Why can’t the BJP find its next president?

Nearly a year after securing a slender mandate in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, the Bharatiya Janata Party finds itself unable to elect a new national president. What should have been a routine organisational transition has morphed into a protracted, messy stalemate with implications far beyond the party’s internal hierarchy.

Add to this Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s sudden resignation, cloaked in the familiar veil of ‘health reasons’. More than unsettling protocol, it has exposed intensifying tensions within the Sangh Parivar’s power structure.

Dhankhar, a constitutional functionary who had begun to show signs of institutional independence, became an uncomfortable figure for a leadership that demands ideological obedience even from constitutional high chairs. His departure underscores anxieties that also explain why, for the first time in decades, the BJP finds itself unable — or unwilling — to appoint a new party president. The vacuum at the top is not administrative. It is political — and psychological.

According to the BJP’s constitution, the three-year term of the party president is extendable — once. The post was held by Amit Shah (2014–2020), followed by J.P. Nadda (2020–present). While Shah completed a full five-year term, Nadda’s term has already been extended beyond its standard duration.

Nadda’s extensions have been justified as necessary for continuity during electoral cycles (the 2019 and 2024 Lok Sabha elections) and pending organisational elections in the states. The BJP’s parliamentary board, supposedly the top decision-making authority has been reduced to a rubber stamp. Over the last 11 years, its meetings have been few and far between, making it practically redundant.

The most immediate obstacle for the party is technical — and telling. According to the BJP’s constitution, at least half of its 36 state and Union Territory units must complete organisational elections before the party can elect its national president.

As of July 2025, key states such as Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka, Jharkhand and Telangana are yet to conclude the process. In some states like Karnataka and Telangana, factional infighting has stalled consensus on district-level appointments, creating a cascade of delays upstream.

This reveals a deeper rot in the state units — once considered the party’s most formidable grassroots machinery. The 2024 elections exposed cracks in this structure, especially in southern and eastern India.

The delay in state-level reshuffles is symptomatic of the creeping uncertainty in the BJP’s once-flawless command-and-control structure. The model that brought it electoral dominance is proving brittle in moments that require negotiation, consensus and coordination.

Even in traditionally strong states like Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat, turf wars between incumbent power centres and rising local leaders have bogged down the appointment process.

Beyond procedural hurdles lies a subtler but more consequential factor: the unresolved power dynamics between the BJP and its ideological parent, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). The BJP brass — especially Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union home minister Amit Shah — is reportedly in favour of elevating a political heavyweight with strong electoral credentials. The RSS, on the other hand, is said to prefer a leader steeped in organisational work and ideological commitment.

This divergence has created a deadlock. Multiple rounds of informal consultations between top functionaries have failed to yield consensus. The BJP no longer dances to the RSS’s tune as it did in the Vajpayee–Advani era. But neither is it free from the Sangh’s moral veto.

The RSS sees the BJP president not merely as an administrative head but as a keeper of the party’s original vision.

The Sangh fears that appointing a leader on the basis of loyalty to Modi–Shah or electoral winnability would dilute its long-term influence. The BJP’s top leadership views the presidency as critical to executing its political strategy as it prepares for a new cycle of state elections and the 2029 general election.

The shortlist — and why it’s going nowhere

Several names have done the rounds. Shivraj Singh Chouhan brings mass connect and organisational depth but is too independent-minded. Nirmala Sitharaman has stature and competence and, as a woman from Tamil Nadu, checks symbolic boxes. But does she inspire enough confidence within the party cadre?

D. Purandeswari and Vanathi Srinivasan offer regional balance and gender representation but lack pan-India clout. Manohar Lal Khattar and Bhupender Yadav are both trusted administrators but are perceived more as managers than mass leaders. Dharmendra Pradhan has appeal and communication skills, but his limited organisational base in Odisha is a drawback.

What unites these names is not their suitability but their inability to galvanise a fractured consensus among key stakeholders in the party, the Sangh and the leadership’s inner circle.

There’s also a calculated pause at play. Some BJP insiders argue that the leadership prefers to wait for an astrologically or culturally favourable window — like the Hindu New Year or after Parliament’s monsoon session — to make the announcement. Others believe the delay helps Modi–Shah keep a tight rein on the party apparatus while broader post-2024 course corrections are underway.

This pause, strategic as it may be, is risky for the vacuum it creates. Without a clear organisational head, the BJP appears rudderless at a time when the Opposition is recalibrating itself, especially under the INDIA bloc. Moreover, the message it sends internally is discomfiting. For a cadre-based party that prides itself on discipline and structure, the optics of indecision and drift are damaging.

The symbolism of the president’s post is also under strain. Traditionally seen as the glue that holds the central leadership and the cadre together, the party president’s role becomes crucial in times of transition. The BJP is no longer at its peak; it needs someone who can reconnect with the base, reconcile internal factions and navigate the party through uncertain ideological and electoral terrain.

This is not the first time the party president’s post was relegated to ceremonial status. During the Vajpayee–Advani era, leaders like Jana Krishnamurthi and Bangaru Laxman were seen as figureheads — the real authority was concentrated in the hands of the prime minister and deputy prime minister. History, it seems, is repeating itself — signalling institutional atrophy through top-heavy leadership.

As it moves from a decade of dominance to a more contested political future, can the BJP think beyond its over-centralised leadership model? For 10 years, Modi and Shah have been the twin architects of the party’s national strategy, leaving little room for independent functioning. The presidency — once a powerful post under leaders like Kushabhau Thakre and Rajnath Singh — has increasingly become an extension of the PMO.

If the BJP is to rejuvenate and restore, the president’s post must be filled by someone capable of inspiring the cadre, engaging with the RSS on equal terms and preparing the party for a world where Modi is no longer its sole electoral lodestar.

The shape and direction of the BJP in the coming decade will depend on whether the leadership seizes this opportunity to democratise decision-making and empower new voices, or continues to buy time with tactical delays. The longer the vacuum persists, the more it undermines the party’s credibility — internally, with the cadre; and externally, with the electorate.

A party that cannot choose its own leader cannot convince the country that it knows where it is headed.