BJP’s Real Challenge: Not The Opposition; But Cracks Within Its Own Ranks

The BJP often faces its biggest threat not from the Opposition but from internal conflicts. Former Manipur Chief Minister N Biren Singh’s recent allegations have once again exposed this uncomfortable reality. Fights over status, positions and influence within the party can sometimes cause more damage than political rivals.

Biren Singh alleged that some BJP leaders in Manipur conspired with the Congress to remove him as Chief Minister. He clarified that he was accusing local leaders, not the party’s central leadership.

This issue goes beyond Manipur. It raises a larger question about the BJP’s organisational structure, political culture and future. Is the party weakening its own workers to accommodate leaders who join from other parties? Has the ‘New BJP’ adopted the old party’s discipline and ideology but pushed its most valuable asset, the dedicated grassroots worker, into the background?

The old BJP built its identity around organisation, discipline and ideology. Its leadership often emerged from the grassroots. Workers moved through a long organisational journey, from the mandal and district levels to the state and national leadership.

During this process, they learnt the party’s ideology, culture of sacrifice and political approach. Workers associated with the RSS and its affiliated organisations gave the BJP the character of an ideological and social movement rather than just an election-winning machine.

The New BJP has certainly become more electorally successful, media-focused and centralised. It has embraced technology, social media, election strategies and faster decision-making. However, this success appears to have widened the gap between leaders and workers.

Today, leaders often emerge from electoral calculations, administrative experience or the political influence they bring from other parties. They do not always come from the ranks of those who built the organisation at the booth level.

The BJP has adopted the strategy of inducting leaders from other parties to expand its political reach. The reasoning is understandable.

A prominent local leader can help the party establish itself quickly in regions where its organisation remains weak. However, problems arise when these newcomers dominate key party positions, ministries, electoral tickets and organisational authority.

Biren Singh’s remarks reflect this tension. He claimed that some legislators could not accept his elevation as Chief Minister, even though he had joined the BJP from the Congress. He accused them of treating the BJP as their ‘property’.

Whether an organisational or judicial inquiry establishes these allegations or not, his remarks reflect the resentment that many party workers may experience.

Grassroots workers often feel that newcomers receive immediate access to positions of power, while those who have served the party for decades continue to wait for recognition.

This resentment goes beyond personal rivalry. It raises questions about organisational ethics. A worker may spend decades managing booth committees and campaigning tirelessly during elections, yet lose opportunities for tickets, positions and recognition to leaders who recently joined the party.

Such experiences can weaken trust. Once workers lose confidence in the organisation, the party risks becoming a machine that follows orders rather than a movement driven by voluntary commitment.

Manipur offers an important context for this debate. Biren Singh stepped down as Chief Minister in February 2025.

President’s Rule followed his resignation. In February 2026, the BJP formed a government under Y Khemchand Singh. Reports identified Khemchand among the senior leaders who had sought Biren Singh’s removal.

Biren Singh has raised another pointed question: If violence continued even after his removal, what political purpose did his exit serve?

He may have raised this question to defend his own political record. However, it highlights a larger concern: internal factions can prioritise their political interests over governance, administration and public welfare.

When leaders fight among themselves, workers often split into rival camps. This division weakens booth-level organisation and can eventually affect the party’s electoral prospects.

Reports of public allegations between Manipur’s two Deputy Chief Ministers further reflect these tensions.

One Deputy Chief Minister reportedly accused the other’s husband of serious wrongdoing and demanded his resignation. Such disputes damage the government’s public image and leave party workers uncertain about which leader to support.

The party leadership must consider whether it mistakes centralised control for organisational strength.

A strong local leader may develop an independent political base, which can make central leadership uncomfortable. However, weakening such leaders can disrupt the process of nurturing future leadership.

Workers who aspire to rise through the organisation may begin to believe that loyalty means remaining silent rather than demonstrating their abilities.

Popular leaders may find themselves pushed aside in the name of organisational interests. This can encourage a culture of fear instead of ideological debate.

The BJP’s greatest strength has never rested solely on its prominent leaders. Its grassroots workers have built its organisational foundation. They organise village meetings, reach voters during elections, explain government schemes and strengthen public trust in the party.

However, many workers complain that the party remembers them during elections but overlooks them at other times.

The phrase ‘winnable candidates’ often shapes ticket distribution. In practice, this can favour people with money, influence, political positions or a background in another party. Meanwhile, long-serving workers hear that they should remain committed to the organisation and wait for their opportunity. That opportunity, however, may never arrive. Such neglect gradually creates frustration.

A healthy political organisation can welcome leaders from other parties, but newcomers must learn its culture. They must demonstrate their commitment to the party’s ideology and workers rather than pursue personal political ambitions.

When the process works in reverse, newcomers receive top positions while grassroots workers face prolonged waits for recognition. This imbalance damages the party’s organisational ethics.

The BJP’s organisational network also draws support from the RSS and its affiliated bodies. Student, labour, farmer and social organisations help develop its grassroots leadership. However, increasing centralisation can limit their role. They risk becoming mobilisation partners during elections rather than participants in policymaking and leadership development.

This trend could weaken the party’s ideological foundation. When leadership focuses only on electoral victories and managing government crises, internal ideological debate may disappear. Personal ambitions can then replace meaningful political discussions and fuel factionalism.

The BJP must recognise that inducting leaders from other parties is not inherently wrong. However, placing them above long-serving workers can damage the organisation. The party needs transparent criteria for distributing tickets and positions, greater opportunities for dedicated workers and institutional mechanisms to address internal grievances.

The allegations in Manipur serve as a warning. Unless the BJP strengthens its internal leadership development and organisational ethics, a weak Opposition alone cannot guarantee electoral success. The real political battle does not always take place outside polling booths. It often begins inside party offices, where internal trust and unity shape the public’s confidence.

Also Read: PM Modi Pays Tribute To Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel; Inaugurates 31 Projects In Gujarat