Political parties, pressure groups, social and political elite
Political Structure of India: An Evolving Democracy
India’s political structure is a complex and evolving system that reflects the country’s vast diversity, historical legacies, and socio-economic transformations. Influenced by both Western democratic traditions and indigenous political institutions, the Indian polity is marked by multiple layers of participation, contestation, and representation. From the dominance of a single party post-Independence to the rise of coalition and now centralized rule again, Indian politics have continually shifted, adapting to social changes and the aspirations of its people.
Theoretical Foundations: Almond's Model and Political Orientations
Gabriel Almond’s model of political systems emphasizes how political culture is shaped by cognitive, affective, and evaluative orientations. These orientations help explain political actions and attitudes in India:
Cognitive Orientation refers to awareness of political processes. The rise of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), for instance, can be linked to public knowledge of corruption and a growing civic consciousness.
Affective Orientation deals with emotional attachments to political symbols or ideologies. The rise of Jan Sangh or the Muslim League during the colonial era was shaped by emotional communal alignments.
Evaluative Orientation involves judgment-based political actions, such as caste-based parties like BSP or agrarian movements like Lok Dal arising from perceptions of social injustice or neglect.
Post-Independence Political Architecture
Rajni Kothari’s idea of the “Congress system” explains the early phase of India’s political structure. Congress functioned as a broad umbrella party accommodating internal dissent and factionalism, allowing it to maintain political hegemony while incorporating a wide variety of voices. This pluralistic internal structure provided political participation through both government and opposition within the same party framework.
However, other institutions such as trade unions, farmer associations, and universities also played vital roles in shaping political discourse. They were deeply intertwined with party politics, influencing political agendas and mobilizations.
Social and Structural Transformations
India’s political landscape has seen significant changes, driven by:
Rising Middle Class: Economic liberalization and growth have empowered the middle class, leading to ideological shifts. For instance, BJP gained traction among middle-class voters through policies like EWS reservation and MSME promotions.
Multiple Modernities: Sociologist Yogendra Singh highlights that modernity in India coexists with traditional structures. Caste, religion, and regional affiliations continue to shape political behavior, even as modern democratic institutions flourish.
Dynamics of Political Mobilization
Class and caste continue to be primary axes of political mobilization. Regional parties like RJD and SP have emerged from caste-based movements, while globalization has reduced the role of traditional class-based institutions like trade unions. The weakening of left-oriented unions and their diminished role in electoral politics exemplify this shift.
Additionally, technology and social media have revolutionized campaign strategies and voter engagement, though at the cost of spreading misinformation and polarizing opinions.
Evolution of the Party System
India’s political party system has transitioned through distinct phases:
First-party system (1952–67): Congress dominance at both federal and state levels.
State-party system (1967–89): Rise of state-based opposition parties, reducing Congress’s hold.
Multi-party system (1989–2014): Coalition politics became the norm, and regional parties gained prominence.
Second dominant-party system (2014–present): BJP has emerged as the central force, eclipsing Congress and weakening other traditional and state parties.
Federalism and Local Representation
India's federal structure has become increasingly prominent. The rise of regional parties and decentralization of power to state governments have made governance more inclusive. Voting patterns have also evolved — from identity-based voting to benefit-based decisions. For example, schemes like JAM (Jan Dhan, Aadhaar, Mobile) and public service delivery in Delhi under AAP have reshaped voter expectations.
Economic Policies and Ideological Shifts
India’s political structure influences and is influenced by economic policies. There exists a coexistence of conflicting economic ideologies, from indigenization to liberal import policies, from subsidies to tax reforms. For instance, BJP’s foreign defense deals reflect both global engagement and domestic manufacturing emphasis, while AAP’s welfare model mixes fiscal populism with governance reform.
The role of the state remains contested: Should the state enforce social change, or remain neutral? BJP’s success partly derives from catering to groups that prefer minimal state interference in social customs, oppose minority privileges, and support majoritarian values.
Inclusivity and Challenges
Greater representation of rural and marginalized castes in legislatures reflects growing inclusivity. However, legislative inefficiency and institutional decline persist. Many emerging political parties struggle to survive due to long electoral cycles and voter fatigue. The paradox lies in the fact that even as parties weaken as institutions, they remain essential vehicles for democratic inclusion.
Ideological Fluidity and Political Mobility
The current political climate shows a trend towards ideological centralization, with parties like the BJP shaping dominant narratives. Nonetheless, the democratic system allows for political mobility, where new parties can challenge existing ones and regional interests can assert themselves.
