The problem isn't dynasty in parties - it's dynastic parties

Most dynastic parties are expectedly angry with Prime Minister Narendra Modi for his attack on them in his Independence Day address. Indulging in pointless whataboutery, they are naming a few BJP politicians who have their next generations in the party and pointing out that this is also dynastic politics.
Make no mistake - dynasties in parties is one thing, dynastic parties are another. No party can and should deny entry to a gen-next leader just because he/she belongs to a political family. However the monopolistic control of a particular family on a party, generation after generation, makes it a dynastic party. Dynastically controlled parties can't be equated with families in parties. In BJP, the progeny of party presidents could never even dream of any dynastic succession. Hence, this Opposition whataboutery has no meaning.
The PM's attack on dynastic parties is not without reason. They turn the idea of democracy upside down. Birth-based discrimination being built into the character of dynastic parties, they provide a backdoor entry to something rejected by our Constitution. Secondly, history is a witness to the fact that dynastic parties are more prone to divisions and splits, inviting political instability.
Many political dynasties like the Thackerays in Maharashtra, the Yadavs and Paswans in UP and Bihar, the NTR and YSR families in Andhra, the Chautalas in Haryana and the Badals in Punjab have faced splits in the past. The latest addition to the list is the Sharad Pawar dynasty. One can't deny that when political dynasties break, the impact isn't confined to the family. It influences the politics of the state, and the tremors at times are also felt nationally.
One can't think of a genuine democracy without party competition. Existence of multiple political parties becomes a factor while measuring the health of democracy. Parties are duly recognised as agencies that help in the processes of formation and expression of public opinion. Ideally, parties are supposed to serve as an instrument with which people can assert their enlightened opinion and meaningfully exercise their right to choose.
However, today, barring the BJP, the health of our political parties is far from what is desirable. Many parties are in the habit of splitting again and again, in multiple ways and for multiple reasons. Even after being in the business of democratic politics for several decades, most political parties have failed to graduate into credible and enduring democratic institutions.
The reasons for the fragmentation are not hidden. Dynastic parties like Congress, TDP, YSR Congress, Shiv Sena, Lok Dal, Akali Dal, JMM, NCP and others who have faced either vertical splits or fragmentation were always lacking in ideology. As a consequence, they had no well-knit organisational base, the interpersonal relations of the decision making members were weakened, there was no mutual trust, and above all, there was absolutely no succession plan beyond the dynasty. No wonder, they faced divisions and disintegration when out of power.
Communists, once known for their ideological integrity, have also faced splits. Socialists of varying degrees of ideological purity used to be routinely ridiculed for failing to remain together. However, the difference is that rarely do deserters today convincingly cite ideology as the reason for split. While most dynastic parties have deliberately maintained ideological ambiguity, the fact remains that the majority of them are bereft of any distinct ideological identity.
Dynastic parties try to replace ideology with a commitment to the dynasty. But with no distinct ideology, dynastic parties have lost the ability to offer any credible alternative. Rarely do we see a dynastic political party coming up with a distinctive economic, foreign or even agriculture policy. Again, when political parties are built on an ideological base, idealism too plays a role. Lofty ideals help temper personal ambitions, readying individuals to compromise. The absence of both idealism and ideology finally leads politics to be divorced from purpose. And for politicians without any lofty objectives, changing parties is easy.
Over the years, the organisational character of dynastic parties has evolved into a kind of a mould. This is because often they are run by the head of the dynasty - like their family owned property. Initially, in order to keep the "resources" with the most trusted person and later to keep family control intact, the baton is invariably handed over to the next-gen dynast. Except for the son or daughter, the head of the family/party considers none in the dynasty trustworthy in the succession plan. It's no wonder that siblings or uncles and nephews fail to get along. The logical corollary of this is confrontation and a split.
Party organisations demand loyalty, integrity and commitment, but in a dynasty-controlled party, the dynasty pushes organisation to the periphery. Traditionally, supporters have an emotional investment in parties close to their heart. But when party organisations are built around a particular dynasty, splits in the dynasty destroy such an investment. As compared to ideology/idealism-centric parties, the leading teams of dynastic parties face huge threats because of not-so-healthy interpersonal relations.
Sycophancy, mutual suspicion, cut-throat competition and personal enmity are inherent to most such parties. Understandably, leaders in dynastic parties feel perennially threatened.
Since dynasty breeds dynasty, splits in dynastic and non-ideological parties impact the very grain of democracy. This makes all dynastic parties look quite similar. These increasing similarities in the look and feel of political parties eventually lead to denial of choice to the voters, adversely impacting the level of popular participation in elections. All this explains how splits in parties present three kinds of crises: Of ideology, organisation and, almost as a result, in the ability to deliver on promises.