Cronyism, however, operates differently. An organisation is itself a form of family,bound not by blood but by ideology. These ideological bonds can be as strong as, if not stronger than, blood ties. History offers numerous examples where ideological allegiance has severed familial relationships. Unlike families, whose size is limited, ideological organisations can expand indefinitely.

4

Such organisations often evolve into cults, syndicates, components of a ‘deep state’, clandestine networks, or even distinct political sects within a religion. In India, Hindutva has effectively become a political sect within Hinduism.

These Hindutva-oriented organisations, and the political entities nourished by them, have made Rahul Gandhi’s political path increasingly difficult by campaigning aggressively against dynastic politics. The Nehru family legacy no longer guarantees leadership within the Congress Party.

Internal party dynamics play a role here, as do broader structural and practical considerations. In many cases, parties promote descendants of historically successful leaders to prevent fragmentation. While this may preserve organisational unity, it simultaneously renders such leaders vulnerable to opposition narratives.

Narendra Modi, for example, successfully sells the story of a tea-seller rising to become prime minister. The message resonates, “If I can do it, so can you, if dynastic politics is defeated.”

Rahul Gandhi cannot make a similar claim. Ironically, however, the truth favours Gandhi’s argument: it was precisely the democratic institutions developed during the era of dynastic politics that enabled a non-elite outsider like Modi to rise to power.

Yet as organisational control increasingly dismantles democratic structures and replaces them with ideological dominance, pathways for ordinary citizens outside such organisations are rapidly closing.