Paul Brass notes that Indian party politics combine Western organizational principles with indigenous traditions, creating a unique blend of bureaucratic and participatory politics.
Political Parties and Their Social Base in India
The development of political parties in India is deeply rooted in the country's historical, socio-economic, and cultural fabric. These parties have evolved in tandem with the nation’s democratic journey, shaping and being shaped by social bases such as caste, class, region, religion, and economic aspirations. Over time, the party system in India has transitioned from a phase of single-party dominance to a complex multi-party arrangement, reflecting the diversity and dynamism of Indian society.
Legacy of the Independence Struggle
The Indian National Congress (INC) was the first political party to emerge from a large-scale socio-political movement — the freedom struggle. Unlike other countries where political parties were formed post-independence, Congress in India was already an established platform by the time the British left. Its ability to include a wide cross-section of society — landlords, peasants, workers, urban elites, and marginalized castes — enabled it to retain power continuously for the first three decades after independence. This broad-based social coalition gave Congress the legitimacy and capacity to function as a catch-all party.
Green Revolution and the Rise of New Aspirations
The Green Revolution in the 1970s, while boosting agricultural productivity, also created a new class of politically conscious farmers, especially in Punjab, Haryana, and western Uttar Pradesh. This socio-economic transformation led to the emergence of farmer-based political parties and movements like the Lok Dal. These parties challenged the Congress’s dominance and reflected the new power centers in rural India. The newly prosperous agrarian middle class began asserting its political rights, reshaping party politics along class and regional lines.
Regionalism and the Fragmentation of Congress Hegemony
Starting in the mid-1980s, the Congress Party began to lose its pan-Indian hold due to both internal factionalism and rising regional identities. The PV Narasimha Rao-led Congress government initiated a shift by allying with regional parties. This laid the foundation for coalition politics and acknowledged the growing legitimacy of regional voices. States like Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, and Andhra Pradesh saw the rise of powerful regional parties such as DMK, TMC, and TDP, which derived their strength from sub-national identities and regional demands.
The emergence of regionalism reflected a structural change in India’s political landscape, where national integration did not necessitate uniformity but rather accommodation of diversity. These parties often became kingmakers in coalition governments, thereby gaining national influence.
Multi-party System and Inclusive Populism
India’s transformation into a multi-party democracy has fostered greater inclusivity. The proliferation of political parties has enabled broader representation of various social groups, including Dalits, Adivasis, minorities, and backward castes. Coalition governments, despite ideological inconsistencies, have introduced wide-reaching welfare schemes aimed at social inclusion and economic support. Flagship programs like the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGA), rural housing initiatives, and massive investments in road infrastructure have all emerged as consensus policies among ideologically diverse coalitions.
These programs underscore the pragmatic approach of Indian political parties, where electoral gains often depend on direct service delivery and populist measures. The flexibility of India’s multi-party system allows for cross-party consensus on critical developmental issues, despite differences on other fronts.
Pluralism and the Evolution of Indian Democracy
Contrary to criticisms that pluralism leads to instability, India’s pluralistic political structure has strengthened its democratic foundations. The rise of regional parties has not fragmented the nation but instead contributed to a more representative and inclusive polity. These parties often articulate the specific aspirations of linguistic, ethnic, or caste-based communities that would otherwise remain unheard in a centralised party structure.
The transformation from a centralized Congress system to a vibrant, contested multi-party democracy shows that Indian politics has matured over time. Pluralism in this context represents not a deviation from democratic ideals but their deepening — a recognition of India’s social diversity and regional uniqueness.
Role of Civil Society, Pressure Groups, and NGOs in Indian Politics and Society
The evolution of Indian democracy cannot be fully understood without analyzing the crucial role played by civil society, pressure groups, and NGOs. These actors serve as intermediaries between the state and society, facilitating dialogue, contestation, and reform. While political parties and institutions dominate the formal political sphere, civil society and associated actors represent the informal channels through which public concerns are articulated and state accountability is demanded.
Understanding Civil Society and Political Society
Civil society, as defined by Partha Chatterjee and discussed by scholars like Eliora Puri, refers to the sphere outside the state that includes voluntary associations, NGOs, community groups, and informal citizen networks. It is distinct from political society, which includes political parties and formal institutions that directly engage in electoral politics and policymaking. Civil society enables citizens to organize and express their concerns outside governmental control, often advocating for marginalized or underrepresented groups.
