BJP’s Strategic Deliberation in Electing Its National President Amid Internal Restructuring

With 12 state presidents appointed, the BJP is steadily advancing toward selecting its next national president, though the process is unfolding at a slower pace than anticipated. “I estimate the presidential elections will take at least another month,” remarked a senior party leader, emphasizing that the party’s methodical approach to internal elections necessitates time. Given the current pace of organizational polls, the leadership is prioritizing a structured and consensus-driven process before making the final decision.

Currently, Union Minister JP Nadda continues to serve as BJP’s national president, a role he officially assumed in January 2020 after initially being appointed as the party’s working president in 2019. According to the BJP constitution, the party must have at least half of its state presidents—18 in total—in place before proceeding with the selection of its national chief. Before this, elections must be conducted at multiple levels, including booth, mandal, and district leadership. Initially, the BJP had aimed to complete the appointment of all state presidents by January 15, but the timeline has now been extended.

Although these leadership roles are technically “elected,” the BJP follows a long-standing tradition of forging consensus when appointing presidents at all levels—including its national president. Several party insiders have attributed the delay to the recently concluded Delhi Assembly elections, which required extensive party focus and resources. A senior BJP leader from Madhya Pradesh pointed out that organizational elections took a backseat as leaders were deployed for Delhi’s campaign efforts. “A leader who usually manages six to seven Assembly constituencies in Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh was given charge of just one Assembly seat in Delhi. Similarly, in another constituency, two MPs were deployed to manage it. The amount of attention given to Delhi was unprecedented, and that significantly impacted the timeline of our internal elections,” the leader explained.

However, even after the Delhi elections, organizational restructuring has not gained significant momentum, fueling speculation that a consensus on the next national president is still evolving. Some leaders have likened the delay to a train halting before reaching a station, awaiting clearance to proceed. “We are waiting for the signal,” quipped a BJP leader from Jharkhand. In Jharkhand, booth-level elections have concluded, but mandal-level polls remain pending due to the lack of a final directive from the central leadership. Similarly, Bihar is nearing completion of district-level elections, while Odisha, which had set a deadline of January 29 to finish booth- and mandal-level elections, has since seen little movement from Delhi. “Between January 23 and 29, we worked round-the-clock to meet the deadlines, completing nearly all district-level elections. But after January 29, there has been no urgency from the central leadership, and we have been left waiting,” a BJP leader from Odisha said.

In Uttar Pradesh, district-level elections are still in progress, with intense competition for leadership roles. “The contest for mandal president feels like an Assembly election, while the fight for district president is akin to a Lok Sabha battle,” observed a senior BJP functionary. The selection process has also been complicated by occasional conflicts between candidates recommended at the district level and those preferred by the state or national leadership. “Sometimes, the person favored by the central leadership is not even on the final shortlist,” noted a party strategist.

In Madhya Pradesh, where booth, mandal, and district-level elections have already concluded, leaders are awaiting Union Minister and BJP election in-charge Dharmendra Pradhan to arrive and convey the central leadership’s decision regarding the new state president. Until then, the process remains in limbo.

Despite the party’s emphasis on consensus, internal disagreements have surfaced in several states, including Rajasthan, Karnataka, and Haryana. In Karnataka, Bijapur City MLA Basangouda Patil Yatnal has vocally opposed state BJP president B Y Vijayendra. In Haryana, Ambala Cantt MLA and minister Anil Vij has expressed dissatisfaction with state BJP chief Mohan Lal Badoli and Chief Minister Nayab Singh Saini. Meanwhile, in Rajasthan, the BJP’s decision to retain Madan Rathore as state president has led to fierce resistance from Sawai Madhopur MLA and minister Kirodi Lal Meena, who has gone so far as to accuse his government of surveillance.

These internal differences highlight the challenges the BJP faces in balancing regional aspirations with national objectives. While the leadership remains committed to maintaining a consensus-driven approach, the party also recognizes the urgency of completing its restructuring process, particularly with key state elections on the horizon.

As the BJP works through these deliberations, party insiders maintain that the leadership will ensure a smooth transition, adhering to its established tradition of consensus-building. The final announcement of the new national president is expected only once the leadership is confident that the choice will be unanimously accepted within the organization.