In the scope of the lecture, which was attended by distinguished speakers and guests, the role of dynasticism in Indian politics and beyond was discussed. Furthermore, the panelists emphasized the causes of dynastic families being successful in India and repeatedly stated that dynasticism was not a problem specific to India alone. The lecture started off with opening remarks by Major General Nilendra Kumar, member of the Nani Palkhivala Birth Centenary Celebrations Steering Committee. Before handing over to the host of the evening, journalist Mandira Nayar, he highlighted the legacy of Nani Palkhivala and how he left an imprint on the Indian judiciary system. Ms. Nayar introduced the topic of the evening by stating, that it was not the question, whether dynasticism existed or not as it was a part of Indian democracy. The issue to be discussed was rather why dynastic rule was still backed by the Indian voters.
The first panelist was Mr. Vinay P. Sahasrabuddhe, Member of the Rajya Sabha and Vice President of the BJP. As his main argument he stated, that democracy and dynasticism were incompatible as the latter included accepting casteism as well as embracing discrimination by birth which was, according to him, against the very grain of democracy. In dynastic parties, there was no ideologic democratic debate. It was only blood relations and the dynasty’s ideology that mattered. According to Mr. Sahasrabuddhe, only seven or eight of the fifty relevant parties in India are free from dynastic rule. He further argued that it was hard to break the cycle and patriarchal structures of dynasticism, as power within dynastic parties shifted as legacy to the next family generation and with this power also came considerable funds which consequently remained in the families’ possession. However, naming a blood relative as a successor of a political leader was only one possibility as to how power could shift within a dynastic party. It was also up to the constituency, whether they wanted to support dynasticism within parties or rejected it by not voting for dynastic party members.
The second panelist was senior advocate and former Foreign Minister Mr. Salman Khurshid. Being himself part of a dynastic family, he highlighted that even though dynasticism was a fundamental part of the Indian society and existed in every realm of the Indian public life, this fact was yet hardly ever scrutinized. According to him, there is a lack of analyzing the scope and the impact of dynasties on Indian politics. With dynasties playing such an important role in the political system, an element of feudalism, which had been abolished after independency, survived. For him, it was further important to highlight, that dynastic families also existed outside of the political sphere as there were powerful and influential dynasties in business and industry, in Bollywood, the media and academia. Even though Mr. Khurshid raised doubts regarding the compatibility of democracy and dynasty, he emphasized that dynastic families in political parties were nevertheless backed by their constituency. It was therefore critical to not merely describe the fact, that dynasties in India do exist, but to analyze why this is the case and why people still vote for dynastic politicians.
Finally, Mr. Yogendra Yadav, activist and founder of the Swaraj Party, took a very clear stand by stating that democracy and dynasty were not compatible by any means as the basic concept of democracy included that political power should not derive from birth, money or external attributes, but from the people itself. Further, he repeatedly stated that it was not only the Congress, that was involved in dynasticism and that it was just more visible because of the famous Nehru-Gandhi dynasty which has dominated the party for many years. However, there were also dynastic families within the BJP, but people are not aware of it because the issue does not concern the party’s leadership. Mr. Yadav explained that dynasticism was prevalent because the entry barriers into politics are very high. As dynastic families were endowed with three types of capital, namely name capital, cultural capital and financial capital, they face fewer barriers when aspiring to enter politics. It was therefore important, to move away from personality cult and to establish a free public culture, where people in power could be questioned as this culture would be the best tribute to Nani Palkhivala.
The lecture ended with a vote of thanks expressed by Mr. Peter Rimmele, KAS Resident Representative to India. In his speech, he offered a German point of view on dynasticism, which was besides a few exceptions, almost non-existent in Germany as the principle of equality is grounded in the German constitution and is therefore reflected in the party system and politics. The existence of dynastic families in Germany could not be denied, however, if politicians do not perform, the prospects for their future careers look rather bleak, regardless of how influential their families are. As Germany is a meritocracy, dynastic families could naturally not be as influential as they were in India, where dynasticism led to cohesion within the political parties.