Partha Chatterjee emphasizes that while political society monopolizes formal political representation, civil society is increasingly challenging this dominance. For instance, when defeated politicians are appointed to Rajya Sabha, civil society actors highlight this as a failure of democratic accountability.
Thinkers like Rousseau envisioned a form of democracy where citizens were active participants without intermediaries like political parties. In India, this vision finds partial resonance in the ideas of Gandhi (Gram Swaraj), M.N. Roy (people’s committees), and Jayaprakash Narayan (people’s democracy), who all advocated participatory governance beyond formal electoral politics.
Civil Society’s Role in Deepening Democracy
According to Alexis de Tocqueville, the presence of a vibrant civil society is a hallmark of democratic maturity. Cohen and Arato argue that civil society is essential for opinion formation, fostering discourse, and pressuring the state to implement welfare-oriented policies.
In India, civil society groups and NGOs have played a pivotal role in areas such as:
Advocating for environmental rights (e.g., Narmada Bachao Andolan)
Demanding accountability and transparency (e.g., RTI movement)
Promoting education, health, and gender equity
Highlighting custodial deaths, land displacement, and violations of rights
The Anna Hazare-led anti-corruption movement and Nirbhaya case protests are examples where civil society mobilized public opinion, leading to significant policy and legislative changes.
Challenges within India’s Political System
India’s political system, though democratic in structure, faces several functional challenges:
Lack of Devolution
The top-down nature of governance and excessive bureaucratization hinder local-level empowerment, contradicting the spirit of grassroots democracy.Marginalization of Interests
As noted by Rajni Kothari, centralized party systems often marginalize regional and local interests, reducing space for genuine political participation.Coalition Politics and Ideological Inconsistency
Coalition politics, while enabling representation of diverse groups, has also led to opportunism, horse-trading, and policy paralysis.Identity Politics
Caste, religion, and ethnicity often shape political mobilization. While this ensures representation for marginalized communities, it also sometimes reinforces social divisions. For instance, in Bihar, the gendered shift in voting behavior, with women outnumbering male voters since 2005, signifies both empowerment and the strategic engagement of identity in politics.
Caste, Vote Banks, and Populism
Andre Béteille critiques the caste-based vote bank politics, arguing that electoral mobilization in India often reproduces social hierarchies. Similarly, Rajni Kothari emphasized that caste and politics are mutually reinforcing — caste shapes political alliances, and politics redefines caste identities.
Instrumentalist use of caste — such as symbolic appointments without substantive empowerment — delays genuine social transformation. The Maratha reservation movement in Maharashtra and token representation of Dalit leaders during elections exemplify how caste remains a tool for political negotiation.
Populism, meanwhile, simplifies complex socio-economic problems into emotional appeals and quick-fix solutions like cash transfers or subsidies. As per Steven Lukes’ Third Face of Power, this represents a deeper manipulation of public consciousness, where the state shapes preferences instead of fulfilling needs.
Civil Society and Marginalized Voices
Civil society is often the only space where the concerns of the marginalized — Dalits, tribals, women, and religious minorities — receive attention. Examples include:
Jaipal Singh's Adivasi Mahasabha, which emerged in response to tribal displacement and labor exploitation.
The 33% reservation for women in technical education, aimed at correcting gender disparities.
The work of activists like Father Stan Swamy, who fought for tribal rights until his arrest and death, highlighting the criminalization of dissent in modern India.
Way Forward: Strengthening Democratic Institutions
For Political Parties
Greater Accountability and Transparency: Political parties must move beyond symbolic gestures and accept critique constructively.
Decentralization of Power: Power must shift from party high commands to local units and community-level leadership.
Ethical Governance: Legislators should harmonize personal morals with party ideologies and public service responsibilities.
For Civil Society
Constitutional Protection for Dissent: The state must ensure that civil society actors can critique and engage with the system without fear of repression.
State-Civil Society Partnership: Rather than viewing activism as antagonistic, the state should engage civil society in policymaking and implementation.
Active Citizenship: Citizens must be encouraged to participate beyond elections — through RTI, social audits, and public consultations..
Media and Politics under Neoliberalism
In the neoliberal era, media has emerged not just as a vehicle of communication, but as a powerful tool that shapes public consciousness, political participation, and policy narratives. As market forces increasingly dictate the flow of information, the media’s role in society has become more complex—oscillating between being a watchdog of democracy and an apparatus of ideological control.
