January 27, 2025 18:12 IST
First published: January 27, 2025 18:12 IST
share
Written by Mahendra Kumar Singh
A recent public appeal by Nishant Kumar, son of Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, urges voters to support his father in the upcoming elections, spurring speculation about his potential entry into politics. I put it on. This succession plan reflects the growing influence of dynastic politics, but it also highlights a major problem facing regional parties across India.
For Kumar, once hailed as a pragmatic politician skilled at coalition building, the plan to bring his son into the political fold comes at a time when the JD(U) has underperformed in consecutive assembly elections. reflects his attempt to secure a personal legacy. The strength of the BJP has paved the way for a lot of speculation. The move also raises questions about the broader future of India’s regional parties.
The prevalence of political dynasties is not new to India. From the Yadavs in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar to the Thackerays in Maharashtra, regional parties have long relied on family leadership to maintain continuity. However, this strategy often comes at the expense of internal democracy and long-term stability. The prioritization of family succession over the development of secondary leaders creates a fragile political ecosystem that relies heavily on individual charisma. Such moves are often justified as necessary to prevent internal fragmentation, but they also highlight the failure to cultivate a strong organizational framework. Speculations surrounding Nishant becoming Kumar’s political successor follow a similar trajectory.
In contrast, Kanshi Ram’s choice to elevate Mayawati as leader of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) represents a rare anomaly in Indian politics. His decision to promote leaders from outside his family created a robust movement for marginalized communities. However, the BSP eventually fell for dynastic politics as Mayawati declared Akash her successor.
However, Bihar politics, which is already mired in dynastic competition, is likely to witness stiff competition once Nishant Kumar officially enters politics. The state’s leadership currently features two political heirs. They are Tejashwi Yadav of the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and Chirag Paswan of the Lok Janshakti Party (LJP). Nishant’s entry could position him as a new player appealing to younger voters, but may alienate those disillusioned with dynastic politics.
Moreover, Kumar’s succession plan can be seen as contradicting his long-standing criticism of dynastic politics. The move could erode his credibility among voters who saw him as a leader driven by merit rather than nepotism. At the same time, the decision may be a pragmatic attempt to rejuvenate the JD(U), which has suffered a backlash in recent years due to frequent political realignments and declining state influence.
Kumar’s legacy as a leader who frequently shifted alliances has gone from ending his 17-year partnership with the BJP in 2013 to joining the RJD and Congress in 2015, realigning with the BJP in 2017, and returning in 2022. Return to RJD-led alliance and return to RJD-led alliance before regeneration. 2024 NDA – adds another layer of complexity to this development. These political “U-turns” earned him both criticism and respect as a political survivor. However, such maneuvers also question the future stability and relevance of the JD(U) in Bihar politics.
In contrast to these regional players, the BJP has demonstrated a more structured approach to leadership development. With strong support from the RSS, the party developed a second leadership that ensured stability and continuity. Leaders like Narendra Modi, Yogi Adityanath and Devendra Fadnavis are products of this well-organized system, prioritizing victories over family ties and grassroots involvement.
This model provides valuable lessons for regional parties that struggle to balance personal charisma and institutional strength. By decentralizing investment in decision-making and leadership development, local actors can build resilience and reduce reliance on single-family leadership.
The survival of regional parties depends on their ability to adapt to changing political realities. It also reflects the reluctance of community leaders to trust powerful non-family members and undermine their ideological foundations.
Kanshi Ram’s early BSP and the Dravidian movement in Tamil Nadu serve as examples of how a strong ideological framework can sustain a political movement even in the absence of a charismatic leader.
The future of India’s democracy depends on the ability of political parties (regional and national alike) to balance continuity and change. Kumar’s decision reflects the malice of the regional outfit, but it also opens the door for introspection and reform across the political spectrum. Questions remain. Will regional parties evolve to seize this opportunity, or will they continue to be defined by the very limitations that threaten their survival?
The writer is a political commentator and teaches political science at DDU Gorakhpur University in Uttar Pradesh
