The Congress 'System' in India

Author(s): Rajni Kothari

Source: Asian Survey, Vol. 4, No. 12 (Dec., 1964), pp. 1161-1173
Published by: University of California Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2642550
Accessed: 29/11/2010 11:22
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of California Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Asian
Survey.

http://www.jstor.org

THE CONGRESS 'SYSTEM' IN INDIA

RAJNIKOTHARI

In the studyof partysystems,attentionhas so farbeen given

to two oppositephenomena,the two partyor multi-party
systemon the
one hand and the "one partysystem"on the other.Until quite recently,
discussionin thisfieldhas been dominatedby a dichotomous(or trichotomous) divisionon theselines,the principalcriterionemployedbeingthe
availabilityof choicebetweenalternatives.
The two-party
systemprovides
such a choice,and so does themulti-party
systemthoughin a morecomplicatedmanner;1theone partysystemdoes notprovidethischoice.That,
at any rate,is therationalization
behindthewidelyprevalenttypologyof
partysystems.To be sure,thereis of late an attemptto lookmoreclosely
at theprecisefunctioning
of the variouspartysystems,especiallyin some
of the new nationsof Africa.There are also attemptsat a "behavioural
analysis"of the Americanand Britishpartysystems.2
These studiesare
givingrise to new ways of lookingat partyphenomenaand have made
scholarsawareof theshortcomings
of thepresenttypology.
is goingon,it mightbe usefultolookat theIndian
Whilesucha discussion
experience
withpoliticalparties,whichis one of themostsuccessfulparty
systemsin operationand yetis a systemthatcutsacrosstheusual stereotypesand also callsintoquestiontheverycriterion
ofpoliticalperformance
usuallyemployedin theanalysisof partysystems.That it is the function
of politicsto offer
choicebetweenalternativesetsof policiesand personnel
mayindeedbe a grossoversimplification
of politicalphenomena.Politicsis
notalwaysreducibleto whogetswhat,whenand how.We do not,however,
intendto go intothesemorefundamental
questionsin thispaper.In what
* This articleis a condensed
formof a chapterin the author'sforthcoming
book
Politicsin India to be published
by Little,Brownand Co. In writing
it I havedrawn
fromthediscussions
I havehad withBashirAhmed,HenryHart,GopalKrishna
freely
and Ramashray
Roy at theCentrefortheStudyof DevelopingSocieties,
New Delhi.
I am grateful
to each of them.I am further
to BashirAhmedforreading
grateful
and makingvaluablesuggestions
thedraftmanuscript
through
and criticisms.
1 Neumann has introducedother distinctionsto differentiate
the multi-partysystem
as it operateson the Continentin Europe. He distinguishes
betweenthe partyof action
and the party of platform,dependingupon the degree of proximityto power. To this
he adds a furtherdistinctionbetweenthe partyof programand the partyof personages,
broadly approximatingto the distinctionbetween institutionaland personal government. See Sigmund Neumann (ed.), Modern Political Parties, Chicago: Chicago UniversityPress,1956.
2 Samuel J. Eldersveld,Party System: A Behavorial Analysis,Rand McNally, 1964.
R. Rose, "Parties,Factions and Tendenciesin Britain,"Political Studies,Vol. 12, No. 1,
February 1964.

1161

1162

THE CONGRESS

'SYSTEM'

IN INDIA

in
follows,we tryto describethe partysystemas it has been functioning
India.
to formparties
Whiletheavailabilityofmultiplepartiesand thefreedom
of similarity
betweenIndia and the West,and while
gives an impression
as wellas an elementofcommonheritage,
thereactuallyaresomesimilarities
mustbe notedat theoutset.In thefirstplace,the"Western"
twodifferences
model posits a criterionof alternationor replacement-theideal of a
"choicebetweenalternatives"and the assumptionthatthe choiceis exercised in thatmanner-whichis not the criticalfactorin the workingof
thepartysystemin India. Secondly,thewesternsystemimpliesa relationin whichthelatter
and thepartyorganization
shipbetweenthegovernment
and subsidiaryrolewhichis nottrueofIndia.3
playsan instrumental
The Indiansystemcan be describedas a systemof one partydominance
fromwhatis generallyknownas
(which,it maybe noted,is verydifferent
a one partysystem).It is a competitive
partysystembut one in whichthe
competing
partsplay ratherdissimilarroles.It consistsof a partyof consensus and partiesof pressure.The latterfunctionon the marginand,
in this
indeed,the conceptof a marginof pressureis of greatimportance
system.Insidethemarginare variousfactionswithinthepartyofconsensus.
Outside the marginare several oppositiongroupsand parties,dissident
groupsfromtherulingparty,and otherinterestgroupsand important
indito
viduals.These groupsoutsidethemargindo not constitutealternatives
the rulingparty.Their role is to constantlypressurize,criticize,censure
it by influencing
and influence
insidethemarginand,
opinionand interests
above all, exerta latentthreatthatif therulinggroupstraysaway too far
fromthe balance of effective
public opinion,and if the factionalsystem
withinit is not mobilizedto restorethe balance,it will be displacedfrom
powerby the oppositiongroups.Both the ideas of an in-builtcorrective
withintherulingparty,and theidea ofa latentthreat
factionalism
through
fromoutsidethe marginof pressureare necessarypartsof the one party
dominancesystem.It is an assumptionof the systemthat the partyof
of power,
consensus,whichis presumablythe only legitimateinstrument
and demands,buta safeguardis noneis sensitive
enoughto publicpressures
thelessprovidedthroughtheoperationof thelatencyfactor,so thatthere
is always available an identifiable
groupor groupswhichcan be called
of competition
and externalcontrol,if the
intoactionforthepreservation
normalmechanismprovidedby competingeliteswithinthe partyfailsto
of the entiresystemdependson the sensitivity
respond.The sensitivity
of
and generalresponsiveness
the marginof pressure,its flexibility
beinga
functionof the elbow roomit providesto factions,dissidentgroupsand
opposition
partiesin themakingof criticalchoicesand decisions.
It is the consensussystemwhichoperatesthroughthe institution
of a
3 Robert Mckenzie has popularized this formula. See his British Political Parties,
Second Edition (London: Heineman,1963).

