I find myself rather inclined to agree with you with here, charter6. The Congress Party did have "extra-parliamentary" means available to it that were not necessarily as available to other parties, even the BJP. However, I would add the vital qualifier here that what was perhaps at least as important was a "dynastic" element to the appeal of the Congress Party.
In many countries, "royalty" has a sort of natural appeal to many people, combining as may an image of a strong, established leadership that will look after the people through a parent-child relationship of sorts. "Royalty" has an organic, rather than an abstract, appeal, as it mirrors in a manner the natural family order; the "Royal" holds the role of Father/Mother of his/her people, and they are his/her children after a fashion. Many people may not understand other forms of government, but practically everyone readily grasps Monarchy. And just as inheritance is the most common formal system of succession in monarchy, reflecting as it does the passage of generations within the family, people may be inclined to cling to the hereditary successors of someone whom they admire - thus the "dynastic" appeal of the Congress Party so long as a Gandhi was at or near the helm.
Even in the U.S., the Kennedy family is still very much considered to be its natural "royal dynasty" so to speak, and many Kennedys have entered politics aided in no small part by virtue of their belonging to that family. Even in the American Republic, "Royalism" has a strong, natural appeal. It is certainly no different in India, amongst many other countries.
At the very least, the role of the "Gandhi Dynasty" may have gone a long way to preventing India from utterly disintegrating or falling into outright dictatorship. The Hashemites do not enjoy such a position in Iraq. It is difficult to even conceive of any Iraqi analogue that even begins to approach a sort of "Royal Dynasty" in modern times.
Bookmarks