In an article for Project Syndicate on October 31, Shashi Tharoor claimed that the Nehru-Gandhi family “cemented the idea that political leadership can be a birthright.” He is, of course, entitled to his opinion, but when such claims distort history to support a popular narrative, they deserve to be questioned. November reminds us of two towering Indian leaders whose influence on politics still endures. Both are often accused of creating and sustaining “dynastic rule” in India. But is this charge fair? Was the so-called dynasty built deliberately, or did it emerge naturally because India’s opposition lacked unity, vision, and leadership? The truth may lie somewhere between history’s complexity and convenient simplifications of political events.
Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister, never planned to hand over power to his daughter Indira Gandhi. He saw Jayaprakash Narayan, a socialist and Gandhian thinker, as a better successor. After Nehru’s death in 1964, the Congress “Syndicate” led by K. Kamaraj chose Lal Bahadur Shastri as Prime Minister. When Shastri died suddenly in 1966, they picked Indira Gandhi, believing she would be an obedient goongi gudia or dumb doll. But Indira soon proved them wrong—she defeated her rivals, strengthened her control, and turned her family into India’s longest-lasting political dynasty.
The irony is inescapable: a dynasty that dominates even today was born less from Nehru or Indira’s ambition than from the follies of their contemporaries.
Nehru’s Vision for Succession: The Preference for Jayaprakash Narayan
Jawaharlal Nehru opposed dynastic politics. He once said, “I dislike the idea of anyone succeeding me merely because of blood ties.” He wanted an ideological heir, not a family one, and often tried to bring Jayaprakash Narayan (JP) into the government. Nehru had admired JP since the 1930s, when the young socialist became a strong voice in the Congress Socialist Party. JP’s underground work during the Quit India Movement impressed Nehru deeply.
Braj Kumar Nehru, the Prime Minister’s cousin and civil servant, recorded a telling anecdote: Nehru confessed to JP that his Cabinet was full of hollow timid men and begged him to join, to act as a conscience keeper and eventually perhaps as his successor. H.Y. Sharada Prasad later described JP’s refusal as “a real waste of a vast and unusual national resource.” But JP was reluctant to wield power. A “philosophical anarchist” in the Gandhian mould, he saw politics as corrupting and instead dedicated himself to grassroots movements like Sarvodaya. He turned down Nehru’s repeated invitations, declaring that he could serve India better outside the corridors of power.
Contemporary observers shared Nehru’s admiration. In 1963, the Time magazine profile described JP as “next to Nehru, the most popular man in India.” But his disdain for realpolitik and simplistic prescriptions alienated many Congress insiders. Nehru’s disappointment was palpable: without JP, his vision of a morally upright, non-dynastic succession crumbled.
Nehru did not promote Indira as a successor. When she became Congress president in 1959 at the behest of U.N. Dhebar and Govind Ballabh Pant, Nehru publicly rebuked the decision as “unwise” while he was still Prime Minister. Their relationship was often fraught; after Indira orchestrated the dismissal of Kerala’s Communist government in 1959 without his consent, he did not speak to her for months. Clearly, Nehru had nothing to do with the dynasty. Those who blame Indira Gandhi for converting the Indian National Congress into a family business should first familiarise themselves with actions of those who impelled her to do this.
The Transition to Shastri: Compromise Amid Party Realities
When Nehru died on May 27, 1964, India entered uncharted waters. For 17 years, Nehru had towered over the political scene; his absence left a vacuum. The Congress “Syndicate” comprising regional satraps, like K. Kamaraj, S.K. Patil, Atulya Ghosh, and N. Sanjiva Reddy, moved quickly to control the succession.
Morarji Desai, senior Congress leader and Finance Minister, demanded to be Prime Minister. But his rigid manner and insistence on a formal election alienated many. Kamaraj orchestrated a consensus around Lal Bahadur Shastri, a mild-mannered, humble leader known for integrity.
Shastri’s elevation was described by political scientist Rajni Kothari as “a triumph of the middle way”. Which was acceptable to all factions and not threatening to anyone’s power. Shastri himself embodied modesty. Known for his slogan Jai Jawan, Jai Kisan, he led the country through the 1965 war with Pakistan, earning respect.
Yet Shastri’s sudden death in Tashkent on January 11, 1966, reopened the leadership question. Shastri had once admitted that if JP Narayan had agreed, he would have gladly stepped aside. But JP remained aloof. The Syndicate now faced a choice: Desai or someone they could control.
The Syndicate’s Gamble: Indira as “Goongi Gudiya”
The Syndicate decided to back Indira Gandhi, Nehru’s daughter. Their calculation was simple: her surname offered mass appeal, but her gender and inexperience made her appear weak. In a secret ballot on January 19, 1966, Indira defeated Desai 355–169. Kamaraj, the kingmaker, justified his decision by citing her lack of threat: “She is Nehru’s daughter, but she is politically innocent. We will manage her.” Opposition leader Ram Manohar Lohia sneered, calling her a goongi gudiya.