RAJNI

KOTHARI

1163

partyof consensusthatis of centralimportance

in thisschemeof politics.
In India, theCongress,whichis thepartyof consensus,functions
through
an elaboratenetworkof factionswhichprovidesthe chief competitive
mechanismof the Indian system.We have consideredelsewherein some
detail the main featuresof the factionalsystemand the functions
it performs.4
We have showntherehowpoliticalchangetakesplace at each level
in thissystem,and how in the processnot onlynew mencome to power
but new kindsof men,bringing
withthemnew attitudesand orientations
to power,and newstatesofideologyand issuearticulation.
We can briefly
recapitulatethe arguments
here.In 1947, the Congress,whichfunctioned
as a broad-basednationalistmovementbeforeindependence,
transformed
itselfinto the dominantpoliticalpartyof the nation.Althougha number
of oppositionpartiescame intoexistence,it was recognizedthatthe Congresswas thechiefparty,representing
a historicalconsensusand enjoying
a continuing
basis of supportand trust.Underthecircumstances,
political
was internalizedand carriedon withinthe Congress.There
competition
developedan elaboratesystemof factionsat everylevel of politicaland
governmental
activity,and a systemof coordination
betweenthe various
levelsthrough
vertical"factionchains."5Originating
on the basis of individual competition
betweenleaders,thesefactionswerethenbuiltaround
a functional
networkconsisting
of varioussocial groupsand leader-client
relationships.
In theprocess,a systemof patronagewas workedout in the
countryside,
traditional
institutions
of kin and caste weregraduallydrawn
and involved,and a structure
ofpressuresand compromises
was developed.
These were mediatedthroughtwo new tiersof politicalorganization,
a
managerialclass of politiciansoccupyingcriticalorganizationalpositions
in the Stateand the DistrictCongresses,and a class of "linkmen" in the
field6 throughwhomtheyoperated.It was in the courseof the working
of this systemthat politicalcompetitionwas intensified,
changes took
place,newcadresofleadershipdrawnfroma morediffuse
socialbasis came
to power,and an intricatestructure
of conflict,
mediation,bargainingand
consensuswas developedwithintheframework
of theCongress.
The systemgotaggregated
at the State levelwhereindividualswho had
risen to power in the Congressorganizationsometimesconstitutedthe
chief oppositionto the government,
providedan alternativeleadership,
4 Rajni Kothari,"Party System,"The Economic Weekly,June3, 1961; Rajni Kothari,
"India's Political Take-Off,"The Economic Weekly,Special Number, July, 1962; also
see Myron Weiner, "Political Leadership in West Bengal," The Economic Weekly,
Special Number, July 1962; and W. H. Morris-Jones,"India's Political Idioms," in
C. H. Phillips (ed.), Politics and Society in India (London: George Allen & Unwin
Ltd., 1963).
5 Rajni Kothari and Ghanshyam Shah, "Caste Orientationof Political Factions:
Modasa Constituency-A Case Study," The Economic Weekly,Special Number (July,
1963).
6 F. G. Bailey, Politics and Social Change (Berkeley: Universityof CaliforniaPress,
1963). Bailey uses the term"brokers"to describethese men.

1164

THE CONGRESS

'SYSTEM'

