The Hidden Lessons of India’s Political Splits

Mass defections are often blamed on ambition. But history suggests that parties begin to fracture when they lose ideological purpose.

The spate of mass defections and vertical splits witnessed over the past few years has become the subject of heated debates in television studios and extensive media coverage. The list is long - the undivided Shiv Sena, the NCP, the AAP, the TMC, the Shiv Sena (UBT), with speculation also rife about several others. The BJP’s aggressive strategy of expanding its footprint by marginalising regional parties, the alleged misuse of central agencies such as the ED and the CBI, the power-hungry nature of politicians, and allegations of money changing hands are all cited as probable drivers of these defections and splits.

Such developments are by no means new to Indian politics, although their frequency and scale appear unprecedented in recent years. It is unlikely that none of these factors was ever at play in the past. This raises an important question: what exactly has changed? A deeper look at the history of political splits offers not only vital clues about their causes but also valuable lessons for the future.

Irreconcilable Differences

The Congress was formed with the objective of leading the freedom struggle and securing India’s independence. People with differing viewpoints and from different schools of thought came together in pursuit of that larger national goal. Splits did occur even during the pre-Independence era. The most notable were the Surat split of 1907 between the Moderates and the Extremists, and the division in 1923 over whether to boycott the British legislative councils. In both cases, however, the rival factions eventually reconciled their differences and reunited.

The story of Congress splits after Independence was markedly different. The split between Indira Gandhi and the so-called Syndicate in 1969 permanently divided the party, with leaders such as Morarji Desai, S. Nijalingappa and S. K. Patil never returning to the Congress fold. Likewise, following the post-Emergency split of 1978, the divisions remained irreconcilable, and stalwarts such as Charan Singh, Chandra Shekhar, Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna, Jagjivan Ram and Devaraj Urs charted independent political paths. Over the decades, numerous former Congress leaders floated their own parties, many retaining the word “Congress” in their names. Clearly, the nature of party splits after the original objective of independence had been achieved was fundamentally different from those that occurred before it.

The Shiv Sena was founded in 1966 with a clear and singular objective: to fight for the legitimate rights of Marathi people. Over the following decades, that agenda gradually gave way, at least in part, to Hindutva. The party came to power alongside the BJP in 1995 on the Hindutva plank, and the alliance endured on that ideological foundation until 2019. While several prominent leaders exited the Shiv Sena over the years, the first major split came with the formation of the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena, which objected to the dilution of the Marathi cause. The second major split occurred only a couple of years after the Shiv Sena joined hands with the Congress and the NCP - parties that had long been among the most vocal critics of Hindutva.

Double Standards

The NCP was formed on the issue of Sonia Gandhi’s foreign origin, yet it eventually shared power with the Congress under her leadership for several years. Its major split came within a year of losing power in Maharashtra in 2022 following the split in the Shiv Sena.

The AAP emerged from an anti-corruption movement led largely by ordinary middle-class citizens who sought an alternative to what they viewed as the entrenched corruption of mainstream political parties. It subsequently lost power in Delhi amid criticism over the lavish lifestyles of some of its leaders and serious allegations of corruption, followed by a major internal split.

The TMC was founded to end the CPI(M)’s long-standing dominance in West Bengal and to represent the aspirations of ordinary Bengalis. However, the insensitive handling of the horrific Kolkata rape case, a poor economic record, perceptions of growing arrogance and allegations of widespread corruption culminated in a major political setback and an organisational split.

The BJP, on the other hand, has remained broadly committed to its themes of Hindutva and cultural nationalism since its Jana Sangh days. Irrespective of whether it has been in power or in opposition, it has not witnessed mass defections or major organisational splits. The same broadly applies to the communist parties. Following their major split in 1964, shaped largely by developments within the global communist movement, they have not experienced large-scale defections even during prolonged periods out of power.

Ideological Glue

The lessons are both clear and remarkably consistent. First, political parties need a distinctive purpose to hold their members together. While ideology is widely recognised as the glue that binds an organisation, its importance becomes evident only when viewed in the proper historical context. Once the founding purpose of a party - and the ideological glue that sustains it - loses relevance without being replaced by an equally compelling and distinctive vision, the party gradually loses its mass appeal. Its legislators and workers no longer develop the emotional or ideological attachment that can transcend personal ambition and electoral arithmetic. Parties can survive electoral defeats, but they struggle to survive the erosion of their distinctive purpose.

Dynastic leadership may temporarily provide such a differentiator, but it rarely remains effective over the long term. Economic development, poverty reduction, employment generation, better education, healthcare, infrastructure, good governance and even the upholding of constitutional values are important objectives, but they are not, by themselves, ideological differentiators capable of holding a party together. These are increasingly viewed as a common minimum expectation from any government rather than the defining identity of a political party.

The second lesson concerns the so-called TINA (“There Is No Alternative”) factor. Even if a party visibly departs from its foundational principles, disillusioned MPs, MLAs and party workers may continue to remain with it simply because no viable political alternative exists. The moment the party suffers a crushing electoral defeat or a credible alternative emerges, they waste little time in switching sides.

It is therefore an oversimplification to attribute every large-scale defection solely to personal greed or ambition. Likewise, invoking the now-popular “washing machine” analogy to allege the misuse of central agencies can become something of a self-goal, for it implicitly acknowledges that the leaders concerned carried “known blemishes” while they remained in their previous parties. While the lack of commitment displayed by defecting politicians rightly attracts criticism, the far greater failure - a party’s own abandonment of its stated ideology and founding objectives - rarely receives the scrutiny it deserves.

The third lesson concerns India’s electoral framework. The anti-defection law was enacted to ensure that voters are not deceived by elected representatives who contest elections on one party’s symbol and then defect to another. Yet the same legal framework permits parties that fought elections as part of a pre-poll alliance to abandon those alliances after the results and join hands with former rivals. In principle, a party deserting its electoral alliance is no different from an individual legislator deserting a political party. This inconsistency warrants serious legislative attention.

The electorate, too, must ask whether it is voting primarily for a candidate or for a party. Increasingly, elected representatives resemble interchangeable components in a vehicle. They continue to perform the same function regardless of which political vehicle they are fitted into, who is driving it, the direction in which it is headed, or the destination it ultimately seeks to reach.

It is easy either to denounce or to celebrate the frequent defections and vertical splits unfolding across India’s political landscape. The underlying lessons are far more nuanced. Political parties, legislators and voters alike would do well to recognise these lessons if they are serious about strengthening India’s electoral institutions and, ultimately, its democracy.

(The writer has worked in the Information Technology sector and is a keen political observer. Views personal.)