India, Nov. 18 -- The first family of the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) was already unravelling after ill-health forced the patriarch, Lalu Prasad, to anoint his younger son, Tejashwi Yadav, as his political heir. This time, after assembly poll results that were disastrous for the RJD, daughter Rohini Acharya went public against her younger brother. This political soap opera is not unique. Every family-run political enterprise in India has undergone this spectacle at some point in its history, the script of which emerges from the structural flaws of these party organisations. The business of politics is like in any family-run enterprise: Transition in the leadership of a political family can be torturous unless talent, drawn from the ranks, is privileged over blood ties. That's been rare in Indian politics. Parties as different as the Congress, DMK, NCP, Shiromani Akali Dal, BSP, and the Mandal outfits (SP, LJP, and now, RJD) have undergone splits and consequently, lost their ideological sheen, and seen their influence shrinking over the transfer of leadership. Most of these parties, born out of mass movements, were usurped by one family and turned into private fiefs. This transformation has worked when the successor developed the skills to negotiate the initial hiccups and reshape the party as per their vision and needs (examples include Indira Gandhi, MK Stalin, and Naveen Patnaik). If the successor could win or retain office, he or she was accepted as leader; others struggled to establish control over the outfit and lost influence. Parties lose their mass movement character when turned into family enterprises, which, in turn, stunts their growth (the Congress and BSP are examples). Meritocracy within a party is not a sufficient condition for a political outfit to flourish (it worked for the BJP but not for communist parties). However, it does enrich the outfit, and democracy....