoming more nuclear as the country urbanises, children migrate to far off cities and all previous notions of the family unit disintegrate.

But in politics, the idea of family continues to dominate. Consequently, it is not merely the wife or offspring who are favoured with a political ticket, but the whole sprawling shebang of nieces, nephews, uncles, sons-in-law and aunties.

Indian politics, for many MPs, is a tool for self-enrichment.

Once elected many have taken bribes. A large number of them end up with wealth beyond even their wildest dreams. With so much money to be made from corruption, who would not want to keep a parliamentary seat in the family so that wealth can pass down the generations?

Corruption and nepotism are so well organised in certain parts of political life that some families have devised clever little strategies to keep the cash flowing in. When the son of an MP for a safe seat is getting married, his parents will try to find a suitable bride from a rival opposition party in the state so that, no matter which party ends up in power, the money keeps pouring into the family coffers.

For years, Rahul Gandhi, vice-president and heir apparent of Congress, has been moaning about how politics has become a family business without the slightest trace of irony about the fact that he owes his own position to his name. Moreover, in his party's list – a list that Mr Gandhi would have approved – relatives abound.

Nepotism is, to a large extent, inevitable in a caste-bound society where your family name is all-important as an entry into society, to jobs, to favours, to contracts and everything else. Both the corporate world and Bollywood are full of children who are given opportunities because of their parents.

This is a country where you rarely hear the words “self-made” prefixing any famous name.

Nor do those who are the beneficiaries of this system feel the slightest embarrassment. Where is their discomfort at hanging on to daddy’s coat-tails? Where is the sheepishness that comes from jumping to the top of the ladder because of your name rather than from your ability? Where is the self-respect that comes from proving yourself in a totally different field from your mother or father?

At the moment, a ruling class blocks any new aspiring MP who does not have the family connections or money to enter politics.

The political system can only become healthy if it receives an infusion of new blood once in a while. That can only happen when politics in India becomes a public vocation, not a family business.

Amrit Dhillon is a freelance journalist based in New Delhi