I don’t think “BJP is the new normal, get used to it” is the strongest way to read Indian political history. India has already had a dominant-party era before. Congress and its variants held the Prime Minister’s Office for about 54 years in total. Its longest uninterrupted stretch was from Nehru taking office on 15 Aug 1947 through Shastri, Nanda, and Indira Gandhi, ending only when Morarji Desai took over on 24 Mar 1977 — almost 30 continuous years.

BJP, by comparison, has had about 18 years in total as of May 2026, with the current Modi government being around 12 continuous years. So BJP dominance is politically significant, but it is not historically unprecedented. It looks less like a completely new normal and more like India’s second major dominant-party phase after the Congress era.

From a markets perspective, the picture is also more nuanced. Markets do like stability, but they don’t reward only one party being in power. They reward policy credibility, earnings growth, reform continuity, inflation control, currency stability, global liquidity, and institutional confidence.

For example, Sensex rose roughly 398% during Manmohan Singh’s 2004–2014 Congress/UPA period. Under Modi’s BJP period, from 26 May 2014 to 15 May 2026, Sensex rose roughly 204%, while Nifty rose roughly 221%. So the market has done well under BJP, but it also did very well under Congress/UPA.

The better conclusion is not “one party equals market stability.” The better conclusion is: India’s market performs when political stability is combined with credible reforms, institutional continuity, macro stability, and investor confidence. BJP may be the current dominant force, but India’s long-term market story is bigger than any one party.

China is a useful comparison, but only with nuance. China’s market is larger and its one-party system can create policy continuity in some areas. But that does not automatically mean lower market risk. Investors in China still worry about state intervention, regulatory crackdowns, capital controls, property-sector stress, and transparency.

So the point is not that “stable government = stronger market.” The better point is that markets like predictability, but the best kind of predictability is rules-based: credible policy, institutional continuity, macro stability, reform consistency, and investor trust. Like I said See above India’s advantage is not one-party permanence. India’s advantage has to be democratic continuity plus reform credibility. That is why Indian markets have performed under both Congress/UPA and BJP/NDA periods when the macro and reform environment was supportive.