NAME : ANSHIKA ANAND
ROLL NO. : 232813
SUBJECT : POLITICAL PROCESS IN INDIA
COURSE : B A (H) POLITICAL SCIENCE
SUBMITTED TO : PANKAJ SIR
SIGNATURE
QUESTION: Critically analyse one party dominance (Congress) system
and BJP dominance (second party) system and where the Indian political
system is heading towards?
ANSWER: India’s party system has moved from a Congress-led one-party
dominance after Independence to a BJP-led second dominant party system
since 2014, but the logic of dominance and its risks has fundamentally
changed between a pluralist “party of consensus” model and a majoritarian
“party of choice” model centered on ideology and leadership consolidation
.India's political trajectory has witnessed a remarkable transformation from
the Congress-dominated system of the 1950s-60s to the emerging BJP
dominance of the [Link] core shift is from factional inclusion inside
the dominant party to ideological consolidation in the electorate.
What is one-party dominance?
One-party dominance in India is not a one-party state, it is a competitive
system where one party becomes the “party of consensus,” and others
act as “parties of pressure” that shape the agenda without routinely
displacing the dominant party in power nationally . Rajni Kothari distilled
this with unusual clarity: the system “consists of a party of consensus and
parties of pressure,” with internal factions inside the dominant party
supplying built-in competition and an outer “margin of pressure” that
preserves democratic responsiveness without frequent alternation at the
center being the measure of democracy . The words like consensus,
factions, pressure more and less defined the Congress era whereas the
BJP era has redefined these same levers around ideology, organizational
muscle, and leader-centric mobilization.
Nehru's contribution was not to start a revolution but to "have given rise to
a consensus" and provided the country's institutions with "sufficient time to
strike roots". However, Nehru also weakened the party by "concentrating
power in his own hands" at the national level while allowing the party
organization to flourish at state and local levels.
KEY FEATURES OF CONGRESS DOMINANCE
↓
┌────────────┬────────────┬────────────┬─────
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
↓
Factional Consensus Absorptive Legitimacy Resource
Democracy Building Nature Monopoly Control
The Congress system: an umbrella that folded differences into itself that
could absorb dissent
The historical Congress system was constructed on three durable pillars.
These are historical legitimacy, factional pluralism, and absorptive capacity.
First, legitimacy: the Congress, a movement-turned-party, embodied a
“historical consensus,” standing in for the national mainstream after 1947
independence and transmitting the ethos of the freedom struggle into
electoral legitimacy and state-building . Second, factional pluralism:
competition was “internalized” that means vertical faction chains linked
local elites to state bosses and national leadership such that leadership
turnover and interest mediation happened inside the party rather than
through national alternation, keeping the system plural even while
Congress kept power. Third, absorption: the party repeatedly co-opted new
groups and leaders turning external agitation into internal bargaining so
that opposition parties mostly functioned as “parties of pressure,” not as
ready governments-in-waiting.
Nehru’s role was both principled and paradoxical. He “gave rise to a
consensus,strengthened institutions and minority protections, and invested
in parliamentary culture, even as national power centralized around his
authority, the balance stabilized the system but left organizational renewal
to be rediscovered later through party reforms like the Kamaraj Plan .
Kothari stressed that dominance in India remained democratic
because consent, committee scrutiny, and that “margin of pressure”
kept the system open still it was nothing like authoritarian one-party
rule. Yet the system’s strength and so many voices inside one umbrella
also became a vulnerability when absorptive capacity thinned, resources
stretched, and state-level chieftains detached from it. The “thermostat” of
factionalism worked until it didn’t, and the party’s ideological breadth
sometimes blurred programmatic clarity once the founding leadership
exited.
The New BJP Dominance System (2014-Present) :
Pradeep Chhibber and Rahul Verma argue that 2014 inaugurated India’s
fourth party system, consolidated in 2019, with the BJP as the national
pivot and Congress reduced to a much smaller partisan anchor, while many
regional parties lost their hold in key states. The core engine is ideological:
the BJP, they write, “may have successfully created a consensus
around the concept of political majoritarianism,” which reframes
recognition politics as minority appeasement and asserts a universalist
equality within a majority-coded national ethos “development of all,
appeasement of none”.
