Three Governing Philosophies Shaping Contemporary Indian Politics
Three Governing Philosophies Shaping
Contemporary Indian Politics
The Congress Party has
historically defined itself as a broad national movement rather than a narrowly
ideological organization. Its core philosophy treats all Indians as equal
stakeholders in the nation, regardless of social or economic background. This
outlook shaped India’s early state-building years, when the emphasis was on
political unity, public institutions, and strategic autonomy. During periods of
strong central authority, Congress-led governments were able to assert India’s
position internationally, including in moments such as the 1971 war, which
demonstrated that a diverse democracy could act decisively on the global stage.
At the same time, Congress’s
structure has often lacked internal discipline. Over the decades, this allowed
individuals with weak ideological commitment to rise within the party, some of
whom later shifted allegiance when offered power or financial incentives
elsewhere. Congress governments also faced criticism for accommodating wealthy
and influential interests, particularly when large projects were allocated
without sufficient competition. These outcomes were not inherent to the party’s
stated philosophy, but rather to how loosely that philosophy was enforced in
practice.
The Aam Aadmi Party emerged much
later, but its governing outlook aligns closely with Congress on the question
of inclusion. AAP’s central idea is that national and economic strength come
from active participation by ordinary citizens, supported by strong public
services such as education, healthcare, and basic utilities. Where AAP differs
structurally is in its approach to internal accountability. When corruption
allegations surfaced against its own members, the party removed and distanced
itself from those individuals, and in some cases supported investigative action
against them.
AAP’s ability to act against
corruption has been limited by India’s federal power structure. Agencies that
operate under the central government have jurisdictional authority that state
governments do not. As a result, AAP has not been able to pursue cases
involving individuals aligned with the BJP at the national level, where
political protection is stronger. This contrast highlights a structural reality
of Indian governance rather than a claim of moral superiority: state-level
reform efforts function within constraints set by the center.
The BJP represents a different
governing philosophy altogether. Its model places a strong emphasis on
centralized power, national assertion, and market-led development. Economic
growth under this approach relies heavily on large-scale infrastructure and capital-intensive
projects, many of which are financed through substantial public borrowing.
While these projects are presented as national development, the financial
burden of repayment is largely transferred to the public through taxes, user
fees, tolls, and long-term debt obligations.
At the same time, the immediate
flow of borrowed funds and public expenditure has been concentrated among large
corporate actors with close access to state power. In structural terms, this
creates a separation between who receives the capital and who ultimately pays
for it. Development is thus funded by the population at large, while profits
and asset ownership are accumulated by a smaller economic elite. This model
mirrors market-driven systems where growth is expected to trickle down over
time, rather than being distributed through broad participation from the
outset.
These three philosophies also
reflect wider global patterns. Highly centralized systems treat citizens
primarily as instruments of production. Market-first systems prioritize capital
accumulation and assume employment and prosperity will follow. Participatory
systems focus on equipping citizens with education, health, and security so
they can directly contribute to economic growth. The Congress and AAP
approaches align more closely with the third model, while the BJP’s framework
increasingly resembles the second.
A critical distinction across
these philosophies lies in how corruption is treated institutionally. Every
political party will, at times, attract individuals who act in their own
interest. That reality alone does not define a governing system. The defining
line is whether corruption exists at the margins or at the center of power.
When corrupt individuals are members of a party but are constrained,
investigated, or removed, the system retains the capacity to correct itself.
When a party is led by corrupt leadership that is willing to do anything to
retain power, corruption becomes structural. In that situation, accountability
collapses, institutions weaken, and the nation bears the cost economically,
politically, and socially.
Comments
Post a Comment