The writer is a Rajya Sabha MP and a former railway minister.

It was the early 1990s. I was travelling by the MP shuttle bus service from Parliament to my residence when Viren Shah, then a BJP Rajya Sabha member and subsequently a governor of West Bengal , introduced me to a young parliamentarian as one of the most hard working, articulate and promising new MPs hailing from a very humble background.This MP was none other than Pramod Mahajan who had neither a political godfather nor a family name to rely on. It's a different story that by the time he passed away he had plenty of resources, money and arrogance. But whether one liked him or not, he was a 'Young Turk' instrumental in shaping not only the BJP but also the destiny of the country as an able aide of then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee.I was also in the category of young MPs in the Rajya Sabha of the 1990s. I was about 39 when the 'young brigade' comprised the BJP's Sushma Swaraj , the CPM's Mohammed Salim , former Congress member S S Ahluwalia, Narayana Swamy and a bunch of others.Most MPs contributed in their own way to every form of debate in the House with passion, dedication and knowledge. A walkout of the House by even a single member would make big news, and if an entire party protested by storming out for any reason, it would become the following day's banner headline in most newspapers.Today, on the other hand, the functioning of Parliament becomes front-page news and non-functioning a routine. The striking difference between the parliamentarians of the past and today's baba logs is that very few of them were politicians by hereditary right, yet they all contributed immensely to Indian politics.India's freedom struggle saw many young soldiers — unknown and unsung heroes — who were followers of Shahid Bhagat Singh , Raj Guru, Khudiram Bose, Shahnawaz Khan and others, who had only one goal — a free India. Seve-ral Constituent Assembly members who were part of this cate-gory brought with them a collective vision. None flaunted their family names or had powerful political families promoting them.And yet today when India's biggest advantage is its youth and the Lok Sabha is constituted by a large number of young and educated MPs, a unique feature of the House is that quite a large number of members have entered Parliament because of their family connections. As much as 70% of all women members in the Upper and Lower House have politically influential family members.An analysis of Parliament's demographics reveals a linear relationship between age and hereditary occupation of parliamentary seats. The younger the MPs the higher the likelihood they have entered the hallowed portals through family routes. All MPs under the age of 30 have assumed the mantle of a parent or a relative.The Congress's Nilesh Rane, representing Ratnagiri-Sindhudurg in Maharashtra, the Rashtriya Lok Dal 's Sarika Singh from Hathras in UP, the NCP's Agatha Sangma from Tura in Meghalaya, the BJP's Varun Gandhi who represents Pilibhit in UP and Cong-ress's Mausam Noor from North Malda are some of the under-30 parliamentarians who have filled two-thirds of the seats vacated by one family member or another.Today, 27 MPs have more than one generation who is involved in politics. Of these, 19 are in the Congress. The average age of hereditary parliamentarians is 48 while it is 58 for those who have no claim to any political family background. Nine out of 10 Congress MPs below the age of 30 are appendages of dynastic politics. All five RLD MPs, seven of nine belonging to the NCP, two of four from the Akali Dal and two of three from the National Conference entered politics because of family connections.Unlike their forerunners, the new kids on the block refuse to venture out of their comfort zones, happy with their latest SUVs, designer outfits and branded watches. Most of the MPs in the 1990s did not hesitate to use the regular minibus provided by Parliament; sprawling, luxurious cars in Parliament's parking lot were a rare sight. But today, BMWs, Mercedes, Audis and the odd Rolls Royce crowd the parking bays. Time was when Parliament not only functioned, but was relevant; today, it has lost its relevance. It seems that we have lost touch with the country's ethos and the values for which our freedom fighters martyred themselves.Back in the late 1940s, every member of the Constituent Assembly was capable of leading the country. But compare the founding fathers with today's Parliament where perhaps none has what it takes to be a statesman and inspire a nation. Jawaharlal Nehru rarely left the capital when Parliament would be in session, attending every question hour, all major debates besides encouraging members, irrespective of their party affili-ations, to take wholesome part in those lively discussions.Tolerance, debate, institutional development and respect for each other are the hallmarks of a parliamentary democracy. Without these pillars, a country cannot be called a functional democracy. The polity today is marked by a huge disconnect between the talented youth outside Parliament who have done India proud in every field — sport, the arts, music and education — and the young MPs within whose contribution to nation-building has so far been negligible.