If at the very onset we had not adopted a foreign style of Government and functioning, India would have never been divided into so many parts.

If there were no political parties, when the process started in 1936, there would not have been a Indian National Congress (INC) or a Muslim League or any other party but only representatives of people who were to elect their leader from the elected members and form their common objectives and plan of action after the elections. If this would have been the case no dispute as to any favoritism, neglect or reservation would have arose and no person having ambitions beyond the horizon of common welfare could have raised his head.

Political parties have corrupted the system right from the days of inception of the first legal political party in my country. Fanaticism and misuse of religious and regional sentiments was as much a part of political tactic at that time, as it is now. After the formation of Indian National Congress(INC) in 1885 it took little time for a few ambitious people to air a dispute regarding the neglect of Muslims in Indian National Congress, which was the largest and the only recognised political platform of the people of India at that time and was recognised by the Britishers for negotiation with an identified group of Indians. It was alleged that INC was predominantly a Hindu party managed and controlled by Hindus and aristocrats and between 1885, the formal formation of INC, and 1909 (the year of Minto-Morley reforms) no Mohammedan ever headed the INC, despite there being a large Muslim population in India, It was said that there were deserving Muslim workers and leaders but they were not given important official positions. INC adopted the colour of a secular political platform only after the formation of Muslim League in 1906 and the Minto-Morley reforms of 1909. Muslim League and other political parties came into picture under such circumstances.

Some ambitious people, whom the illiterate masses loved and trusted betrayed them for their selfish interest and to gain some power for themselves, which was only to be for their lifetime, they raped my glorious Country. The ideology of each political party, even at that time was more or less based on the religious and caste structure so as to generate a guaranteed mass base and become a strong platform for negotiation with the Britishers and gain power for the organisation and self. During the whole drama the oppressors of my Country played only their role.

A bunch of selfish people adopted this structure, as it served their purpose well. They carried on with a party system, disastrous for my Country. The conditions in my Country were not conducive for this kind of system.

The beginning might have been guided by noble causes but the new structure provided that any ambitious person could rise now and then and form a political party with all sort of non-practical, non-beneficial, mass support generating nonsense ideas, unlimited black money, foreign funding and big promises. They would ask the ordinary illiterate and under educated public, which as in all times was as ignorant and innocent as is now, to elect by marking the ballot paper with a stamp on the symbol of the contesting party.

Even the stamping of the symbol on the ballot paper was a sly method devised to solve the problem of illiteracy instantly. This enabled the people who can not even read the name on the ballot paper, to vote so that they may not be left out because they are the people who are to direct the fate of the election and are the least demanding, they are happy with the same old but bigger promises made more persuasively every time.

It is not out of place to remind that there is a whole set of law devoted to punish the thieves, thugs and cheats but the politicians of the present day are allowed to cheat publicly and boldly and still allowed to go scot-free, without even a blemish. Nothing wrong is seen in it.

The democratic law gives power to people even with perfectly nonsense, absurd and foolish ideas to propagate the same and seek public support, till the time they are not violent in nature. Let us say that there is a person who believes that "all women should remain at home and should not come in public", he have a right to propagate this idea and seek support, there would always be people who are ready to extend support. If this support exceeds the relative majority of the people then that person even has a right to fanatically propagate this notion and even has a chance of coming to power and implementing his absurd propaganda, even if it is against common sense and against the larger public interest.

Against a Multi party system, there are advocates of even a two party system in democracy. That too will defeat the purpose of democracy, as people will lose interest for the reason that they do not have much choice. Apart from this it will limit the deserving from holding public office. It is claimed that even in a two party system, independent contestants can always contest, but those who are familiar with mass psychology and voting patterns know it too well that most of the people always vote for a candidate or party who is more likely to win and come to power.

