In the trajectory of post-independent India’s electoral democracy, networks of family and dynasty have conditioned women’s access to elite spaces of political decision-making. Several prominent women political leaders in India have represented familial legacies, giving credence to the prevalence of political dynasticism in South Asia. 

About 30% and 22% of the members of the Lok Sabha – the Lower House of the Indian Parliament belonged to political dynasties in the 2009 and 2014 elections respectively (Chandra, 2016, 14). Originating in the democratic electoral politics of independent India, political dynasties are characterised by the active presence of several members of a family in different layers of state and national politics (Chandra, 2016). Leadership in political parties dominated by dynastic leaders are often ‘inherited’ by their children or other close family members. Familial and dynastic networks permeate the institutional cultures of political parties which have traditionally functioned as ‘gatekeepers’ (Norris, Pippa and Lovenduski, 1995) in terms of the recruitment and selection of candidates for elections. The significance of family ties in the realm of party politics corresponds to the organisational weakness of political parties (Chandra, 2016; DeSouza, Peter Ronald and Sridharan, 2006) in India and the profitability or higher returns associated with holding state office (Chandra, 2016).

 While the existing scholarship on dynastic politics in South Asia (Chandra, 2016; Chhibber, 2011; Malhotra, 2004; Mufti, 2008; Rai & Spary, 2019) underscores that the primary beneficiaries of dynastic ties in Indian politics continue to be Hindu upper-caste males, it also highlights the positive role played by dynasticism in terms of facilitating the democratic inclusion of historically underrepresented social groups such as Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), women and religious minorities. The high proportions of women MPs (Members of Parliament) with dynastic ties in the 2009 (69%) and 2014 (43%) Lok Sabha elections (Chandra, 2016, 52) attests to the significance of family networks in the recruitment of women in Indian electoral politics. The criticality of dynastic networks in women’s access to higher spaces of political legislation in India such as the Parliament is augmented particularly in the face of the absence of reservation for women in such spaces[i] (Chandra, 2016). Family/dynastic connections, therefore, often serve the role of gender quotas in parliamentary politics.

While family networks constitute a factor of decisive importance in women’s access to political parties in India, their influence extends beyond formal institutional processes such as political recruitment and candidate selection. As Shirin Rai points out in her study of women parliamentarians in India (Rai, 2012; Rai & Spary, 2019), the support derived from family networks encompass a broad range of informal institutional requirements for women politicians. Such support may range from providing useful political connections and resources to assistance in domestic responsibilities traditionally associated with women- such as childcare and housework, and offering moral support (Rai, 2012; Rai & Spary, 2019). Within the institutional context of political parties in India, therefore, familial resources and support become critical in the face of the scarce availability of political capital for women party-members and the lack of institutionally mandated measures- such as day-care facilities and accommodative party-meeting hours- aimed at creating women-friendly workplace cultures.

In the course of my research on women’s substantive representation in three political parties- All India Trinamool Congress (AITC), the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)), and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), in the state of West Bengal, India, women from across the three political parties affirmed that continuing support from their families were essential for them to conduct their political responsibilities. Such support ranged from active political participation by their relatives to assistance with childcare, cooking and other domestic responsibilities. Active or tacit consent from older male family members was also regarded as essential for most women to be able to access politics in the first place.

Alongside serving as a resource-pool and a support system for women party workers and aspirants, the family is also frequently deployed as a metaphor in the official party discourse as well as by party members in their articulation of belonging within the institutional spaces of the parties. Characterising the political party as a ‘large joint family’, Sanjana Bhowmik[ii]– a municipal councillor affiliated to the AITC, identifies her colleagues and herself as the ‘children’ of the family. Such characterisation contributes to her interpretation of differences of opinion and dissent within the party as everyday quarrels among cousins in a joint family.

While the representation of the party as a joint family can imply the existence of horizontal networks among party members, a different picture emerges when one examines the family metaphor through a contextualised lens. The image of the party as a family- a recurrent theme in the narratives of several party members in the AITC as well as in the CPI(M) and the BJP, takes as its source a specific historical construction of the South Asian joint family- characterised by the joint ownership of property among fathers, sons and male cousins, patrilineal descent conditioned by the caste system and the overarching authority of elderly male members over others in the family (Thapar, 1980, 2010). The prevalence of hierarchy and male authority within the joint family is reflected in the interpretations of vertical hierarchy within the parties. Nandana Mukherjee- a ground-level worker of the AITC, articulates the familial naturalisation of male authority in the party hierarchy while stressing that most of her women party colleagues including herself function ‘under the umbrella and direction’^[iii] of the local male party leader- characterised as a ‘Dada’^[iv] (elder brother), who ‘graciously listens’ to the opinions and demands of ground-workers but makes decisions ‘as he thinks best’.

