Comment in150 words: Political personalities are more significant than political parties in India. (2018, 10 Marks)
The claim echoes B. R. Ambedkar‘s warning to the Constituent Assembly on 25 November 1949 that bhakti, or hero-worship, may help save the soul in religion, but in politics is “a sure road to degradation” and finally to dictatorship. Personalities plainly dominate Indian campaigns. Whether they matter more than parties is a separate question.
The case for personalities
- History: Jawaharlal Nehru led for seventeen years as Prime Minister. Indira Gandhi split the Congress in 1969, won 352 seats with her faction in 1971 and returned in 1980 after the Emergency. Voters followed the leader, not the organisation.
- Presidentialisation: national elections are now framed as a choice of Prime Minister. In 2019, Lokniti-CSDS found that about a third of BJP voters would have voted differently had Narendra Modi not been the candidate.
- Personality parties: the TDP, the AIADMK, Arvind Kejriwal‘s AAP, and the TVK, which won 108 seats in Tamil Nadu in its first election in 2026.
- Weak organisations: without internal democracy, the leader becomes the party’s brand and its high command.
The case for parties
- Split-ticket voting: Delhi gave the BJP all seven Lok Sabha seats in 2014 and 2019, yet gave the AAP 67 and 62 of 70 assembly seats in 2015 and 2020.
- Personality without a machine fails: Prashant Kishor‘s Jan Suraaj won no seat in Bihar in 2025.
- Organisation carries charisma: the BJP’s booth committees and the RSS network, which reports about 83,000 shakhas, turn popularity into votes. Even so, the BJP fell to 240 seats in 2024.
- Labels have value: the Shiv Sena and NCP factions fought hardest for the party name and symbol. In Maharashtra, sympathy for Sharad Pawar won his NCP (SP) eight Lok Sabha seats in 2024 to Ajit Pawar’s one, but months later Ajit Pawar’s NCP, with the symbol and the alliance machine, took 41 assembly seats to his 10.
- Social bases outlast founders: the DMK survived M. Karunanidhi, while the BSP, personalised under Mayawati, has faded.
The cost of personalisation
Personalisation hollows out consultation inside parties, since a leader who is the reason the party wins cannot be held to account by those who owe their seats to him. It weakens institutions, leaves a succession crisis behind, and opens the door to the demagoguery Ambedkar feared.
Conclusion
Personalities dominate the campaign; parties decide durability. The statement holds for the moment of mobilisation, not for the structure of competition. Ambedkar’s warning points to the remedy: institutionalise charisma rather than worship it.