Importantly, they show that political majoritarianism is “delinked from
religious Hindu nationalism” as measured religiosity; it operates as a
broader political common sense around who the nation’s “we” is, enabling
the party’s reach into new social segments beyond its old core.
The party's electoral performance demonstrates clear dominance:
● 2014: 282 seats, 31% vote share
● 2019: 303 seats, 37.4% vote share
● Vote share in contested seats increased from 39.6% to 46.1%
● Won 70% of seats contested in 2019.
The data reveals the BJP's expanding electoral footprint and deepening support base.
Particularly significant is the party's penetration into rural India - from
winning "one in every three rural seats it contested" in 2014 to "every
second rural seat" in 2019.
Social Coalition Transformation:
The BJP has undergone a dramatic social transformation, moving from an
upper-caste, urban party to one that "mirrors the demographic profile of the
Hindu society". The party made substantial gains among:
● Lower castes (OBCs, SCs, STs)
● Poor households
● Rural voters Less educated populations
● Women voters (closing the gender gap)
● Younger demographics
As the analysis shows, "the newer voter for the BJP is more likely
to be from the lower castes, is rural, less educated, and
younger".
This represents a complete "make-over of the party's social base"
over the past two decades.
Organizational and Strategic Advantages Behind BJP’s Dominance
The BJP’s sustained political dominance rests on a blend of structural
strength, charismatic leadership, and strategic adaptability.
1. Modi’s Leadership and Charisma:
The 2019 general election resembled a referendum on Narendra
Modi. His image of decisive, nationalist leadership created a TINA
(There Is No Alternative) effect. The campaign’s presidential style
transformed the BJP into a leader-centered movement, enhancing
personal trust and emotional appeal among voters.
2. Organizational Machinery:
The BJP operates as a “well-oiled machine”, reaching down to the
panna pramukh level. Its disciplined cadre, robust financial network,
and mastery of social media ensure deep voter contact. This
organizational spread expanded the party’s influence even in newer
regions like the East and Northeast.
3. National Security Narrative:
Post–Pulwama and Balakot, the BJP successfully “owned” the issue
of national security. Its campaign emphasized strength and national
pride, resonating with voters’ growing preference for strong
leadership, and momentarily shifting focus from economic
development (vikas) to security and patriotism.
4. Welfare Politics and Household Connection:
Flagship welfare schemes such as Ujjwala, Swachh Bharat, PM
Awas, Ayushman Bharat, Jan Dhan, and PM-Kisan built a direct
connection between the household and the party. Through Direct
Benefit Transfers and visible service delivery, citizens increasingly
credited the Centre and by extension, the BJP for tangible
improvements in daily life.
5. Organization Above All:
The BJP’s guiding strength lies in prioritizing organization over
everything. Its capacity to combine ideology, communication, and
management into a unified structure gives it continuity and resilience
that extend beyond electoral cycles.
Congress vs BJP Hegemony: A Simplistic Critical Appraisal :
What's the same -
There remains one large party which still calls the tune at the national level,
and a fractured opposition largely prods from the sidelines. Each period
also invents its own "normal" politics language and earlier it used to be
inclusive-plural while today it is majority-first and anti-appeasement.
What's different -
● Core concept: Congress relied on inclusion and compromise,
whereas BJP relies on majority-driven fairness and resists
"appeasement." This moves common sense in the direction of a
stronger majority perspective and alters how individuals evaluate
policy and politicians.
● How battles ensue: Congress contained battles within the party via
factions (an inbuilt safety valve). BJP operates a tighter, top-down
boat with less visible splits—but also less internal constraint.
● Who is supporting whom: Congress held minorities in firm inside a
sweeping [Link] Congress more has a secular orientation but
BJP now covers the Hindu social range—OBC, SC, ST, rural, poorer,
younger, more women while taking in little from minorities. That
provides BJP a solid foundation, but is constrained in
minority-concentrated seats.