IN INDIA

it
exercisedcontrolsand pressureson it, and in manyinstancesoverthrew
frompowerand replacedit.7In thisprocess,electionsin the organization
role,but also the generalelections,and the selection
played an important
of partycandidatesforthegeneralelections.Finally,thesystemof mediain theCongress8
coordination
as wellas an inter-level
tionand arbitration
of thecentralleadershipin the factionalstrucensuredactiveinvolvement
startingsometimebeforeMr. Nehru'sdeath,we find
ture.More recently,
theactivizationof the
theoperationof thesamesystemat thetop,through
centralexecutiveof theparty,and the latter'sfirmand successfulmediaof governmental
successionafterNehru.9The
tion in the determination
at all
of thepartyorganization
upshotof all thisis thecriticalimportance
and the govbetweenthe organization
relationship
levels,thecompetitive
and betweenthefactionswithineach of them.
ernment,
Thereis plurality
sucha partysystemdisplaystwofeatures.
Structurally,
provides
withinthe dominantpartywhichmakes it morerepresentative,
At the same time,it is preand sustainsinternalcompetition.
flexibility,
pared to absorbgroupsand movementsfromoutsidethe partyand thus
7 The pattern of replacementof the governmentleaders by leaders controllingthe
party organizationin the State began in Madras when Mr. C. Rajagopalachari was
replaced as Chief Ministerby Mr. Kamaraj, the State CongressPresident,in 1953. In
U5.P. Mr. C. B. Gupta firstacquired controlof the P.C.C. and then managed to win
over supportof a majorityof the membersin the LegislatureParty and broughtabout
the fall of Chief MinisterSampurnaanandin 1961, much against the wishes of Prime
MinisterNehru. The Orissa Chief Minister HarekrushnaMahatab was similarlyreplaced by Mr. Bijoyanand Patnaik in 1962, when the latter as Chief of the P.C.C.
virtuallyorganizedan agitationagainst the Congress-GantantracoalitionMinistrythat
the formerwas heading and forced the central leadershipto intervenein his favor.
Likewise in Gujarat and Mysore the leaders who had gained control of the P.C.C.s
took over as ChiefMinistersin 1963.
8 The Central leadershiphas been able to play a considerablerole in the rivalries
as the Central
between Congressfactionsin the States throughsuch instrumentalities
ParliamentaryBoard, the sub-Committeesin the Working Committee that are appointed fromtime to time to look afterthe affairsof P.C.C.s where the conflictsare
acute, and throughthe systemof the "observer"appointed to supervise,on its behalf,
the organizationalelections in the States. Possessing vast powers, rangingfrom the
of the eligibilityof primarymembersto vote to the conduct of the poll
determination
the "observers"have been able to help one or the
for electionof P.C.C. office-bearers,
otherfactionto gain controlof the organizationat the State level. The High Commland
itselfhas in a few cases been able to tilt the balance one way or the other,or bring
about a rapprochementbetween rival factionsthroughdirectintervention,usually at
the requestof local groups.
9Mr. Kamaraj as Congress Presidentplayed an importantrole in the selectionof
the successorto Mr. Nehru. With Lal Bahadur Shastri,Morarji Desai and Jagjivan
Ram in the field the task of determiningthe degree of support each enjoyed among
the M.P.s, State Chief Ministersand P.C.C. Chiefs was entrustedto Mr. Kamaraj.
Aftermeetingthemall informallyhe conveyedto the ParliamentaryParty, over whose
meetinghe was requestedto preside,his findingthat Mr. Shastri enjoyed the support
of the majorityamong the M.P.s and among the other elementsin the party. The
ParliamentaryParty accepted this findingand elected Mr. Shastri as its leader by a
unanimousvote.

RAJNI

KOTHARI

1165

It is a systemthatconcenpreventotherpartiesfromgainingin strength.
withinthedominantpartyand thenbuildsinternalchecks
tratesstrength
In thiswaythepartyrepresenting
a historito limittheuse ofthisstrength.
cal consensusalso continuesto representthe presentconsensus.This ensures the legitimacyof the systemand of the institutionalframework
underwhichit operates.
The role of the Oppositionin such a partysystemhas alreadybeen
discussed.By posinga constantthreat,it ensuresthe mobilityand lifeof
of the Congress.On the otherhand,its own
the internalpowerstructure
of theCongress,gainconditioned
by thestrength
strength
is continuously
whenthe
ing wherethe latterloses,and sometimesgainingsubstantially
has failed.10
latterhas lostgripoverthesituationor its internalthermostat
theOpposiElectorate-wise,
implications.
Such a positionhas its structural
at the local and regionallevels.
effectively
tioncan onlyhope to function
at the nationallevel and perhowever,it also functions
Legislature-wise,
formsa veryusefulrole in the maintenanceof the system.It shouldbe
traditions,
which
notedherethatthanksto the heritageof parliamentary
are further
establishedby theleadersof the
reinforced
by theconventions
nationalmovement
in the Indian Parliament,the Oppositionis givenan
to its size. This, in turn,helpssusimportance
whichis out of proportion
tain the moraleand activityof the Oppositionin spite of therebeinga
leadersof
slenderchanceof its comingto power.Also, certainimportant
the Oppositionare givenconsiderablepersonalimportanceby the ruling
and bitternessfrom
group in the Congress,thus preventingfrustration
At thesametime,thiscreatesa widegap between
takingundesirable
forms.
the leadershipand the rankand filein theOpposition,shieldingand profromtheradicalismof thelatter.
tectingtheformer
withinthe nationalpoliticalelite,however,
Apartfromthisrelationship
in India is, forall practicalpurposes,a regionalphenomenon.
theOpposition
Even the "national"partiesare loose coalitionsof State parties,which
withinoppositionparties,and theconstant
explainthegreatheterogeneity
disciplinefromabove. The secondstructuralimpliproblemof enforcing
and greatlydivided.Because
cation is that the Oppositionis fragmented
they are basicallynot partiesof consensusbut partiesof pressure,they
reasonwhysectional
presentan inchoatefront.This is anotherimportant
tribalpartiesand variouslanparties,such as the D.M.K., the different
and certainpartiesthatare essentially
sectional
guagepartiesand coalitions,
in Kerala and earlierin Andhra,and theJanSangh
suchas theCommunists
and Swatantrain certainareas, are muchmoresuccessfulin opposition.
experience
of parliamentary
Again,however,boththepositivestimulation
and thenegativecontribution
of Congressweakeningin partsof thecounofpressure:theOppotrendto sucha structure
tryhas set up a corrective
sitionpartiestoo are foundto containa wide varietyof social groups.
10 The analogy with the thermostatunderlinesthe absorbent,self-correctiveand
flexibility
functionsof factionalism.