While interviewees from the CPI(M) did not overtly express familial sentiments of deference towards male party leaders, interviewees such as Konika Mitra[v]– a state-committee member of the CPI(M) argued that the present party leadership (overwhelmingly male) (Financial Express Staff, 2009; Imam & Salim, 2017) were occupying their positions solely by their ‘sound logic’ and superior commitment towards revolutionary ideals. In the BJP, identifying the party as a ‘President-based party’, Promita Sinha^[vi]– a district-level General Secretary of the BJP, underlined the sweeping and final authority of the President- who has thus far, been always male, in terms of decision-making. BJP workers under the women’s wing such as Radha Samanta^[vii] expressed open deference to the male Mandal Sabhapati (Local Area President) in matters of decision-making even while asserting her autonomy as a women’s wing local area leader.

The imagination of the political party as a civic-social reincarnation of the South Asian joint family adds to the naturalised logic of vertical party command the element of male authority. The fantasy of the party as a family also plays a critical role in undercutting and containing challenges to the hierarchical authority of the party leadership through the fostering of emotional investment in the prevailing gender regime of the parties. In the face of the lack of formal measures such as gender quotas in the Parliament and the state legislative bodies, the dearth of other channels of accruing political capital and the lack of institutional support-mechanisms for women political workers, familial and dynastic connections continue to decisively influence the descriptive, the symbolic as well as the substantive representation of women and other historically disadvantaged social groups in Indian party politics.

References:

Chandra, K. (Ed.). (2016). Democratic Dynasties: State, Party and Family in Contemporary Indian Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chhibber, P. (2011). Dynastic Parties: Organization, Finance and Impact. Party Politics, 19(277–295).

DeSouza, Peter Ronald and Sridharan, E. eds. (2006). India’s Political Parties. New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Financial Express Staff. (2009). CPI(M) fields only two women in Lok Sabha polls from Bengal. Retrieved September 22, 2020, from Financial Express website: https://www.financialexpress.com/archive/cpim-fields-only-two-women-in-lok-sabha-polls-from-bengal/444752/

Imam, S., & Salim, S. (2017). Left-wing groups speak of women’s empowerment, but their politics are still dominated by men. Retrieved September 22, 2020, from Firstpost website: https://www.firstpost.com/india/left-wing-groups-speak-of-womens-empowerment-but-their-politics-are-still-dominated-by-men-3383722.html

IPU. (2020). Percentage of women in national parliaments. Retrieved June 5, 2020, from Inter-Parliamentary Union website: https://data.ipu.org/women-ranking?month=9&year=2019

Malhotra, I. (2004). Dynasties of India and Beyond: Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh. New Delhi: Harper Collins India.

Mufti, M. (2008). Dynastic Politics in South Asia. South Asian Journal, 20, 9–20.

Norris, Pippa and Lovenduski, J. (1995). Political Recruitment: Gender, race and class in the British Parliament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rai, S. M. (2012). The Politics of Access: Narratives of Women MPs in the Indian Parliament. Political Studies, 60(1), 195–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2011.00915.x

Rai, S. M., & Spary, C. (2019). Performing Representation: Women Members in the Indian Parliament. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Thapar, R. (1980). A History of India v.1. Delhi: Penguin India.

Thapar, R. (2010). Ancient Indian Social History (2nd ed.). New Delhi: Orient Blackswan.

[i] The present Parliament has only 78 women members out of a total of 542; constituting 14.39% of parliamentarians (IPU, 2020).

[ii] Interviewed on 16/01/2019. The names of all the interviewees have been changed for the protection of their confidentiality.

[iii] Interviewed on 14/01/2019.

[iv] In South Asian cultural vocabulary, it is common to apply familial kinship terms such as Didi (elder sister), Dada (elder/older brother) or Kaka/Chacha (uncle) to non-familial relationships.

[v] Interviewed on 13/11/2018.

[vi] Interviewed on 22/11/2018.

[vii] Interviewed on 30/12/2018.

Proma Ray Chaudhury is a PhD Candidate at the School of Law and Government in Dublin City University under the EU Marie Sklodowska-Curie ETN Global India Fellowship. Her thesis is titled: Gender and Political Parties in India: Pathways to Women’s Political Participation. It analyses the political parties of the state of West Bengal in India in terms of their institutional party cultures and explores the obstacles and opportunities that these shifting cultures present for women’s active political participation. This project is funded by a Horizon 2020-funded European Training Network, Global India (grant number 722446).