top of page

By:

Quaid Najmi

4 January 2025 at 3:26:24 pm

Seventy-six mayors ruled BMC since 1931

After four years, Mumbai to salute its first citizen Kishori Pednekar Vishwanath Mahadeshwar Snehal Ambekar Sunil Prabhu Mumbai: As the date for appointing Mumbai’s First Citizen looms closer, various political parties have adopted tough posturing to foist their own person for the coveted post of Mayor – the ‘face’ of the country’s commercial capital. Ruling Mahayuti allies Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Shiv Sena have vowed that the city...

Seventy-six mayors ruled BMC since 1931

After four years, Mumbai to salute its first citizen Kishori Pednekar Vishwanath Mahadeshwar Snehal Ambekar Sunil Prabhu Mumbai: As the date for appointing Mumbai’s First Citizen looms closer, various political parties have adopted tough posturing to foist their own person for the coveted post of Mayor – the ‘face’ of the country’s commercial capital. Ruling Mahayuti allies Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Shiv Sena have vowed that the city will get a ‘Hindu Marathi’ person to head India’s richest civic body, while the Opposition Shiv Sena (UBT)-Maharashtra Navnirman Sena also harbour fond hopes of a miracle that could ensure their own person for the post. The Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi (MVA) optimism stems from expectations of possible political permutations-combinations that could develop with a realignment of forces as the Supreme Court is hearing the cases involving the Shiv Sena-Nationalist Congress Party this week. Catapulted as the largest single party, the BJP hopes to install a first ever party-man as Mayor, but that may not create history. Way back in 1982-1983, a BJP leader Dr. Prabhakar Pai had served in the top post in Mumbai (then Bombay). Incidentally, Dr. Pai hailed from Udupi district of Karnataka, and his appointment came barely a couple of years after the BJP was formed (1980), capping a distinguished career as a city father, said experts. Originally a Congressman, Dr. Pai later shifted to the Bharatiya Janata Party, then back to Congress briefly, founded the Janata Seva Sangh before immersing himself in social activities. Second Administrator The 2026 Mayoral elections have evoked huge interest not only among Mumbaikars but across the country as it comes after nearly four years since the BMC was governed by an Administrator. This was only the second time in the BMC history that an Administrator was named after April 1984-May 1985. On both occasions, there were election-related issues, the first time the elections got delayed for certain reasons and the second time the polling was put off owing to Ward delimitations and OBC quotas as the matter was pending in the courts. From 1931 till 2022, Mumbai has been lorded over by 76 Mayors, men and women, hailing from various regions, backgrounds, castes and communities. They included Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Parsis, Sikhs, even a Jew, etc., truly reflecting the cosmopolitan personality of the coastal city and India’s financial powerhouse. In 1931-1932, the Mayor was a Parsi, J. B. Boman Behram, and others from his community followed like Khurshed Framji Nariman (after whom Nariman Point is named), E. A. Bandukwala, Minoo Masani, B. N. Karanjia and other bigwigs. There were Muslims like Hoosenally Rahimtoola, Sultan M. Chinoy, the legendary Yusuf Meherally, Dr. A. U. Memon and others. The Christian community got a fair share of Mayors with Joseph A. D’Souza – who was Member of Constituent Assembly representing Bombay Province for writing-approving the Constitution of India, M. U. Mascarenhas, P. A. Dias, Simon C. Fernandes, J. Leon D’Souza, et al. A Jew Elijah Moses (1937-1938) and a Sikh M. H. Bedi (1983-1984), served as Mayors, but post-1985, for the past 40 years, nobody from any minority community occupied the august post. During the silver jubilee year of the post, Sulochana M. Modi became the first woman Mayor of Mumbai (1956), and later with tweaks in the rules, many women ruled in this post – Nirmala Samant-Prabhavalkar (1994-1995), Vishakha Raut (997-1998), Dr. Shubha Raul (March 2007-Nov. 2009), Shraddha Jadhav (Dec. 2009-March 2012), Snehal Ambedkar (Sep. 2014-March 2017). The last incumbent (before the Administrator) was a government nurse, Kishori Pednekar (Nov. 2019-March 2022) - who earned the sobriquet of ‘Florence Nightingale’ of Mumbai - as she flitted around in her full white uniform at the height of the Covid-19 Pandemic, earning the admiration of the citizens. Mumbai Mayor – high-profile post The Mumbai Mayor’s post is considered a crucial step in the political ladder and many went on to become MLAs, MPs, state-central ministers, a Lok Sabha Speaker, Chief Ministers and union ministers. The formidable S. K. Patil was Mayor (1949-1952) and later served in the union cabinets of PMs Jawaharlal Nehru, Lah Bahadur Shastri and Indira Gandhi; Dahyabhai V. Patel (1954-1955) was the son of India’s first Home Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel; Manohar Joshi (1976-1977) became the CM of Maharashtra, later union minister and Speaker of Lok Sabha; Chhagan Bhujbal (1985-1986 – 1990-1991) became a Deputy CM.