1166

THE CONGRESS

'SYSTEM'

IN INDIA

of sectionalgroupswhichwill
Thereis also a greatersecularinvolvement
of a second
of theOpposition."But theemergence
helpin thearticulation
We shall returnto this
partyof consensusis not anywherein the offing.
trends.
pointwhenwe considerbelowtheemerging
Whatwe have discussedso farprovidesno morethana tentativedefiniof the one partydominancesystemas it operatesin
tionand description
hypotheses
India. We do notproposein thispaper to suggestexplanatory
of such a systemas we are moreconand development
fortheemergence
cernedherewiththelogicofits operationand its consequentimpacton the
is takingplace.
development
in whichpoliticaland institutional
framework
However,we may touch brieflyupon the historicaland environmental
contextin whichthe systemhas developed,as thismay help in bringing
outitsmorepeculiarelements.
to bear in mindthattheCongresstookrootand came to
It is important
forindependence
politicalpowernotas a politicalpartybut as a movement
and reform.What is importantis the long durationand organizationof
the movementand the formsit took. Establishedin 1885, and passing
througha longphase of intellectualagitationduringwhichits goals were
duringthe nineteentwentiesand thirties
articulated,it was transformed
This meanttwo
thatacquireddepthand traditions.
intoa massmovement
things.Encompassingas it did all the major sectionsand interestsof
whatwe
and came to represent
society,it acquireda stampof legitimacy
have calleda "historicalconsensus."But thisalso meantthatits structure
It was
determined.
of itscompetence
was firmly
laid out and theconditions
as a distinctive
politicalelite organizedin the formof a well-knitmoveoflevels-district,Pradesh,
mentspreadinlargeareasand alonga hierarchy
and all-India-that the Congressacquiredits identity.It is true that it
was not builtin the formof a modernbureaucracyas has been the case
parties,but it remainednonetheless
withvarioussocialisticand communist
to goals.
witha disciplineand a strongcommitment
a powerful
movement
which
ideologyoftheCongress,
theorganizational
It is thisthatdetermined
stillcontinues,and of whichthe "Kamaraj Plan" is the latest and most
characteristic
echo.
to a democratic
committed
Secondly,theCongresswas fromthebeginning
ideology,a stand fromwhichit neverwaveredin spite of a good deal of
"anti-Western"
feelingand a certainspeculativenostalgiafora utopia in
the past. Even the latterunderlinedthe democraticinclinationsof the
butpanchayatiraj (significantly
kingship,
leadership:it was nottraditional
translatedlater on as "democraticdecentralization")that was the point
of reference.Similarly,freedomof speech and toleranceof opposition
(indeedthenecessityof opposition)werecardinalprinciplesof themove11 For an account of the movementin which caste associationsare gettinginvolved
articleby Rajni Kothari and Rushikesh
in the total politicalprocess,see the forthcoming
Maru, "Caste and Secularismin India: A Case Study of the Gujarat KshatriyaSabha,"
to be publishedin the Journalof Asian Studies.

