Monday’s newspapers presented the readers two snapshots – one from Patna, and other from Ahmedabad – of Old India, now renamed Naya Bharat. India is growing and progressing, but only at the ‘Hindu’ rate of change.Dispatches from Patna give details of the democratic coronation of Nitish Kumar’s son, Nishant, as the new rising star of the Janata Dal (United). Informed speculation indicates that the not so young Nishant could be tapped on the shoulder to join the new Bihar cabinet, may be even as Deputy Chief Minister. The coronation ceremony was replete with elephants, camels, horses, drums and dancing; senior JD(U) leaders were reported as having detected in the hitherto unknown, untested and unwilling son the qualities of a potential king. Nishant will give company to Tejashwi Yadav and Chirag Paswan in Bihar’s family-centric political stage. Family politics in dynastic grammar, so very familiar in Old India, persists.From Ahmedabad, we had images of Union home minister Amit Shah giving a congratulatory hug to his son, Jay Shah, after India won the T20 final against New Zealand at the Narendra Modi Stadium. We cannot be sure if this was just a father-son duo rejoicing at India’s ‘historic’ win, or a powerful public figure basking in the glory of his son’s “achievement.” Jay Shah is counted as among the most powerful movers and shakers of Indian cricket, the only game we are rather good at, and, the only truly Indian civic rite we observe as a nation. Jay Shah was in the frame not because he is or was an outstanding cricketer or has superior knowledge of the game, but because he is the boss of Indian cricket, and he is the boss because he is the son of the second most consequential person in India. Family connections still matter in Naya Bharat.Add to this, the induction of Ajit Pawar’s widow, Sunetra Pawar, as deputy chief minister in Maharashtra, and we have a reasonably comprehensive picture of the persistence of family in public life. It has been noted that Sunetra Pawar’s swearing-in ceremony took place within days of Ajit dada’s unfortunate demise; the urgency of politics in Naya Bharat overrode established Hindu customs and rites associated with a death in the family. In Naya Bharat, it would appear, the only protocol worthy of respect and devotion is the religion of transactional political power.All these essays in celebration of family ties as the ultimate source of political office stand in contrast to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s relentless messaging that ‘dynasty’ politics is the bane of modern India. He has used the prime ministerial pulpit to trace all that is supposedly wrong with India to one dynasty – the Nehru-Gandhi family. Of course, he has the demagogue’s gift to explain away the contradiction.Perhaps the Prime Minister can point out that at least in his own party, the Bhartiya Janata Party, the family tie does not necessarily mean a ticket to greener pastures. He can legitimately cite the new party president as the prime example of ‘workers’ being recognised and rewarded. Some of the new chief ministers in the BJP-ruled states were also unknown faces, till discovered by the Bosses in New Delhi.Yet, it also cannot be denied that even after nearly 15 years of preaching, pounding the pulpit and demonising the “dynasts”, the Indian public remains respectful of family connections. The Abdullahs and the Muftis in Jammu and Kashmir; the Badals in Punjab; the Lals and the Chautalas in Haryana; the Yadavs and the Paswans in Bihar; the Thackerays in Maharashtra; the Stalins in Tamil Nadu; the Gogois in Assam; Mamta Banerjee and her nephew in West Bengal; and the Gowdas in Karnataka continue to attract followers and voters; and, at one time or the other, the BJP has broken political bread with each of these embodiments of “dynasty .” For nearly 15 years, Naveen Patnaik – the ultimate poster boy of dynastic politics – sustained Narendra Modi’s prime ministerial project.So, are some “family-politicians” more acceptable than others? Is a ‘dynast’ ipso facto unacceptable in a formal democracy? Does a ‘dynast’ become acceptable if he or she ‘delivers?’. For example, in the case of Jay Shah, it can be argued that the cause of Indian cricket has not suffered because the son of a powerful political functionary presides over the cricket establishment; but the reverse can also be cited.Is there any asset or quality that a ‘family politician’ brings to the job – apart from a sense of entitlement? Unlike the modern business families who send their children to Wharton to get initiated into the world of finance and economics, there is no ‘school’ to which political families can dispatch their broods. Political learning best takes place at the breakfast table, as they used to say, first, for Indira Gandhi, then for Sonia Gandhi. Rahul Gandhi, they insist, is self-educated!Still, the very idea that the son of this prime minister or the daughter or nephew of that chief minister has the first claim on the gaddi is antithesis of democratic values and the objectives of good governance. The primary objection has to be that in a republic the only source of legitimacy for wielding political power can be the consent of the people; a republic does not consist of hundreds of mini-royal families. If a vast country of a billion people is to remain in the stranglehold of a hundred odd families – Modi’s fulminations against dynasty rule notwithstanding – it is on the road to stagnation and decline. We’ve just had a timely reminder from Patna.Harish Khare is a former editor-in-chief of The Tribune.A version of this piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here.