In the study of power, we talk about two opposite phenomena, the two-party system or

multi-party system on one hand and one-party system on another. The principle applied in
the two opposite phenomena is the ‘choice between alternatives. The two-party system
provides this choice so does the multi-party system though in a complicated way whereas
one party system does not provide this choice. The availability of multiple parties and
freedom to form gives an impression of similarity as well as common heritage between India
and West but there are two noted differences at the outset. The choice between
alternatives and subsidiary role of party organisation were not prevalent during one party
dominance in India. The study of the ‘one- party dominance’ in India would be divided into
five parts:
A) Features of the dominance of one party in India
B) Development of the ‘Congress’ system in India
C) Achievements of the Congress
D) The Rise of New Avatar of One-Party Dominance
E) The newness of the BJP party

Features of One-Party Dominance in India

The phrase ‘one party dominance’ was originally fashioned by the notable political analyst
Rajni Kothari, to capture a peculiar phenomenon of Indian electoral process, and of the
Congress party in particular. In 1920, Kothari wrote that the Indian party system neither
approximates to the two party or the multi-party model nor to the one-party model in other
countries. However, he rescued Indian one-party system from negative connotations
attached to the one-party system in other countries, say, Ghana.
It was a competitive party system where the competing parts play rather dissimilar roles. It
consists of a party of consensus and a party of pressure. Inside the margin were various
factions within the party of consensus and the margin of pressure consisted of various
opposition groups, dissidents, interest groups and other important individuals. These
opposition groups did not act as alternatives to the ruling parties but they constantly
pressurize, censure, and criticize the ruling party and, above all, it exerted a latent threat
that the if the ruling party strays away too far to balance the public opinion they would be
displaced by these opposition groups. Both these factors, the in-built corrective through
factionalism- which was presumably the only legitimate factor and the operation of the
latency factor were the necessary features of one-party dominant system in India.
The Congress was an umbrella party; coalition of interest groups that often opposed each
other within the party. Party decisions were therefore the outcome of a compromise
between different and incommensurate views, forged through intricate processes of
mediation and arbitration (through conciliations machineries like AICC, PCC and CPP) within
the party. Interestingly, the opposition was there within the party, even if it was not present
in the parliament in a large number, hence, sustains internal competition. Also, what is
important is that the final decision arrives at consensus. Therefore, the ‘congress’ system
concentrated strength within the dominant party and then builds internal checks to limit the
use of its strength. Thus, it was a democratic and consensual dominant party.
Development of the ‘Congress System’ in India
The congress took roots and attain political power not as a political party but as a
movement for freedom and reform. Established in 1885, it passed through various
intellectual agitations, during which its goals were acquired. It transformed during 1920s
and 1930s as mass movement with depth and tradition. Comprising of various interest and
section of the society, it acquired a stamp of legitimacy and started to represent what we
call as HISTORICAL CONSENSUS.
The congress from the very starting was committed to a democratic ideology. The freedom
of expression and toleration for opposition were cardinal principles of its movement. This
ensured the competitive and democratic intellectual climate in which India’s party system
was developed, setting it apart from the other models of ‘one party system’ prevalent in
other countries. The historical reasons were necessary but not sufficient for an effective
system, so there were some peculiar environmental conditions which set it as an unrivalled
party.
The congress, when it attained power, provides a positive and overwhelming role to the
government for the development of the society. Second, it considered the central authority
an actual need for the survival of the nation. The power was not consolidated but
augmented. Third, it poses legitimacy as its cardinal principle and give the government and
the ruling party a symbolic value. ‘Only the congress can be trusted’. Thus, the congress was
the consensus party. Fourth, it made for a concentration of the resources, a monopoly of
patronage and control over the economic power which crystallised the structure of its
power and made competition with it a difficult proposition. Fifth, by adopting competitive
model of development, it made mobilisation and public cooperation a function of public
participation. Only the congress with its huge organisational legacy, its leadership and
system of patronage could provide such a framework of participation.

