A once dominant monolith has now been reduced to a two-digit group after the May elections in India. Nor is there any sign of serious introspection. The Congress is in thrall of arrogant denial. Its president Sonia Gandhi and her son and vice-president Rahul Gandhi are mostly to blame. They ran the party as if it was a personal fief.

The question commonly asked since the elections is whether the Congress can at all revive. It would be a colossal tragedy if India was left without a powerful opposition party to check an authoritarian Prime Minister Narendra Modi who lords over his party in a manner which has caused disquiet even among his backers.

On Aug 9, the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) National Council put its stamp of approval on Modi’s nomination of his confidante, Amit Shah, as the party’s president. He faces criminal cases involving charges of conspiracy to murder.

It is not a mere coincidence that the very next day the BJP’s parent, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), rang the alarm bells. Its supremo, Moyan Bhagwat, had, evidently, not taken kindly to Modi’s praise of Amit Shah as “the man of the match”, implying that he and his chief, Narendra Modi, himself, deserve sole credit for the BJP’s stunning victory at the polls.

The Congress bows to the dynastic principle in its choice of leadership

The RSS’s disciplined cadres go all out to work for the BJP’s candidates during the polls. Without its help the BJP can accomplish little.

Mohan Bhagwat’s warning did not lack in sternness: “Some people are giving credit to the party while others are giving credit to some individuals for the victory. But the organisation and the party were there earlier too, and so were the individuals. What happened then? It is the people who wanted change during the elections, who brought the party to power.”

The grim reality behind India’s political system is that one of its main parties is a creature of and is controlled by a fanatical group which is itself run on fascist lines — the RSS.

But the picture on the other side is none too encouraging, either. The Congress bows to the dynastic principle in its choice of leadership. Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi are responsible for the Congress’ electoral debacle.

However, were the mother and son to retire from politics, the party would go to pieces. It was Sonia’s withdrawal from her retirement in 1996, five years after the assassination of her husband Rajiv Gandhi in 1991, that mostly contributed to the Congress’ revival.

India has every reason to be proud of its vibrant democracy. But there is a disturbing fundamental which is little noted. Has India evolved a truly viable democratic party system? A constitution provides the bare skeleton of the polity. It is politics which provides the flesh and blood through a functioning party system.

In India political parties are run by oligarchies (the BJP-RSS) or a supreme leader as in the Congress. When a leader ceases to be a vote-getter, he is cast aside.

But Sonia Gandhi cannot be rejected for three reasons; one is that there is no alternative in sight, there is still hope of revival and, lastly, her grip on the party machine is strong.

India’s democratic constitution has been worked by political parties which are run undemocratically. There is no attraction for a self-respecting professional to join a party because the only avenue it opens to him is the leader’s approval.

None of the political parties holds free and fair elections to enable renewal of life which alone can impart real cohesion to a political party. We have centralised political parties which warp democracy as well as federalism.

None pointed out the flaw better than did the chief election commissioner, S.L. Shakhdher in 1980.

He said: “Political parties make strong demands for the conduct of free and fair elections to legislative bodies, but choose to ignore the application of the same principles when it comes to the functioning of their own party organs.

“It has been revealed before me in various cases that I had occasion to hear that parties do not follow their own constitutions. They hold no party elections. They function for years on an ad hoc basis. Sometimes there has been a tyranny of the minority over the majority because of undemocratic functioning .... [A] few persons ... strangulate the ... aspirations of the members of the party at the grass roots and keep the party under their strict control.

“The voice of the majority does not find expression in important decision-making processes. I, therefore, suggest that there should be parliamentary legislation making it obligatory on the part of every political organisation to register their body and regulate their functioning by laying down broad outlines and norms.” He was ignored.

The writer is an author and lawyer based in Mumbai.

Published in Dawn, August 16th, 2014