Dynasty Over Democracy: Bihar’s Politics Trapped in Family Legacy

From village constituencies to state assemblies, Bihar’s leadership is less a story of democratic struggle and more a tale of inherited crowns, where political families pass power through their lineage while genuine merit remains sidelined.

Observing the political landscape of Bihar, the question often arises whether democracy exists only in name, while its soul has been taken over by a reincarnated monarchy. The difference is only in form. In medieval times, kings and emperors gained dominance by defeating their rival on the battlefield. Today, the modern successors of these kings are political dynasties. Wars are no longer fought with swords, but with votes. Crowns are no longer forged in bloodshed, but in EVMs. However, the fundamental truth that remains unchanged is that the people, once considered royal subjects, now perform the ceremonial crowning of political heirs, despite the democratic label attached to the process. 


Dynastic politics is nothing new in India. A son inherits his father’s seat, a daughter inherits an assembly constituency, a brother-in-law or nephew becomes a Member of Parliament, this is a political tradition widely prevalent across the country. A report by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) indicates that, after Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Karnataka, Bihar stands out as a state where politics is based not solely on mass support but on family lineage. Here, political participation is now primarily a function of family names and caste equations, rather than democratic ideals or grassroots struggles.


Nepotism rife

This trend is so deeply ingrained that Bihar’s political class may take pride in being the fourth-highest in nepotism, but the reality is stark. The statistics are shocking, approximately 27 percent of Bihar's MLAs, Legislative Council members, and MPs come from political families. The situation is even more alarming for women, with more than half of all female leaders coming directly from political families. While women’s entry into politics is often hailed as empowerment, in Bihar, this empowerment is largely a product of nepotism. This tradition proves that women have extremely limited opportunities for independent political engagement. Therefore, the ‘feminist’ promise of democracy has become merely symbolic rather than an engine of equal opportunity. 


At the national level, the Congress Party remains the most synonymous with dynastic politics. In Bihar, the Congress party lags somewhat behind in this dynastic race, yet 32 percent of its representatives are products of family inheritance. The Bharatiya Janata Party often criticizes dynastic politics, but it cannot resolve itself, 17 percent of its leaders in Bihar are from political families. The most significant contribution to this unwritten monarchy comes from regional parties. Fifty percent of elected representatives of the Lok Janshakti Party (founded by Ram Vilas Paswan), the Hindustani Awam Morcha, and allied regional parties come from family inheritances. The Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and the Janata Dal United (JDU) are not far behind, with approximately 31 percent of their representatives being dynastic in origin. Clearly, Bihar's politics is not so much based on ideology or conflict as on dynasties and continued family rule. And this tradition continues to thrive on public consent. 


