Nehru yelled at Mountbatten and Liaquat Ali to appoint his sister as ambassador—having already made her a minister even before independence: The early seeds of dynastic politics in India

The first family that comes to mind when we talk about dynastic politics is the Nehru-Gandhi family. It is rare in the world for a single family to have held so many high offices of power. At present, Sonia Gandhi is serving as a Rajya Sabha member, her son Rahul Gandhi is an MP from Amethi, and her daughter Priyanka Gandhi is an MP from Wayanad. Priyanka’s husband, Robert Vadra, has also expressed interest in joining active politics on several occasions. Furthermore, a large faction within Congress sees potential in Priyanka and Robert’s son, Rehan, as a future leader.

When the roots of this mighty tree of dynasty are traced, the first Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, stands at the centre. Among the leaders of India’s struggle for independence, he stands out prominently. He was the favoured disciple of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, and was appointed as the first PM by Gandhi himself. Many leftist historians and political analysts consider him to be the architect of modern India.

However, when history is examined with an impartial mind and not merely through sentiment, another facet of the Nehru era emerges, a facet where the first seeds of dynastic politics were sown in Indian democracy. A seed which was not planted after Nehru became the PM, but much earlier, in the 1930s.

It is widely known that Nehru’s political career began with the legacy of his father, Motilal Nehru. Motilal had served as President of the Indian National Congress, and played a crucial role in establishing his son in politics. It would not be an exaggeration to say that Motilal Nehru turned the Congress into the political platform of the Nehru family. Dynastic politics was not an overnight malaise. Rather, it developed as a calculated process, and its first product was Jawaharlal Nehru himself.

As Nehru entered mainstream Congress politics, his stature grew with time. Even before independence, he had become so influential that Congress policies and their implementation began to revolve around him. This trend can be seen as early as the 1930s.

In 1937, provincial elections were held in the country. Congress formed governments in eight out of eleven provinces. In the United Provinces, a Congress government was formed under the leadership of Govind Ballabh Pant. In this government, Nehru’s sister, Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, was given a ministerial post.

Durga Das, journalist and founding president of the Press Club of India (PCI), writes in his book “India From Curzon to Nehru and After” that it was Govind Ballabh Pant and Rafi Ahmed Kidwai who approached Nehru with the recommendation to appoint Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit as a minister. The real intention behind this was, “If we appoint a member of Nehru’s family as a minister, we will earn Nehru’s blessings, and he will not trouble us without reason.”

This fact confirms that even at that time, people began valuing Nehru’s familial ties to avoid his political interference. This was not a good sign for democracy, but rather showed that Nehru’s influence stood above reason, merit, and democratic norms.

After independence, he openly sowed the seed of dynastic politics in Indian governance. A particular anecdote, essential for those who regard Nehru as a champion of democracy and inclusivity, sheds light on this. It is mentioned by American historian Stanley Wolpert in his book “Nehru: A Tryst With Destiny“.

The book says that when the country became independent, an interim government was formed under Nehru’s leadership. Nehru was the Prime Minister of this government, Liaquat Ali Khan was the Finance Minister, and Lord Mountbatten was the Governor-General. Nehru proposed to appoint his sister, Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, as India’s first ambassador to the Soviet Union. Liaquat Ali Khan strongly opposed the move, calling it an act of brazen dynasticism.

According to Liaquat Ali, this was not just a matter of diplomatic posting, but the first sign of power being personalised by the head of India’s largest political party. Nehru not only ignored Liaquat’s objections, but also brazenly threatened Mountbatten, saying that if Mountbatten supported Liaquat on the issue, he would resign.

This was not the behaviour of a democratic leader, but of a feudal mindset convinced that all state authority resided in his decisions. Dynastic politics becomes even more dangerous when it strangles the spirit of democracy under the guise of democratic legitimacy. Nehru exemplifies this situation perfectly. Though he never publicly endorsed dynasty, his actions consistently reinforced it.

One might argue that dynastic politics became common in Indian political life later, the Gandhi family, the Yadavs, the Abdullahs, the Karunanidhi family, the Pawars, and so on. However, it is essential to know where this trend began. When the country’s first PM himself practised dynasticism, it was inevitable that others would follow suit. The Congress party claimed to uphold democracy, socialism, and secularism, but during the Nehru era, a hidden elitism and dynasty quietly took root.

In other democratic nations of the world, dynastic politics has been met with resistance by the people. In the US, although the Bush and Clinton families have been active in politics, no political party could transform them into a royal dynasty. In France, Germany, and the UK, institutions have always remained bigger than individuals. But in India, institutions continued to appear dwarfed before individuals and families, and this tradition began with Jawaharlal Nehru.

News