Abstract

Populism and identity politics have been defining forces in Indian democracy, shaping political narratives, electoral strategies, and governance frameworks. This paper explores the intersection of populist rhetoric and identity-based mobilization, focusing on caste, religion, regionalism, and economic stratification as key determinants in Indian politics. Historically, identity-driven populism has been a powerful tool for mass mobilization, beginning with anti-colonial movements and evolving into a dominant political strategy in independent India. Leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi, B.R. Ambedkar, Kanshi Ram, and Narendra Modi have leveraged identity politics to build political coalitions and challenge established elites, often framing their leadership as a response to the grievances of marginalized communities. Through an analysis of political movements such as the Dravidian movement, Mandal Commission-driven caste politics, Hindutva nationalism, and welfare-based economic populism, this study examines how identity-driven populism has simultaneously democratized political participation and exacerbated social divisions. While caste-based and regional populism have enhanced representation for historically excluded communities, majoritarian populism—particularly religious nationalism—has contributed to communal polarization, weakening India's secular fabric. Additionally, the study highlights the impact of populist politics on democratic institutions, arguing that anti-elitist and emotionally charged narratives often delegitimize constitutional principles, undermine institutional checks and balances, and deepen electoral fragmentation. This paper contends that while populism and identity politics have given voice to marginalized communities, their strategic exploitation by political actors has intensified social tensions, weakened national cohesion, and led to governance challenges. The study underscores the need for a balanced approach that promotes inclusive political participation while safeguarding democratic norms, pluralism, and institutional integrity.

Keywords