The personal and factional politics dominated the internal affairs of the Indian National Congress since Independence. The external environment and internal political process of Congress in UP contributed to the development of factional politics.
Before the independence, there were two major conflicts in Congress within UP. One was that the congress was divided into modernists (who wanted to adopt modern methods) and traditionalists (who wanted to maintain older values), and the other conflict was between ideologists and virtuoso politicians. There was also a fifth type of leader called the arbiter; he didn’t participate in conflicts but acted as a mediator. The conflict between traditionalists and modernists, who focused on secularism and Hindu revivalism, respectively, reached its peak during the 1951 Congress presidential election.
Source- Newslaundry
Characteristics of factional politics-
The structure of the factional politics in UP could be understood by the alliance and the pattern of conflict within the congress. The conflict within Congress is based around the personal enmities and the personalities of the party leaders. The groups are often named after the name of the authoritative leader, such as the Gupta group or the former Sampurnanda group.
These factional groups are loosely tied by the bonds of friendship, caste loyalties, and political interest. The leaders within a certain group keep changing their party; there is no stability; it often seems that there is no hostility and alliance within the party. In fact, lying at the bottom of the core political instability is the shifting alliance and the personal enmity between the prominent leaders.
The inner core of the factional party is similar to the guru–disciple relationship, which is marked by the pattern of unwavering support and unquestionable loyalty. On the other hand, there are some leaders who will not form permanent political alliances but will retain complete independence and switch alliances according to their convenience.
Composition of faction and group –
The most important man in any faction is the leader. The leaders in any factional politics differ in personal temperament, but an ideal one can be defined. An ideal factional leader has seniority, education, skill of manipulation, and capability to understand his followers. The inner circle of the faction, who are attracted by the leader’s personality, remains on his side through thick and thin. The larger, fluctuating members remain with the leaders as long as they are receiving the material benefits. Caste plays a very important role in the factional politics.
The hostility between the inner and outer core of factional groups is generally based on caste. The conflicts between the two increase if the opposing leader belongs to the different caste.
Factional parties have both integrative and disintegrative roles in politics. The disintegrative function is much more visible through conflicts based on caste; the integrative function is not much obvious, but it helps in the long run.
Factional conflict can occur in any party because of certain objectives, but it is intensified in UP because the leaders reject the traditional approaches of resolving the conflicts. In traditional society, decision-making and conflict resolution. Conflict is resolved through decision-making and arriving at a consensus. However, if disagreements prevent consensus and the decision is not reached due to conflict, then the desired agreement may be reached later. However, if there is an urgency of decision-making and coming to a desired agreement, then the adoption of consensus is done through the arbitrator.
In a democratic party, the consensus doesn’t depend on everyone agreeing to the decision. The consensus and the unanimity are reached through majority vote and other institutionalized methods to solve the conflicts. The leaders of UP factional parties, instead of relying on these methods to solve the conflict, consider them to be biased, undemocratic, corrupted, and dominated in favor of the opposition. They rely only on the involvement of an impartial arbitrator to solve the conflicts as the only democratic way. The arbitrator, who is usually the most senior member of the congress party with no affiliations with any of the factional affiliations.
However, the significance of the arbitrator has been reduced because of the decreasing number of arbitrators with no factional politics affiliation because over time the factional politics within the Congress has become so internalized in Congress that it has become very organized.
Factional politics also helps in the integration of Congress, which is less noticeable. The appointment of members in Congress is done by the factional parties, and mostly the primary members are recruited to acquire the voting strength in the organizational elections. This does not only make the Congress more inclusive but also broaden its base and organizational structure. People are appointed from different castes and religions, which avoids the hegemony of any caste and religion and makes the Congress organization more diverse.
Another important function of the factional politics is that it adds stability to the organizational structure. Each district in UP has its own factional system such that a sudden change in the organization of a factional party of one district or a conflict does not affect the factional party of another district. The faction helps to manage conflict and rivalry and maintain stability at the same time. The leaders prioritize the loyalty of the factional party over the loyalty of Congress.
The 1971-72 merger and split in the Indian Socialist movement showed how leadership conflicts, local interests, and power struggles can shape a political party. Leaders weren’t mainly divided over ideologies or specific policies but over strategies for gaining power. Often, they needed to balance public messages about unity and equality with the more practical language of local interests, like caste, to rally support. This split reflects how, in Indian politics, party divisions often emerge not just from beliefs or social divides but from leaders’ competing ambitions and tactics for power. Ultimately, without strong discipline or a clear ideology, parties like the Socialists struggled to stay united and bring long-term change.
