Rahul Gandhi's forays in the US and his lectures, be it at Berkeley , Washington or Princeton, continue to get the goat of political adversaries and critics. He has angered BJP leaders for presenting an alternative to the all-is-well narrative that Prime Minister Narendra Modi essays in foreign tours.One can disagree with Gandhi's conclusions. But without histrionics, he has flagged issues he believes to be perturbing. Gandhi's comment on dynastic politics, however, has drawn most of the verbal fusillades. His defence - this is how India runs and he mustn't be singled out - has been scoffed at. But he has managed to stir the hornet's nest.Gandhi has been labelled a 'failed dynast ' by many. Vice-President M Venkaiah Naidu slipped into his 'non-apolitical' avatar with his flippant 'Dynasty is nasty, but tasty to some people' comment. BJP president Amit Shah lists ending dynasticism as one of his party's achievements.Interestingly, the BJP's construction of the dynastic discourse depicts the Gandhi-Nehru family as the sole bastion of dynastic politics - take it out of Indian politics and the phenomenon will be banished forever. This, of course, couldn't be further from the truth as every political party - barring the communists - cultivate political dynasties Dynasticism exists even in democratic nations where it is not necessary, as in constitutional monarchies and countries with reservations for aristocrats. But this does not justify dynasties to become overpowering. Yet, attempts to bar descendants of political families will simply undermine democracy, despite their presence indisputably placing non-dynasts at a disadvantage.The percentage of political dynasts in India is similar to that in nations like Japan. Shinzo Abe, the Japanese prime minister, is heir of an illustrious political family, his maternal grandfather once being prime minister himself and his father having served as foreign minister. Prevalence of dynasts is varied in countries. In the Philippines, a decade ago, half the lawmakers were preceded by a family member. Conversely, Canada is characterised by just a handful of such legislators.Politics is also not the only profession where dynasticism prevails. Despite its global and domestic universality, discussions on Indian political dynasties are trivialised with the objective of shaming only select dynasts. That political dynasties existed from the first Lok Sabha is also blotted out.In the current Lower House, 22% of members are dynasts. Almost 30% of the members of the 15th Lok Sabha followed a family member into the House. Romain Carlevan, a scholar at Hong Kong University, offers indicative data. The BJP accounts for 44.4% of all heirs elected to the Lok Sabha in 2014. It even has a dynast as a minister. So, dynasticism in Indian politics is neither of recent origin nor restricted to a party.Even within the RSS, elite families have enjoyed vantage positions. Sarsanghchalak Mohan Bhagwat's father was senior enough in the Sangh ranks to appear in then-chief minister Narendra Modi's book of profiles of various RSS leaders, Jyotipunj.The BJP conceals its dynasts well and is good at publicising that its top leaders rose from the ranks. But in states and in the party's middle rungs, several dynasties flourish. Quite a few 'emerging' leaders are children of veterans. The purpose is not to list those born with silver spoons in their mouth. But when party bosses do not acknowledge their presence, it can be indicative of double standards.All parties dole out tickets to most dynasts to ensure that the election is not a level playing field. Candidates are not selected for competence or track record alone, but because of familial connections.Note, for instance, the number of seats that pass to widows, progeny or siblings when the 'original' lawmak er dies, even though the former had little to do with politics.Early dynasts were either royals or legatees of the freedom struggle. The former (feudal) rulers transited to democratic politics from constituencies where victory was certain because people continued to see them as Maharaj, Maharani or Yuvraj. Later, dynasts emerged by democratic means even while continuing to behave like neo-royals.Though not matching the national and international profile of the Nehru-Gandhis, these neo-royals across parties are no less powerful in specific regions. Dynasts rise in parties, including the BJP , because politics in India gives 'good returns' and party institutions remain weak. Mid-level leaders frequently establish a patron-client relationship with bosses and there is no quarter for dissidence or debate.In the 15th Lok Sabha, when the trend peaked, almost one-third of Lok Sabha members inherited their positions. Although Carlevan believes that this was "more of an outlier than the rule", nothing prevents a reversal of this 'trend'. Whenever a party is unsure of victory, it opts for every trick in the book, including fielding dynasts who hold an advantage over 'normal' candidates.Dynasties are sustained because they are politically entrenched and secure resources effortlessly. Despite the pre-eminence of the Nehru-Gandhis, the relevance of the Congress in sustaining dynastic politics has declined considerably. So, even as Rahul Gandhi has unsettled the BJP and its allies with his assertion, if he wishes to shed the 'failure' tag, he will need to step outside the comfort zone of his dynastic halo.