Khatron Ke Khiladi, says BJP on Tharoor's dynastic politics essay. What's in it?

After a brief lull, Congress leader Shashi Tharoor has triggered a debate again. This time with an essay on dynastic politics for which the Congress and the Gandhi-Nehru family are targeted by political rivals. In the essay, the Thiruvananthapuram MP argued that "the influence of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty has cemented the idea that political leadership can be a birthright". The uneasiness in the Congress is palpable, with leaders refusing to comment. The essay has earned praise from the BJP, which regularly targets the Congress on dynastic politics, and handed it fresh ammunition.

Reacting to the piece, BJP spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla called Tharoor's article "insightful" and hailed the Congress leader as a "Khatron ke Khiladi" (daredevil) for daring to question political succession within his own party.

Tharoor has often made statements that diverge from the Congress's official line, sparking controversies. So what exactly was in his essay, titled 'Indian Politics Are a Family Business' published by Project Syndicate? Did Tharoor single out the Congress leadership to call out dynastic politics? Here's a five-point explainer to help you understand what Tharoor wrote, and why it stirred debate.

1. WHAT DID SHAHSI THAROOR SAY ABOUT CONGRESS AND DYNASTIC POLITICS?

Tharoor wrote that "For decades, one family has towered over Indian politics. The influence of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty, including independent India's first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, prime ministers Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi, and current opposition leader Rahul Gandhi and MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, is bound up with the history of India's struggle for freedom. But it has also cemented the idea that political leadership can be a birthright. This idea has penetrated Indian politics across every party, in every region, and at every level."

Tharoor, however, underlined the fact that the Congress leadership might have paved the way for dynastic politics; several other parties, too, have the same dynastic tendencies.

2. THAROOR'S WIDER BLAST AND DYNASTY RULE IN PARTIES ACROSS INDIA

Tharoor argued that dynastic politics is "woven deeply into the fabric of Indian governance, from village councils to the highest echelons of parliament."

He cited examples such as the Akhilesh Yadav succession in the Samajwadi Party and the Aditya Thackeray rise in Shiv Sena (UBT), showing the phenomenon is pan-political, not just within the Congress.

After Biju Patnaik’s death, his son Naveen Patnaik entered politics, founded the Biju Janata Dal in his father's name, and went on to lead Odisha for over two decades, Tharoor noted.

Across India, Tharoor said, dynastic succession defines many parties. From the Thackerays in Maharashtra and the Yadavs in Uttar Pradesh to the Paswans in Bihar, it's all over here. He added that the pattern extends nationwide, with the Abdullahs and Muftis in Jammu and Kashmir, the Badals in Punjab, KCR's family in Telangana, and the Karunanidhi-Stalin lineage in Tamil Nadu.

"To be fair, such dynastic politics are practised across the Indian subcontinent: the Bhuttos and Sharifs in Pakistan, the Sheikh and Zia families in Bangladesh, and the Bandaranaikes and the Rajapaksas in Sri Lanka," he added.

3. GOVERNANCE AT STAKE WHEN BIRTHRIGHT BEATS ABILITY

Tharoor's core argument in the essay was that, "When political power is determined by lineage rather than ability, commitment or grassroots engagement, the quality of governance suffers. Drawing from a smaller talent pool is never advantageous, but it is especially problematic when candidates’ main qualification is their surname."

He warned that treating elected office as a "family heirloom" undermines democracy.

4. THAROOR SAID THE NEED WAS TO TRADE DYNASTY FOR MERITOCRACY

In the essay, Tharoor also critiqued the broader political culture, and urged structural reforms to ensure leaders are chosen on merit rather than family ties.

"It is high time India traded dynasty for meritocracy. This would require fundamental reforms, from imposing legally mandated term limits to requiring meaningful internal party elections, together with a concerted effort to educate and empower the electorate to choose leaders based on merit," he wrote.

"As long as Indian politics remain a family enterprise, the true promise of democracy—'government of the people, by the people, for the people'—cannot be fully realised, Tharoor wrote, concluding the essay.

5. FEUDAL FEALTY IN INDIAN POLITICS IS A PROBLEM: THAROOR

Tharoor said that India's political dynasties persist because a deep-rooted cultural feudal mindset grants elites and their families a sense of entitlement to power.

"India's embrace of political dynasties may also have a cultural component. Despite massive progress in modernisation, Indian society retains a sense of feudal fealty, only the reverence once offered to local zamindars (landowners) or royalty is now granted to political leaders," Tharoor wrote.

"This reinforces the impression that political elites are somehow in a different league, which makes them, and their families, uniquely suited to power. This sense of entitlement is so powerful that it can overshadow even a poor track record, enabling dynasts to remain at the helm of their parties despite successive electoral defeats," Tharoor added.

So, by declaring that "Indian politics are a family business", Shashi Tharoor has delivered a much-needed critique of dynastic succession in Indian parties. He has, however, made a pointed reference to the Nehru-Gandhi lineage, while also making clear that the problem transcends the Congress. His prescription for structural reform must be a challenge to party leadership structures and internal democracy. Whether Tharoor's points turn into a meaningful shift inside his own party remains to be seen, but the essay has already handed the BJP fresh ammunition for attack and left the Congress looking for answers.

- Ends