Every political party (in all kinds of political systems) which want to come to power, always target its propaganda against the existing policies of the Government and always formulate a counter policy so as to unseat the existing Government through perceived or propagated weaknesses in the governance and its policies. It always feeds the unsuspecting people on sugar coated promises after calculating the mass support base of an issue (also called a populist promise) so that a party may get a relative majority support. The promises and projected objectives of the aspiring party is to prove the point that the existing structure and the existing policies are all wrong and anti people and that the Country is not being managed efficiently, even if the existing Government is more efficient than the aspiring party.

Once the struggling political party comes to power, it by its own self contradictions can not follow the same path which the previous Government followed. So the new party tries to follow a different course of action even if its pitfalls are visible to them. To change their agenda and objectives would result in loss of face and opposition from fanatics, which the partymen fear will result in loss of power.

They feel that adopting a not so practical idea is far less dangerous than changing tracks and moreover they can always slow peddle the issue and by that time their term will finish and they can always bank on a new issue. A party which gets votes and comes to power on a populist promise can never support a alternative pattern till the time it is at least once voted out of power in the intervening period. All this results in continuous contradictions in the objectives of a State and waste of its resources.

During the struggle for power there would always be a political party pretending to have an ideology opposing the existing one. It would be foolish to assume that the political parties always have a clear objective and a political party constitutes of like minded people, though I wouldn’t deny that the members of every political party are unanimous in at least one objective, that of being in power. Assumption of any political party having a super brain working on an agenda directed only towards the welfare of State is assuming nothing less than that "the sun is made of ice".

Everyone in a democracy having a party system (elected by any kind of voting system) is now aware that almost all the political parties do not have any State Welfare Objective or an agenda for the State, but are only interested in seeking power for themselves. Acquisition and retention of power become so dear an objective that all (required) development and welfare activities become a luxury in which the politicians very rarely indulge in.

Assuming that there may be a political party formed out of purely ideological reasons. Even in such a case during the struggle for power, which is necessary for implementation of its ideology, the political organisation have to invariably compromise on many issues including the ideological issues, moreover, when this power acquisition struggle becomes one generation old , the next generation always lose sight of the ideology and views the ideological goals only as a mean to acquire and retain power. The ideological goals are relegated to the position of a superficial cover. Assuming further that this political organisation comes to power after a long struggle, In such an event the political organisation always use the Government and the powers of the Government for private purposes like, to maintain the political organisation, to consolidate its position and develope it further, to create resources for the future and above all to adopt steps helpful for retention of power.

If political parties serve no purpose, then why have them? It may be advocated that every political party has its agenda for the Country and comes to power to implement it. The statement is a farce. Tell me which political party has done anything other than what was absolutely necessary or anything extra which could not be done had there not been that political party? All of us know the falsehood of such statements and know the reason of forming the political parties.

All political parties must be abolished and anybody desirous of working for public must contest in his individual capacity. The Parliament should constitute of all such elected independent members. The Parliament constituting of the independent members is to discuss and decide the National objectives and issues and all the members must follow the agreed objectives. Much more could be achieved if we had a National agenda to be decided and followed by those elected in their individual capacity on the basis of their personal influence among the public.

It is possible that even in such an arrangement the elected members of the Parliament may form a lobby for any issue and may join hands together for propagation and execution of certain ideas and ideology. This would be a healthy practice as there would be as many lobbies as there are issues and each lobby will consist of different set of members though some may be common to more than one lobby, this will give rise to healthy and unbiased discussions and it would be possible for the convinced members to change their views and shift sides. Each member shall be acting on his intelligence, understanding and conscience and shall not be legally or morally bound to support a view of any particular group or person. On the whole each member shall be acting in the best interest of the State and not a group.

It is for sure that whenever a No-party system is propagated, the political parties will protest with all their might and all kind of loopholes in the No-party system, but this would be nothing unusual. In all transitions such things happen. In a democracy an anarchist or a dictator will always complain that the system is deficient and that he is being oppressed, so will the political parties and the political brokers complain in a No-party system.

There must not be any political party in a Perfect Democracy and only public representatives and a National agenda.