RAJNI

KOTHARI

1167

Non-violentnationalismand
ment'sideologyof politicalmodernization.
intellectualpacifismfurther
underlinedthe same democraticorientation.
characteroftheintellectual
All thisensuredthedemocratic
and competitive
climatein whichthe partysystemdevelopedin India, again settingit
apart fromthe"one-party"modelsof manyothercountries.The modelof
a one-party
statewas anathemato theCongressfromthebeginning.
conditionsfor the
Historicalreasonsare necessarybut not sufficient
of a system.Thereis no doubtthatin its characterand depth,the
efficacy
and this has
Congresswas an unparalleledmovementforindependence,
significantly
contributed
to thepresentplace of theCongressorganization
thatreally
thatfollowedindependence
in India. But it was theconsolidation
determinedthe presentfeaturesof the system.Moreover,there were
the Congressin
featuresthat not only confirmed
peculiarenvironmental
positionof unrivalledpowerbut considerablyadded to its strengthand
crystallizedit in concreteterms.It is oftensaid thatwiththe comingof
independence,
the Congressceased to be a movementand turnedinto a
politicalparty.This is a misreadingof the realityof the Indian political
situationfor even afterindependence,the Congresscontinuedto be a
movement.Having acquiredindependencefromforeignrule,it had now
to builda nation.It is thischarterofmodernization
through
nation-building
of theIndianparty
thathas determined
manyofthepresentcharacteristics
system.In this respect,it resemblesthe variousofficialand mouvement
developingnations,
partiesfoundin the communistand non-communist
features.It is in termsof
without,however,takingon theirauthoritarian
a movementbased on a consensusdevelopedthroughthe operationof
theexcessesof partisan
freeinstitutions,
whileat thesame timerestraining
character.
struggle,thatthe Congresshas achievedits post-independence
Let us look briefly
at themainfeaturesof thesystemas it operatestoday.
The Congress,when it came to power,assigneda positiveand overof society.
and politicsin the development
whelmingrole to government
thechiefconditionof
Secondly,it made thepowerof thecentralauthority
nationalsurvival.This powerwas not onlyconsolidatedbut greatlyaugmented.Thirdly,it madelegitimacy
theprincipalissueofpoliticsand gave
to the government
and the rulingpartyan importanceof greatsymbolic
value. "Only the Congresscould be trusted."This is why only the Congress was the party of consensus.The politicalsystemgot legitimized
and its agentsand heirs.
identification
witha particularleadership,
through
This made the symbolismof the Congressso concreteand manifest.
of resources,
a
Fourthly,the Congressin powermade fora concentration
monopolyof patronageand a controlof economicpowerwhichcrystallized
of its powerand madecompetition
withit a difficult
proposithe structure
it made
tion. Fifthly,by adoptinga competitive
model of development,
mobilizationand public cooperationa functionof politicalparticipation
OnlytheConratherthanof bureaucratic
controland policesurveillance.
gress,withits huge organizationallegacy,its leadershipand its control

1168

THE CONGRESS

'SYSTEM'

IN INDIA

of institutional
couldprovidesucha framework
ofparticipation.
patronage,
Similarly,
thebroadening
of thesocialand ideologicalbase of theIndian
of opportunities
withinthe Congress
politydependeduponthebroadening
as it wouldbe suicidalfornewsectionsand intereststo join an opposition
party and invitethe hostilityof the rulingparty.Indeed, it has been
repeatedlyobservedthat even whenthe grievancesof particularsections
have beensuccessfuly
ventilatedthroughagitationslaunchedby the oppositionparties,the resulthas been thattheseelementshave been absorbed
intotheranksof theCongresswhichonlystoodto gain fromthebargain:
a trulytragicplightfor the Opposition.'2The fact that the consensus
represented
by theCongresshas comenotonlyout of historicallegacybut
also a continuing
of interestsis not out of any intellectual
accommodation
alertnessor breadthof visionon part of Congressmen.
The Congresshas
beenhardon manygroups,has generallybeenconservative
on thequestion
of admitting
new recruits,
has givenin onlywhenit must,and has usually
gainedin the bargain.But the situationis such thatit confirms
the Congressmoreand morein its positionof the partyof consensus.In places
whereit has failedto accommodateentrenched
or newlyemergent
groups,
it has not occupiedsuch a positionand has been defeatedby dissidentor
opposition
groups.13
A significant
trendin politicaldevelopment
in India is the growthof
in thepoliticalsystemwhichhave led to a containment
built-inconstraints
ofconflicts
at pointswhereexcessiveconflict
is likelyto disrupttheintricate
balance on whichthe Congresssystemis based. An awarenessseems to
have grownin the leadershipthatwhereasthe mechanismof factionsto
whichthe Congresshas givenrise servesto make formobilityand leads
to a freshbalancewhenone is called for,neitherfactionalism
norpartisan
can be allowedto becomeendemic,and shouldbe heldin restraint.
struggle
There has developedover the years a conciliationmachinerywithinthe
at variouslevelsand fordifferent
Congress,
tasks,whichis almostconstantly
in operation,mediatingin factionaldisputes,influencing
politicaldecisions
in the States and districts,and not infrequently
backingup one group
againstanotherand utilizingthe electoraland patronagesystemsin confirming
theformer
in a positionofpower.Apartfromresolution
ofconflicts
and interference
in theoutcomeofconflicts,
thereis also a growing
tendency
12 Thus as a resultof the powerfulagitation for linguistic
states in Maharashtraand
Gujarat, new cadres of workerswere drawn into the political arena. Soon after the
successfulculminationof the agitation,however,the Congressabsorbed a large number
of the new entrantsand succeededin capturingfullinitiativein State politics.Similarly,
in Punjab Congressmenwho had left the party and organizeda new oppositiongroup
during the agitation against Chief Minister Kairon have re-joined it followingthe
formationof a new MinistryunderMr. Ram Kishen.
13 See, for instance,the articleson Amroha,
Farukkhabad and Rajkot constituencies
in which the Congresswas defeatedin 1963 bye-elections,in Myron Weiner and Rajni
Kothari (eds.), Voting Behaviour in India, to be punished shortlyby Firma K. L.
Mukhopadhyaya,Calcutta.