1. Neoliberalism and the Media-Politics Nexus
Neoliberalism, with its emphasis on market efficiency, privatization, and deregulation, has led to the corporatization of media. Political messaging today is deeply intertwined with media narratives, crafted to align with state and corporate interests. Media conglomerates often operate in tandem with political entities, influencing public opinion and shaping the dominant political discourse.
Example: Local media's promotion of welfare schemes like Indira Rasoi Yojana in Rajasthan through infographics serves both governance and image-building objectives.
2. Media and Identity Politics
Media under neoliberalism is instrumental in reinforcing or challenging social hierarchies.
Example: The Dalit Panther movement in 1972 used media and literary tools to spread Ambedkarite and Marxist ideals against caste oppression.
The rise of caste-based political representation owes much to media visibility, where issues of identity are shaped and amplified.
Theorist Insight: Baudrillard’s concept of symbolic control explains how media-driven identities are constructed and consumed, often detaching social reality from representation.
3. Media Influence in Electoral Politics
The digitization of media has revolutionized political campaigns:
Example: Cambridge Analytica’s use of voter data in the 2020 US elections and WhatsApp campaigns during Indian elections.
Verma and Sardesai's research highlighted that media exposure significantly influenced BJP’s electoral success in 2014.
Social media platforms serve as both amplifiers of political rhetoric and echo chambers that reinforce partisan identities.
4. Social Media: A Double-Edged Sword
Social media is often hailed as the "fourth pillar of democracy" due to its power to hold governments accountable and foster citizen participation.
Positive Use:
Twitter de-platforming Donald Trump (2021) post-Capitol Hill violence.
Farmers’ protests in India gained global traction due to hashtag activism.
Negative Use:
Muzaffarnagar riots (2013): Morphed videos circulated on YouTube incited violence.
Pulwama attack aftermath: Spread of hate messages and misinformation.
Ulrich Beck’s "Risk Society" aptly captures this dynamic—digital media can mobilize protests (e.g., Nirbhaya case) or polarize societies through hate speech and fake news.
5. Digital Economy and Neocolonialism
The concentration of power in a few digital conglomerates reflects a neocolonial structure within the digital economy.
Example: Facebook’s acquisition of WhatsApp and Instagram has led to vertical integration, limiting user choice and reinforcing monopoly power.
These corporations control both content and platform algorithms, influencing political visibility and silencing dissent.
Mathew Hindman in The Myth of Digital Democracy critiques the illusion of equal access online, where infrastructural and algorithmic barriers reduce political diversity.
6. Citizen Journalism and Political Discourse
With the rise of social media influencers, citizen journalism is becoming a force in counter-narrating state propaganda.
Evgeny Morozov’s The Net Delusion highlights how marketers co-opt social media to create controlled dissent.
Influencers like Dhruv Rathee have mobilized youth with critiques of government policies, bypassing traditional media filters.
7. Corporate-Media-Politics Nexus
The NN Vohra Committee Report and Noam Chomsky’s Propaganda Model provide a theoretical lens to understand media capture:
Chomsky outlines five filters through which media content is shaped:
Ownership
Advertising revenue
Sourcing of information
Flak
Ideology (anti-communism/marketism)
This model explains why corporate-friendly governments often receive favorable media coverage, while dissenting voices are marginalized.
8. Cyber Politics and Limitations of Digital Democracy
While digital spaces offer tools for engagement, they also come with structural limitations:
Lack of net neutrality, data monopolies, and algorithmic gatekeeping skew online political dialogue.
Many rural or marginalized communities remain digitally excluded, further deepening political inequality.
9. Media, Personalization, and Populism
Modern media often shifts focus from systems to personalities, reinforcing populist narratives.
Example: Policy failures are often blamed on bureaucratic systems, while successes are attributed to individual political leaders.
This creates a media-fabricated cult of personality, weakening systemic accountability.
10. Surveillance and Law Enforcement via Media
Social media is increasingly used for surveillance and governance:
2011 London riots: Protesters used messaging apps to coordinate; police used social media to track and arrest them.
Platforms like Flickr were used by citizens to identify culprits, showing a crowdsourced model of policing.
11. Media and Public-Private Partnerships
Media plays a role in legitimizing and strengthening public-private collaborations:
By showcasing efficiency and impact, media helps build public trust in PPP models.
It can also fill gaps in service delivery, especially during emergencies like COVID-19.