Kamaraj himself had considered the top job but quipped self-deprecatingly, “No Hindi, no English—how could I unite the nation?” Instead, he saw in Indira a placeholder until the 1967 elections. This miscalculation proved disastrous. Indira had spent years as Nehru’s confidante, hostess, and informal advisor, acquiring deep political instincts. Her quiet demeanour masked a steely resolve.
From Nehru’s death in 1964 to the Janata collapse in 1979, the path of succession was shaped by these pivotal moments: the missed chance of JP Narayan, Shastri’s brief tenure and sudden demise, Indira’s elevation as a compromise candidate, her revolt against the Syndicate in 1969, the Emergency of 1975–77, and finally the Janata Party’s disintegration that restored her to power in 1980. Each stage illustrates how short-term tactical decisions by Congress leaders and the opposition inadvertently reinforced the dynasty’s staying power.
From Puppet to “Iron Lady”
Once in office, Indira began asserting herself. By the late 1960s, she clashed with the Syndicate over policies like bank nationalisation and abolition of privy purses. When the Syndicate supported Sanjiva Reddy for President in 1969, Indira openly backed V.V. Giri, who won.
The showdown culminated in the Congress split of 1969. Indira expelled Syndicate leaders and formed Congress (I), which soon eclipsed the old guard. Journalist Frank Moraes wrote that Indira had executed “a pure political coup.”
Bank nationalisation and the 1971 slogan Garibi Hatao secured her popular mandate. In the 1971 elections, her faction won a landslide. The subsequent victory in the Bangladesh Liberation War further cemented her image as the nation’s undisputed leader.
The Syndicate’s blunder—choosing her as a puppet—thus unwittingly gave birth to the dynasty.
Opposition Disunity: A Gift to Indira
If Congress leaders created the conditions for dynastic dominance, the Opposition ensured its survival through fragmentation.
The JP-led movement of 1974, which united students, workers, and intellectuals against corruption, seemed poised to dethrone Indira. But her response was the declaration of Emergency on June 25, 1975. Civil liberties were suspended, opposition leaders jailed, and the press censored.
When elections were finally held in 1977, Indira was routed, and the Janata Party—a coalition of socialists, right-wingers, and former Congressmen—came to power. Yet its leaders, Morarji Desai, Charan Singh, and Jagjivan Ram, were unable to overcome personal rivalries. Within two years, the government collapsed.
Indira returned in triumph in 1980. Her comeback was described by political commentator Arun Shourie as “a second birth.” Opposition disunity had handed her the opportunity to restore the dynasty’s dominance.
Even her grooming of her sons, first Sanjay Gandhi (whose authoritarianism during the Emergency tarnished her image) and later Rajiv Gandhi, was facilitated by the absence of credible opposition alternatives.
Why the Dynasty Took Root
The rise of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty was not a carefully orchestrated plan but rather the outcome of a series of historical accidents and political choices. Jawaharlal Nehru’s preferred successor, Jayaprakash Narayan, refused to enter the corridors of power, leaving a vacuum. The Congress Syndicate then misjudged Indira Gandhi, assuming she would remain pliant and controllable, only to watch her consolidate authority instead. Meanwhile, the opposition’s chronic inability to unite against her gave Indira repeated chances to recover and strengthen her position. Added to this was the enduring mass appeal of the Nehru name, deeply tied to the independence struggle and Nehru’s personal charisma, which allowed Indira and later her sons to command wide electoral support. Clearly, the dynasty was a product of several factors. Disunity among the opposition parties and the Congress Party’s reluctance to look for other leadership options were the major ones. Indeed the iconic Gandhi name combined with the Nehruvian charisma became the most convenient and effective way to mobilise voters. Let us not forget that for a long time the Gandhi surname evoked Mahatma Gandhi’s image in the public mind.
Conclusion: Dynasties and Democratic Follies
The Nehru-Gandhi dynasty was not born out of any plan or project by Nehru or even by Indira in her early years. It grew out of a chain of mistakes—Jayaprakash Narayan’s idealism, the Congress Syndicate’s arrogance, and a weak Opposition. What began as a temporary move became a dynasty because Indira was far smarter and tougher than anyone expected. The irony is that dynasties last not only due to family ambition but also because elites make mistakes and voters allow it. The dynasty’s rise came less from Nehru’s wishes or Indira’s manoeuvrings and more from the blunders of his colleagues and shortsighted politics of the opposition parties.
Jawaharlal Nehru, Jayaprakash Narayan, Sarvodaya, Indira Gandhi, Syndicate, Gandhi, Sanjay Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, Priyanka Vadra, Rahul Gandhi, Morarji Desai, Charan Singh, Jagjivan Ram, Emergency, Civil Rights, Indian National Congress, BJP, NDA, UPA, Lal Bahadur Shastri, Bangladesh Liberation War, Pakistan, Sanjiva Reddy, VV Giri, Kamaraj, Garibi Hatao, Ram Manohar Lohia