RAJNI

KOTHARI

1169

towardsavoidanceofconflicts
fromtakingan expressformat certainlevels,
suchas theAll-IndiaCongressCommittee(A.I.C.C.) or thegeneralmeeting
of thePradeshCongressCommittee(P.C.C.). This has beenmadepossible
in theformofsmallerexecutivecommittees,
by thegrowthofseveralbuffers
informal
consultative
committees,
and "innergroups"in theleadership.
The trendis also noticeableoutsidetherulingparty.Thus thesignificant
developmentin the workingof the Indian Parliamentis the growingimportanceof the CongressParliamentary
Party (C.P.P.) on the one hand
and variousfunctional
of the Parliamenton theotherin legiscommittees
lativeand politicaldecision-making.
Consultation
betweenleadersofvarious
in
partieson keybusinessissuesand thedevelopment
of State Committees
the C.P.P. are further
extensionsof thepivotalroleof theCommitteesystem in the makingof parliamentary
consensus.Similarly,in the Council
of Ministersthelatesttrendis theappointment
ofexpertsand "non-controversial" figuresto key ministerialpositions.Even among the politician
conflictand controversy
ministers,
appear to have been restricted
through
theemergence
ofan innergroupin theformofa "collective"and theavoidance of abstractissues throughthe eliminationof the "ideologues"from
important
positions.In otherspheres,therehas eitheralreadytakenplace
or a demandis being made forautonomyand non-politicalfunctioning.
Thus in civil-military
the militaryis givenmoreand more
relationships,
autonomyon its internaladministration,
as wellas in themakingof policy,
thus makingfora relationship
of mutualconfidenceand trustand fora
high state of moraleand respectforcivilianauthority.Similarpleas for
are being made for the PlanningComautonomyand "professionalism"
missionand thenationalizedindustries.
These are all developments
leading
to a limitationof the sensitivezone of factionalpolitics,withoutany attemptto limitpoliticalparticipation,
or restrictthe rightto criticizethe
or articulatepublicopinionto censureit on particularfailures
government
or shortfalls.
They constituteno morethanin-builtcorrectives
to a highly
politicizedstructureof institutionsthroughwhich the Congresssystem
operates.
Such a positionof theCongresshas been further
cementedby thepolicy
of neutralizing
some of the moreimportantsourcesof cleavage and disin the country.Thus the removalof feudalism,the linguisticreaffection
of labor
organizationof States,the energeticinfiltration
by Congressmen
unionscoupledwithprotectivelegislationforlabor,the removalof gross
social inequalitiesby grantof specialprivilegesto depressedsectionsof the
and the firmsuppressionof all acts of violence,secessionand
community,
disaffection-allthis has succeeded in neutralizingpotentialsources of
All of this has been part of the Congressdrivefor
politicaldisaffection.
on the other.Together,
legitimacyon the one hand and modernization
thesefeaturesadd up to a considerablestrengthening
of thepartyof consensusand a correspondingly
problematic
positionfortheopposition
parties.
On the otherhand, such an impressiveconsolidationof powerin the

1170

THE CONGRESS

'SYSTEM'

IN INDIA

becauseof the free

handsof the Congresshas not led to authoritarianism
of the factionalstrucworkingof the electoralprocess,the crystallization
turewithinthe partyof consensus,the criticalpressuresexercisedby the
opposition,and the generaltendencyof the leadershipto preservedemocraticforms,to respectthe ruleof law, to avoid unduestrifeand to hold
The Conin somesortof a balanceof interests.
variouselementstogether
on thequestionof respectforminorigresshas also showngreatsensitivity
possible,
themwhenever
accommodating
politicalminorities,
ties,including
and in generalpursuinga broad-basedconsensuson nationalpolitics.We
have discussedthesepointsearlierand theyneed not be repeated,except
and consolidation
to onceagainemphasizethefactthatin thedevelopment
theroleoftheoppositionhas also beenpreserved,
ofthepartyofconsensus,
modelof the
and thatIndia has categoricallyrejectedany authoritarian
partysystemin orderto avoid dissidenceand preserveunity.The oneparty
fromthe one
dominanceas foundin India is thus radicallydifferent
partydominanceas foundin, say, Ghana.It is a dominancebased on conand notsimplyon civilormilitary
power.
sensualauthority
and character,
suchstrength
In givingto thecountryand itsinstitutions
a criticalrole was played by JawaharlalNehru,the firstPrimeMinister
his roleand althoughit is doubtofIndia. Althoughit is easy to exaggerate
had he nothad thegreatinheritance
fulwhathe could have accomplished
of the nationalmovementand its organizationto standupon,thereis no
it wouldhave been
doubtthatbut forNehruand his longtenurein office,
in the mannerin which
to consolidatethe gains of independence
difficult
thishas been done.Nehru'srole has been two-fold.By the sheerforceof
to arrestdisruptive
he managedto holdthecountry
together,
hispersonality,
and to take to theroad ofmodernization.
a nation's
forces,
By symbolizing
unityin one man14 forsuch a long time,India avoided the painfulconnew nationshave had to pass. But
vulsionsthroughwhichless fortunate
far moreimportantwas Nehru'sotherand moreconcreterole of having
adoptedby the countryas
givenrootsand legitimacyto the institutions
well as to the modernpurposesto whichtheyare put. He patientlyand
doggedlyworkedto thisend. As we have arguedelsewhere,the contributionof Nehruwas not to have starteda revolutionbut to have givenrise
time
withsufficient
to a consensus.'5He providedthecountry'sinstitutions
workedto thatendbybeingtheirchiefoperator,
to strikeroots,and himself
certaincriticalvalues-the value
and made acceptableto his countrymen
of equality,the value of freedom,the value of the vote. Meanwhile,he
concentrated
powerin himselfand in his partyand maintainedsomesort
of democracy
butnotallowofbalance,pinninghis faithon theinstitutions
on and
ing politicalconflictto take too sharpa form,in a sense drifting
14 Sisir Gupta, "Some Aspects of the Problem of National Integrationin India,
Pakistan and Ceylon,"Parliamnentary
Studies,Vol. 8, Nos. 1 and 2, 1964.
15Rajni Kothari, "The Meaning of Jawaharlal Nehru," The Economic Weekly,
Special Number (July 1964).

