Delhi CM’s statement highlights loyalty dilemma in Indian parties

In her very first statement, Delhi’s new chief minister Atishi made clear whom she serves. “Delhi has only one CM and his name is Arvind Kejriwal,” she said, adding that the “sole objective” would be to make him CM again.

This statement is striking for two reasons. As CM, her primary responsibility is towards the people of Delhi. Indeed, the signs of collapsing governance are all around us — in the streets flooded after a spell of rain, unchecked pollution, water crisis — but instead of talking about these and other civic issues, she framed her sole aim as reinstating Kejriwal as CM, placing the party leader’s interests above the public’s. By foregrounding internal organisational preoccupations in its external communication, AAP is making the same mistake that established parties have made at one time or another — to their inevitable detriment — of inadvertently communicating that the party exists to serve the interests of leadership rather than representing the interests of the people.

While it may be natural to rally around a leader during a crisis, Atishi’s statement exemplifies a broader, more systemic issue plaguing Indian politics: the culture of sycophancy. This phenomenon, where party members prioritise leadership loyalty over public service, is not unique to AAP but pervasive across the political landscape. The danger lies not just in narrowly defined party priorities or in a fundamental shift of democratic principles but in the party itself. When political discourse centres more around pleasing party leadership than addressing citizens’ needs, it creates a dangerous insularity, disconnecting parties from the very people they claim to represent.

It’s highly possible that if Atishi had chosen to speak of her obligations to the people of Delhi instead of her obligation to Kejriwal, it would have seemed that she was trying to carve out an independent space for herself and, thus, be perceived as a challenger to his leadership. This is a constant dilemma in Indian politics, where the search for a temporary replacement or placeholder is always fraught with the possibility of losing power altogether. Consequently, Indian political culture has evolved in a manner where, for party leaders outside of the top leader, public interest is almost always expressed as an extension of installing the top leader in power. The corollary is that when party members express independent views on public interest, these are often misinterpreted as challenges to leadership. This misperception ignores the natural and inevitable differences that exist among thoughtful individuals, even when they share a common platform and purpose.

This intra-party dynamic may seem expedient but ultimately has negative consequences for both the leadership and the party itself. One common outcome is inevitable atrophy and decay of political parties with time. This occurs because equating control over a party with conformity stifles the very ingredients needed to keep parties connected with its constituents—dialogue, discussion, and feedback. To prevent this decay, parties must promote internal forums for debate where dissent isn’t seen as disloyalty but as part of a robust dialogue and find cohesion in common ideology rather than in leadership alone. Else, genuine solidarity and long-term commitment will be supplanted by sycophancy.

Overt sycophancy is often a performative act, an attempt to prove loyalty in a landscape filled with opportunism. But those who engage in sycophancy often do so at the expense of their own self-respect — the trait necessary for integrity and long-term commitment. In the short term, sycophants appear reliable, but examples abound where the loudest, most vocal of them are often the first to shift allegiances when it’s convenient — and then become loudest sycophants for the other side. This trend has created a pervasive culture of opportunism, mistrust and instability within and across political parties.

Moreover, sycophancy fosters a culture of groupthink, leading to insularity, where diverse perspectives are sidelined in favour of reinforcing the leader’s agenda. This undermines the party’s ability to engage meaningfully with the public and weakens its capacity to evolve and adapt to the changing needs of the people. Equally, a culture of sycophancy tends to sever the ongoing ideological connection with the broader public, making political parties look like closed clubs for private gain, leading to voter alienation.

Ultimately, fostering a political culture that values integrity and self-restraint over sycophancy is essential for the long-term health of political parties — and Indian democracy. The challenge for party leadership is not how to suppress independent voices, but how to allow leaders to prioritise and express their view of the public interest while maintaining party cohesion. Doing so will make political parties more resilient and strengthen — not weaken — party leadership. For Atishi and Kejriwal, the real challenge is reorienting their leadership toward addressing Delhi’s urgent needs. Only by assiduously and exclusively focusing on the public good can Kejriwal regain the niche he seeks to occupy — the do-gooder aam aadmi.

END OF ARTICLE