Political clans

Every district in Bihar has a similar story. Each constituency is dominated by a handful of families, whose dominance has endured for decades. Any discussion of dynastic politics in Bihar is incomplete without mentioning Lalu Prasad Yadav's family, which has become a symbol of political legacy. Rabri Devi, Tejashwi Yadav, Tej Pratap Yadav, Misa Bharti, and Rohini Acharya are all active in state and national politics. 


Ram Vilas Paswan's legacy is being carried forward by his son, Chirag Paswan, while his nephews have also entered prominent political careers. Former Chief Minister Jitan Ram Manjhi's son, daughter-in-law, and even in-law have reached the legislative level. The legacies of leaders like Jagjivan Ram, Jagannath Mishra, and Anugrah Narayan Sinha have survived for generations. Karpoori Thakur's family is also carrying forward a political legacy. This clearly demonstrates that dynastic influence in Bihar politics has persisted for years, and new generations are carrying it forward. The tradition of inheritance in politics is no exception, but rather appears to be a natural order.


This phenomenon is more pronounced at the grassroots level. In Gayaji, the Manjhi family dominates. Jitan Ram Manjhi's son is a Legislative Council member, and his daughter-in-law and her mother are both MLAs. Powerful Yadav families dominate in Nawada. The political journey that began with Krishna Yadav has continued through his son, Ashok Yadav. Similarly, several generations of Yadav leaders, such as the family of Yugal Kishore Yadav, are deeply entrenched in politics. In Jamui, the descendants of freedom fighter Krishna Singh are still at the center of power. His son, Narendra Singh, has served as a minister, and his grandson, Sumit Singh, is a minister in the current Nitish Kumar government. 


Political inheritance is equally strong in Shahabad and Bhojpur. Jagadanand Singh's son, Sudhakar Singh, is carrying forward this family legacy. Locals remember the stories of Ambika Sharan Singh and his son, Raghavendra Pratap Singh. The Tiwari family has held power for generations, from Ramanand Tiwari to Shivanand Tiwari and Rahul Tiwari. The dominance of dynasties in Mokama is linked to muscle politics. Suraj Bhan Singh, his brother Chandan Singh, and his wife Veena Devi have all contested elections. Strongman leader Anant Singh served as an MLA for five consecutive terms, and after his imprisonment, his wife Neelam Devi carried on this legacy. In Patna, Nitin Naveen, elected four times, holds ministerial positions, carrying forward the legacy of his father Naveen Kishore Sinha. Almost every district in Bihar is entangled in these dynastic chains. 


Undeclared monarchy

Nepotism strikes at the very roots of the democratic spirit. In theory, democracy is based on merit, ideology, and the strength of struggle for the interest of people and the nation. In contrast, dynastic politics is based on inheritance and family succession. The effect is that new capable leaders, whose strength lies in vibrant struggle and new ideas, often find themselves marginalized. Electoral verdict today seems less like ideological contests and more like family feuds. And, by constantly choosing between competing dynasties, the public, knowingly or unknowingly, strengthens this undeclared monarchy. 


The most important question is whether Bihar’s democracy will be able to break free from the grip of this undeclared monarchy? The answer to that is complex, to say the least. Electoral mathematics in the state still depends on caste equations and the traditions of political families. Unless voters prioritize value-based and merit-based leadership, there is little chance of change in the system. The irony is that the so-called Young Turks - whether Tejashwi Yadav, Chirag Paswan or Sudhakar Singh - are themselves products of the same family legacy that perpetuates this cycle. It is a harsh truth that unless voters themselves bring about a mental shift, the promise of democracy will remain confined to speeches and government papers. 


Bihar stands at a strange crossroads today. Here, elections are now the coronation ceremonies of political dynasties rather than democratic celebrations. The public often thinks they decide the fate of power by voting, but they are inadvertently re-crowning families that have been entrenched for decades. This not only marginalizes emerging talent but also weakens and hollows democracy. The question that haunts Bihar today as it enters another poll cycle is when will democracy finally break these dynastic chains and truly return power to the people? 

Comments

bottom of page