Thread by @rahul_tverma

Does Ideology matter in Indian politics?

In our new book, Pradeep Chhibber & I challenge the dominant view that Indian politics is based on social cleavages & devoid of ideas. We show that Ideological divisions have shaped party politics since independence. 1/11

The western paradigm of “ideology” is not applicable to India. Here the ideological debates center on statism—extent to which the state should dominate and regulate society. And recognition— how the state should accommodate various marginalized groups & protect minorities 2/11

We argue that for an "idea" to become the basis of party politics, it must have four elements:
1. intellectual lineage
2. stable over a long period
3. politicians must take opposing positions (enough numbers on each side)
4. transmission from elites to masses. 3/11

We examined Indian political thought (Arthashashtra, Ramayana, Buddhist text, Maududi & Sirhandi), Constituent Assembly debates & writings of Gandhi, Nehru, Ambedkar, Rajaji, Golwalkar to trace the intellectual lineage of ideas that have shaped politics in modern India. 4/11

Data drawn from the @LoknitiCSDS surveys since 1967 & surveys of political elites in 1971 & 93 shows that the ideological divide is quite stable. Activists, members, and supporters of the main political parties hold distinct positions on the two ideological dimensions. 5/11

We argue that the movement of political parties within this ideological space has led to changes in the party system: the decline of the Congress system, the rise of regional parties in many states, and finally to a BJP-led second dominant party system. 6/11

While establishing the importance of ideological divisions, we challenge dominant narratives of Indian politics.

1. We show that these divisions exist within caste and class.
2. Ideology is not just the domain of rich & upper caste. 7/11

3. We show that the well-known myths about vote buying in India are just that— myths. In our fieldwork, NES data & survey experiment, we found little evidence of quid pro quo, the central element of the clientelism thesis. 8/11

4. We focus on the role of leaders who project themselves as transformational (rather than transactional leaders) as they are better able to mobilize votes and hold their organizations together by offering an ideological vision. 9/11

In explaining the rise of the BJP-led dominant party system, we discuss how rapid changes in the class composition of Indian society might produce contradictions within the ideological coalitions that brought the party's ascent in the first place. 10/11

In writing the history of India’s party politics since Independence, this book provides a sharply distinct account of various ideas of India and how ideological conflicts have shaped the evolution of India’s party system. 11/11

This book would not have been possible without the help of friends & colleagues at @UCBerkeley, in Delhi and elsewhere. Our sincere thanks & gratitude.

The book is available --

US/ UK edition @OUPPolitics - bit.ly/2DSDqpu (discount code - ASFLYQ6) or in stores, Amazon etc

South Asia Edition in stores & Amazon India - amzn.to/2DFmEJm

Thank you ALL for your kind & encouraging words. I very much appreciate your help. I do hope that you'll enjoy reading the book. I'd be looking forward to hearing your thoughts on what we missed/ what could have been done better.

Many of you have asked about the cover photo. Its India's first cabinet on January 31, 1950. The first para in the book describes this picture "as if the sitting position of the cabinet was ideologically arrayed" --

While the focus of this book is India, we do mention that our argument applies to other similarly situated post-colonial multi-ethnic states such as Nigeria & Indonesia @SlaterPolitics @RachelStrohm @whowhywherewhen @pjvermonte

To suggest that voters in the Global South are not creatures of ideas negates the historical experiences & nature of conflicts that have shaped party politics and party systems across Asia & Africa.

We disagree with Sartori's assessment of the ideological conflict in Africa --