RAJNI

KOTHARI

1171

hopingforthingsto sort themselvesout ultimately.Nehru was perhaps

of theway thingswereshapingbuthis senseofpoweron
not too confident
the one hand and a sincereconvictionabout the efficacyof democratic
institutionson the otherwere enough to allow India time to build a
foundation.
periodin India's history,
In a sense,theNehruperiodwas an exceptional
one that was so necessary,but not so normal.This had its effecton the
owing
workingof thepartysystem.Whilethe Congressgainedin strength
to the variousfactorsdescribedabove, Nehru in anotherway weakened
powerin his own hands and throughacting
the partyby concentrating
Nehruallowedthingsto take
as if onlyhe couldholdthecountrytogether.
theirownshapein theStatesand at lowerlevelswherethepartyorganizationoftenforcedits way,but at the nationallevel he stymiedthe growth
howorganization,
in institutional
Such a discrepancy
of the organization.
ever, could not last forever,especiallyin such a highlystructuredand
as theCongress.Towardstheendofhis tenure,thereorganization
powerful
his own unfore,Nehru agreedto a proposalwhich,whileit confirmed
powerand prestigeto theCongressorganization.
bridledpower,also restored
This proposalwas theKamaraj Plan.'6 Whilethisschemehas attracted
and has been,in turn,made thesubjectofpraiseand
widespreadattention
ridicule,its real role has not been understood.To considerthe Kamaraj
the
declaredobjectivesis to misunderstand
Plan in termsof its formally
purpose,as observersand columnistswere not slow in seeingsoon after
of thePlan.'7 At thesametime,however,to have considered
announcement
16 The Kamaraj Plan was adopted by the A.I.C.C. on August 10, 1963. The resolution incorporatingit was moved by Mr. K. Kamaraj, who was then the ChiefMinister
of Madras and secondedby Mr. S. K. Patil, the thenMinisterforFood and Agriculture
at the Center.The chiefidea of the plan was to secure the voluntaryrelinquishment
of their ministerialposts by senior Congressmento enable them to devote all their
time to the organizationalwork of the party so that the "unhealthytrend"noticeable
in the formationof groupsand factionsin the party and the consequent"looseningof
the Congressorganization"could be arrested.
Following the unanimousadoption of the resolution,all ministersat the Center and
the States submittedtheir resignationsto the Working Committeewhich authorized
Mr. Nehru to decide whichof the resignationswould be accepted.On 24thAugust,Mr.
Nehru submittedto the WorkingCommitteea list of names of six Central Cabinet
Ministersand six ChiefMinisterswho should be asked to take up organizationalwork.
The WorkingCommitteeacceptedhis suggestionand recommendedthat the resignation
of the 12 seniorleaders be accepted.The Central Cabinet Ministersto leave under the
Kamaraj Plan were Morarji Desai, Lal Bahadur Shastri,Jagjivan Ram, S. K. Patil, B.
Gopala Reddy and Dr. K. L. Shrimali.Among the six Chief Ministerswhose resignations the WorkingCommitteeaccepted were K. Kamaraj of Madras, Biju Patnaik of
Orissa,Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed of Kashmir,U.P.'s C. B. Gupta, Bihar's Binodanand
Jha and B. A. Mandloi of Madhya Pradesh.
17 K. Santhanam,"Can Kamaraj Plan Provide All the Answers,"Hindustan Times,
14, August 1963; Krishna Bhatia, "Congress Party Proposes a Major Toning Up,"
Statesman, August 15, 1963; "Go Back to the People," editorial,Eastern Economist,
Vol. 41, No. 10 (September 6, 1963); Romesh Thaper, "Congress Re-Birth or Hara
Kin?" The Economic Weekly,Vol. XV, No. 35 (August 31, 1963).