The Elite System in India
The concept of elites refers to a small group of individuals who hold significant power, resources, or influence in a society. In India, the elite system is a dynamic and evolving structure shaped by historical legacies, caste, class, education, economic status, and political power. The study of elites helps understand the stratification and power distribution patterns in Indian society.
1. Understanding Social and Political Elites
Social elites are those who enjoy high social status due to caste, lineage, behavior, wealth, or education. Political elites, a subset of social elites, possess the ability to influence political outcomes through control over governance structures or political affiliations.
In traditional India, Kshatriyas and Brahmins formed the dominant elite groups due to their ritual and political authority.
With modernization and democratization, elite composition has evolved, now including professionals, entrepreneurs, and bureaucrats.
2. Change in Elite Composition
The rise of meritocracy and egalitarian ideals has led to a shift in elite formation:
Social elite transformation: Swethaa S. Ballakrishnen, in her essay, distinguishes between elite professional women and the middle class. First-generation elites now emerge from educated middle-class women who, through global exposure and professional success, gain elite status.
Political elite transformation: With the decline of old political orders, new castes and classes have entered elite positions. For instance, OBC leaders like Lalu Prasad Yadav and Mayawati from the Dalit community represent a shift from traditional to non-traditional elites.
3. Circulation of Elites
Sociologist Vilfredo Pareto introduced the idea of circulation of elites, where old elites are replaced by new ones. This has been visible in India:
Example: Business figures like Rahul Bajaj or Naveen Jindal have transitioned from the corporate sector into political spheres.
Conversely, aspirants from marginalized backgrounds have entered elite administrative roles, e.g., a rickshaw puller’s daughter clearing the UPSC Civil Services.
4. Staticness and Continuity
Despite change, certain traits persist in India’s elite structure:
Nepotism, dynastic politics, and casteism dominate elite recruitment. Over 20% of candidates in the 2020 elections came from political families (ADR data).
Example: The succession of Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi in the Congress party illustrates the dynastic nature of Indian political elites.
5. Rural–Urban Dichotomy
The elite system also reflects a rural-urban divide:
Rural elites include wealthy landowners (e.g., Jats in Haryana), merchant castes, and dominant caste leaders.
Urban elites are shaped by professional success and education, often from the upper-middle classes.
Education plays a critical role in shaping leadership in both domains, with urban elites often having global exposure.
6. Role of Education and Opportunity
Education, particularly higher education, has become a key tool in elite formation:
In rural India, education is helping lower castes and OBCs gain political influence.
In urban areas, professional success in sectors like IT, law, and finance contributes to elite status.
Example: Graduates from IITs and IIMs entering bureaucracy, policymaking, or entrepreneurship are shaping a new elite class.
7. Political Elite Classification
a. Pre-Independence Elites:
Dominated by upper-caste, foreign-educated leaders with limited grassroots engagement.
Leaders like Dadabhai Naoroji and Gopal Krishna Gokhale represented a Western-educated elite who were often disconnected from rural India.
b. Post-Independence Elites:
Early phase: New political elites emerged from rural backgrounds, supported by caste and regional identity.
Later phase: After the Green Revolution, OBCs and SCs began asserting political power, e.g., emergence of Yadav leaders in UP and Bihar.
8. Elite Self-Recruitment and Dynastic Succession
Political elites in India often practice self-recruitment, where family lineage determines succession:
Example: The Nehru-Gandhi family, the Yadav family in UP and Bihar, and the Abdullah family in Kashmir have maintained control over politics across generations.
Such trends reflect a closure of opportunities for non-elite aspirants despite democratic ideals.
9. Corporate-Political Elite Convergence
The rise of corporate-political nexuses under neoliberalism has added a new dimension to elite composition:
Corporate leaders influencing policy through lobbying or by entering politics.
Example: The Adani and Ambani groups are often cited as close to the ruling political elite, demonstrating how economic power translates into political leverage.
10. Thinkers’ Perspectives
C. Wright Mills (Power Elite): Elites in modern societies are a tightly-knit group controlling politics, economy, and military. This can be applied to the Indian nexus of politics, bureaucracy, and corporate sectors.
Pareto’s Circulation of Elites: Emphasizes the inevitability of elite rotation—yet India shows both replacement and persistence due to dynastic patterns.
Robert Dahl (Polyarchy): In democratic systems, power should be dispersed among multiple groups, but elite domination challenges this ideal in India.