I usually desist from writing explicitly about political parties but the case of Indian National Congress is special as it is a vestige of pre-independent India. This is the aspect that I sometimes feel makes the party unfair. Mahatma Gandhi tried in vain to dismantle the congress after independence. We cannot simulate what would have happened if the congress was dismantled but can surely discuss the pros and cons of such an event.
Why did Mahatma give a call to dismantle Indian National Congress (INC)? He did not want some greedy men to abuse the power and prestige gained by the INC which were the gains of Indian independence movement. For reasons not known to me at this point, Mahatma’s thoughts were not implemented and the Congress party remained the dominant political party for the first 20 years after independence till 1967. Even today, the loyalty enjoyed by the INC can be related to the legacy carried over from the past. This has led critics to call the Indian government a Nehru Gandhian dynasty. In this respect, a level playing field was not envisaged in the constitution of India or by the Interim government where new parties and its leaders could have garnered the votes based on their Post independence manifesto instead of the Congress repeating the pre-independence rhetoric.
Taking an utilitarian perspective, one could say that India was not yet a stable democracy to have smaller and weaker political parties rather than a single strong party. Thus it is the context and the time in the evolutionary phase of a polity that justifies the continuation of the congress party. Today, when democracy has taken its roots, we see many political parties in the Indian political system. There are so many parties that sometimes we are forced to debate on the need for a two party system in India. Nevertheless, monopoly has no place in this free and competitive world.