● Party vs government: Congress repeatedly rebalanced power by
making party committees and managers (such as the Kamaraj Plan
provided by K. Kamraj). BJP depends more upon a robust national
command, incisive messaging, and a movement network providing
cadres and cohesion, which dissolves distinctions between party,
movement, and state.
Strengths and dangers-
Congress strengths: Trust and legitimacy over time, representative feel,
committee culture, and minorities' comfort.
Risks: Gradually, the Congress system lost steam with slower
decision-making, an over-concentration of power at the top, deterioration in
organizational structure at lower levels, and the disintegration of its earlier
successful "absorb-and-adjust" model in an ever-changing society.
BJP strengths: clear direction, large winning margins, well-organized
throughout states, and a wide Hindu coalition.
Risks: Challenges faced by the BJP are dependence on central leadership,
lack of interaction with minority groups, the need to sustain a majoritarian
discourse in addition to welfare delivery, and pushback from regional or
caste-based politics opposed to a uniform national agenda.
What keeps it healthy for democracy ?
Kothari’s rule of thumb still works: keep a genuine “margin of pressure”
space for opposition, real committee scrutiny, and some inner-party debate
so power listens between elections. Today, use this test to think about it:
can a strong majority mindset still protect minorities as equal citizens and
respect federal diversity without conditions? If yes, dominance stays
democratic. If not, it turns brittle.
Bottom line-
Congress held India together by taking differences within one tent and it
slowed when the umbrella could no longer stretch. BJP races ahead by
uniting a broad Hindu base under a defensible no-appeasement concept
yet it has to provide space for dissent and minorities so speed does not
turn into strain. The practical remedy is easy: more robust committees,
truthful oversight, some room within the party, and welfare that appears
equitable to all—so pressure has elbow room and power has equilibrium.
Where India’s Politics Is Headed: A Snapshot
India’s current political order resembles a “second dominant party
system”, with the BJP’s broad Hindu coalition, strong rural outreach, and
disciplined party organization giving it an edge beyond a single election. In
2019, the BJP won 303 seats with 37.4% of the national vote and 224
seats with over 50% votes in contested constituencies, showing depth as
well as spread. However, dominance today is more conditional than in the
Congress era; voters have shown the ability to moderate excesses and
reward coalition-building at the regional level.
The opposition, particularly the INDIA alliance, demonstrated its
strength in 2024, winning roughly 232 seats collectively. Congress surged
to 99 and SP to 37 in Uttar Pradesh, illustrating that early, locally grounded
seat-sharing can check BJP dominance. Meanwhile, the North–South
split remains clear: BJP lost ground in parts of the Hindi belt but gained
slightly in Kerala and Telangana, while southern strongholds like Tamil
Nadu remained outside its reach, highlighting the importance of regional
allies.
Regional and coalition parties regained leverage, with TMC in West
Bengal, DMK in Tamil Nadu, and JD(U)/TDP at the Centre, forcing the BJP
to negotiate portfolios and policies. States like Uttar Pradesh (SP 37,
Congress 6, BJP 33), Maharashtra, and West Bengal prevented a clean
single-party sweep, reflecting growing regional influence.
Technology, social media, and welfare delivery continue to strengthen
BJP’s reach, but voter expectations on jobs, inflation, and services will
shape outcomes in the next decade. India is likely to see a BJP-led Centre
with coalition constraints, strong state-level alternation, and a contest
over the political middle, rather than a sudden regime change.
I read somewhere that "India didn't develop due to its policies, India
developed in spite of them."
That sentence encapsulates our politics as well. Under the Congress
period's big tent and the BJP period's center-right, change continued to
emanate from citizens shoving systems to perform better through various
ways such as elections, courts, committees, and stubborn resolve to make
life better. The path forward must live up to that spirit: a robust government
that continues to hear, robust states that continue to negotiate, parties that
continue to contest, and welfare that extends without discrimination. If
policy is to learn from citizens and not the reverse progress will at last taste
like fairness, rather than chance.
WORD COUNT : 2070 words
References :
Kothari’s - “Congress System in India”
Pradeep Chibber and Rahul Verma - “The rise of BJP”
Quora
Journal of democracy article - “Is India’s Democracy dying?”