1172

THE

CONGRESS

'SYSTEM'

IN

INDIA

it simplyin termsof a leadershippurge,as was done by most of these

and to have takenan
is also to have missedthepointcompletely
writers,
equally formalposition.The importanceof the Kamaraj Plan lay not in
actiontaken,but in thesequel to it. It was nottheremoval
theimmediate
"forpartywork"of CentralMinistersand ChiefMinistersbut the inductionof partymanagersintopositionsof powerat thenationallevelwhich
provedof greaterconsequence.By puttingpartymanagersintopower,the
in nationalaffairsbut
Kamaraj Plan not onlyrecognizedtheirimportance
theprestigeand importance
it had
also restoredto thecentralorganization
presence.Seen in thislight,
lostovertheyearsdue to Nehru'sdominating
the Kamaraj Plan was no coup staged by adventurists;it was rathera
"restoration."
of menwho had been
To thinkthatwiththereturnto the government
the
"kamarajed"the purposeof the plan is defeatedis to misunderstand
thenature
natureof thesuccessionafterNehru; it is also to misunderstand
relaof thechangethathas comeonce again in ministerial-organizational
leadersshouldleave the government
tionsat the Center.That important
was relevantin a situationwheretheorganiand lookaftertheorganization
It is no longer
zationhad beenweakenedby thosewhowerein government.
relevantwhenthe organizationis restoredto its previouspositionand is
processof politics.It is this
grantedits due place in the decision-making
thathas now comeabout afterthe deathof Nehru.The strugglebetween
Lal Bahadur Shastriand Morarji Desai over the successionissue was at
In
the same timea strugglebetweentwoprinciplesof partyorganization.
of theorganization(alongsidethe Ministry)
the outcome,the importance
has beenestablishedas a cardinalprincipleof thesystem.It is a principle
thatis an essentialpart of the one partydominancesystemas it operates
it fromboth the party systemof
in India, and one that distinguishes
westerndemocracies,and the one party systemsfoundin many of the
is consideredinstrunew nations,in bothof whichthe partyorganization
mentalto the executive.In the westerndemocracies,the subsidiaryrole
to
ensuresunityin thepartyand is functional
givento partyorganization
and "solidarity"regimesalso
the two-party
system.In the authoritarian
it ensuresunityof the regimeand keeps factionalism
fromgoingtoo far.
monolithic
In theIndian system,however,wherea strongand potentially
demoto itspowerifit is to function
partymustprovideits owncorrectives
cratically,thepositiverole of thepartyorganizationbecomesa necessity.
We havenowseenin detailthemainfeaturesof theonepartydominance
conditionsunder whichit
systemand the historicaland environmental
a comprehensive
amongotherthings,
developed.It is a systemthatprovides,
of change (unlikethe Westernpartysystems,it is withinthe
mechanism
a coupd'etat),
sameparty;unlikethe"one-party
it is notthrough
systems,"
a systemof conflictarticulationand resolution(throughthe operationof
themarginof pressure,bothinternaland external),and a systemof communications
betweensocietyand politics(throughthe factionalnetwork).

RAJNI

KOTHARI

1173

It has workedratherwell so far. It has its problemstoo, some of them

serious,for it is still an evolvingsystemand greatlydependentat the
presentstageon performance
in otherspheres.As forthe trendsin operation,as mentionedearlier,it is quite possiblethat the oppositionparties
will gain fromthe Congressin certainareas, but thisis an inherentand
necessarypart of thesystem.Wherethe Congresshas reallylost grip,the
in one or moreStates.
oppositionmay even be able to forma goverment
Only if thishappenson a largescale, and percolatesto the Center,however,can the systembe said to have undergonea major change.Even in
thatcase, thequestionremainswhetherthenewpartyor coalitionprovides
us withanotherpartyofconsensusor is just an expressionof accumulated
proteston thepartof the publiclikelyto witheraway aftera shorttime
in office.
Lastly,thereis the importanttheoreticalquestion:What constitutes
a
whendoes thereal take-off
stablepartysystem?If stillin transition,
come?
Is it necessarythat an "alternativegovernment"
in the formof another
partyof consensusshouldemerge?Or is stabilizationof elitecompetition,
includingsmoothchangesin government,
as foundin the Congresssystem
in India,also a satisfactory
conditionofpoliticalorganization?
The one partydominancesystemin India, with its factionsand its
supportand communications
networks,
may yetwell be a transitional
system,suitedforthe specialperiodof nationalgrowth,but one thatwould
transform
intoa more"normal"partysystemlateron. This can be leftas
an open question.Eitherthrougha purposivecoalitionof dissidentand
oppositiongroupsor throughsome sharp break withinthe Congress,or
of one of the opposition
perhapsthroughthe independentstrengthening
parties,such a changemay come in the future.Or, forall we know,the
delicatebalanceon whichthelegitimacy
and powerof theCongresssystem
rests may be rudelydisturbed,and a more authoritariansystemmight
emerge.Politicalsystemsdo changein theirnatureovertime,and thereis
no particularsanctityin one particularsystem.Meanwhile,the systemof
one partydominancedescribedby us hereis an interesting
additionto the
presenttypology
ofpartysystems,
and onethatis also,on Indianexperience,
a viablemodelofpoliticalorganization.'8

18 For an earlierattemptat describingthis system,see the author's "Party System,"

op. cit. While sendingthis articleto press,however,we also notice that W. H. MorrisJones has developed a similarconcept of "one dominantparty." See his "Parliament
and Dominant Party: Indian Experience,"ParliamentaryAffairs,Vol. 17, No. 3 (Summer 1964). The analysispresentedby us, however,differsfromthat analysis in certain
respects,especiallyin the characterizationof the Congressas the party of consensus.

RAJNI KOTHARI is Director of the Center for the Study of Developing Societies,
New Delhi.