Achievements of the congress party

The position of the Congress has further cemented the policy of neutralizing more
important sources of cleavage and disaffection. Thus, the abolition of feudalism, linguistic
reorganisation of states, the energetic infiltration of congressmen of labour union coupled
with protective legislation, the removal of the gross social inequalities and suppression of all
acts of violence, secession, and confrontation- has succeeded in the neutralization of the
potential sources of political disaffection. This shows the congress’s drive for legitimacy on
one hand and modernization on the other.
The impressive consolidation of the power in the hands of congress had not led to
authoritarianism because of the free electoral process, crystallisation of the factional system
within the party of consensus, to avoid undue strife, the democratic ideology of its
leadership, respect for the rule of law and pressure from the opposition parties for
preserving unity of the nation. Indeed, the congress was very sensitive on the question of
the accommodation of the minorities.
Faltering of the congress and rise of the BJP
In the two decades after independence, the assertions of the subaltern classes were
controlled and mediated by the powerful ‘’big men’’, who owned labour, land and
resources. Symptomatic of this arrangement was the dependency on the state leaders by
the national leaders on the contentious issue of their own region, for instance, the
formation of the linguistic states.
The institutionalisation of the democracy results in unforeseen results. India was not an
exception. In the 1960s and 1970s the ‘’congress’’ system was imploded. In the 1967
elections, many sections of the parties broke away, from their regional parties, competed in
the state election and won. More seriously, in the 1970s during the charismatic leader of
Indira Gandhi, the party was totally atrophied organizationally. The federal-like decisions of
the party yielded to centralised decisions under Indira Gandhi. The party was under the
band of courtiers.
In the 1980s, two events of considerable magnitude changed the party system in India, as
new agendas filled the space vacated by Congress. The BJP at that was more or less a
marginal party, whip up political passion for building Lord Rama Temple, one the gods of
Pantheon in the space vacated by the demolition of Babri Masjid. Implicit was a communal
agenda. Second, interestingly, the BJP’s ideology of majoritarianism and anti-minorityism
was rent apart by the caste-based parties. However, they lost, except the Paswan-led party,
to the BJP in 2014 election due to their sheer impatience with narrow agendas.
The congress party paid heavily because if the organisational degeneration of the party and
its complete dependency upon the Nehru Gandhi family. Both of these factors led to the
discretion of the congress in the 2014 elections. Indeed, much as he tried, Rahul Gandhi
neither rebuilt the party and nor a worthy rival to Mr. Modi.
With the 2014 election the BJP had become the pan- India party, with representatives
winning from Kanyakumari to the southernmost tip to AP in the North- East and in the state
of J&K in North-west. So, what does the mandate represent?
Mr. Modi’s pro-development and pro-economic growth stance, his emphasis on results,
and his personal incorruptibility persuaded many that he was the solution for India.
Secondly, unlike caste-based parties with narrow agendas, the BJP appealed to the most
marginalised and the most backward and promised rewards to them. More importantly the
party’s agenda fitted with rising aspirations of the middle class in the lower castes. Third,
Mr. Modi exploited to the hilt the inefficiencies and the corruption (2G scam and Anna
Hazare’s fast in Delhi 2010) of the previous government. Finally, the vision of a new India
and a new social compact caught the attention of the one million globalised born after Dr.
Manmohan Singh introduced economic reforms in 1991 (the vote share of the youth
population was 5% higher than among the general population) and many other promises
like cleaning of the sacred rivers, bullet trains etc. attracted the Indian population.
The wheel has turned full circle, a one-party dominance at the national level with fractured
opposition once again ruled India, but in a new avatar.

The Newness of the BJP

The second avatar of the dominant party was, however, radically different from Congress,
which offered something to everyone and lapsed into populism on predictable issues,
notably elections. By contrast, the strength of BJP lies in the disciplined, oriented and cadre-
based formation, the RSS. This dominant party is not like the Congress in its heyday; a
loosely knit-coalition of many sections of society bargaining with each other within the
party. Not all members of the BJP belong to RSS but the latter influences it.
Therefore, the BJP unlike the Congress is a cadre-based party, toward a qualitative
approach, and subscribes to a distinct ideology. Also, it is headed by the powerful figure
Prime Minister Narendra Modi, whose personality looms larger than its party and his fellow
members.

Conclusion
The congress dominance provides comprehensive mechanism of change with the help of
factions, a system of conflict articulation and resolution through the operation of inside and
outside margin groups, and setting a communication between the party and community.
Indeed, there were several problems too but rather worked so well. On the other hand, the
BJP as a cadre-based party and new reforms along with personality of Narendra Modi led to
qualitive changes in the country in the future.