Behavioural Approach to Political Science – An Indian Perspective

The behavioural approach to political science is an empirical method of analysis that focuses on the observable behavior of political actors – such as individuals, groups, and institutions – rather than on legal frameworks or normative theories (Behavioralism – Wikipedia). It emerged in the 20th century as scholars sought to make the study of politics more scientific and objective. Prior to this “behavioural revolution,” political science was largely qualitative, descriptive, and normative, often centered on history, philosophy, and the law (Behavioralism – Wikipedia). Behaviouralists challenged this traditional mode by insisting on rigorous methodologies and verifiable data, aiming to explain politics through facts and patterns of behaviour (Behavioralism – Wikipedia).

The origins of the behavioural approach can be traced to the early 1900s and gained momentum after World War II. Pioneering figures like Charles Merriam and Harold Lasswell in the 1930s advocated studying how people actually behave politically (voting, opinion-forming, etc.) instead of just how political systems ought to function (Behavioralism – Wikipedia). However, it was in the 1950s and 1960s that behaviouralism fully blossomed as the dominant approach, especially in the United States. This period – often termed the “behavioural revolution” – saw a rapid expansion of survey research, statistical analysis, and interdisciplinary methods in political science. Scholars like David Easton, Robert A. Dahl, and Gabriel Almond became leading voices, promoting a vision of political science as a true social science grounded in empirical study (Behavioralism – Wikipedia). Key principles of the behavioural approach include a commitment to systematic research, the use of quantitative techniques, and an aim to discover regularities in political behavior that can be generalized into theories (Behavioralism – Wikipedia).

ADVERTISEMENT

The behavioural approach to political science has significantly influenced contemporary political analysis and remains a cornerstone of empirical research in the field.

Some defining characteristics of the behavioural approach to political science, often credited to David Easton’s foundational work, are:

• Empirical Regularities: An assumption that there are discoverable patterns or uniformities in political behavior across contexts (Behavioralism – Wikipedia). Behaviouralists seek to identify recurring trends (e.g. voting habits, coalition patterns) that can form the basis of general theories.
• Verification: A strong emphasis on verification of hypotheses through observable evidence. Conclusions must be testable and supported by empirical data (Behavioralism – Wikipedia).
• Techniques and Quantification: Use of modern scientific methods – such as surveys, interviews, statistical analysis, and mathematical models – to gather and analyze data (Behavioralism – Wikipedia) (Behavioralism – Wikipedia). Wherever possible, political phenomena are quantified (expressed in numbers or scores) to allow precise analysis.
• Value-Neutrality: A deliberate distinction between facts and values, keeping ethical or normative judgments separate from empirical analysis (Behavioralism – Wikipedia). The behavioural approach aspires to be objective (“value-free”) in studying what is, rather than what ought to be.
• Theory Building (Systematization): Commitment to building a systematic theory of politics. Rather than isolated case descriptions, behaviouralists aim to integrate findings into broader theoretical frameworks that explain and even predict political behavior (Behavioralism – Wikipedia).
• Pure Science Orientation: Emphasizing basic research over immediate application – i.e., understanding politics for the sake of knowledge (“pure science”) with the belief that this foundation can eventually inform practical solutions (Behavioralism – Wikipedia).
• Interdisciplinary Integration: A willingness to borrow from other social sciences – psychology, sociology, economics, anthropology – to enrich political analysis (Behavioralism – Wikipedia). Human political behavior is seen as part of a larger social context, inviting cross-disciplinary perspectives.

In summary, the behavioural approach revolutionized political science by introducing a scientific temperament: it moved the field toward observable evidence, generalizable theories, and rigorous methods (Behavioralism – Wikipedia). In the following sections, we will explore its historical development, compare it with traditional and post-behavioural approaches, and examine its application and challenges in the context of Indian politics.

Historical Perspectives

Evolution of the Approach: The behavioural approach evolved as a response to the perceived limitations of traditional political science. Before the mid-20th century, the discipline was often characterized as a “master science” of statecraft, heavily rooted in history, law, and normative political theory. By the 1940s, dissatisfaction with this traditional approach had set in, as many scholars felt it was too abstract and insufficient for understanding rapid social and political changes. The behavioural revolution in political science, which gained momentum after World War II, marked the beginning of a new empirical orientation in the field. This revolution aimed to transform political analysis from a philosophical discourse on government to a “true science of political behavior”, echoing developments across social sciences.

Major Scholars of the Behavioural Revolution: Several key figures spearheaded this paradigm shift:

• David Easton (1917–2014): Often regarded as a chief architect of behaviouralism, Easton called for an explicitly scientific study of politics. He articulated the intellectual foundation of the movement, identifying its core tenets (the eight “foundation stones” outlined in the introduction) and urged political scientists to focus on system-building and empirical validation (Behavioralism – Wikipedia) (Behavioralism – Wikipedia). Easton’s The Political System (1953) was influential in critiquing traditional approaches and advocating behavioural goals. Interestingly, Easton later became a proponent of post-behaviouralism (discussed later), reflecting on the need to balance empiricism with relevance.
• Robert A. Dahl (1915–2014): A prominent American political scientist, Dahl exemplified the behavioural approach through empirical research on democracy and power. His seminal study Who Governs? (1961) analyzed decision-making in New Haven to understand how power is distributed in a community – a clear departure from merely theorizing about democracy. Dahl’s work used direct observation and quantitative data to challenge elitist theories, showing the pluralistic nature of power in practice. He famously advocated a “behavioral approach to the study of politics,” emphasizing the need to study actual political behavior rather than formal institutions in isolation.
• Harold D. Lasswell (1902–1978): Lasswell was an earlier pioneer whose work bridged psychology and politics – for example, his 1930s analysis of political leadership and propaganda. He introduced psychoanalytic and quantitative techniques into political study, foreshadowing the behavioural emphasis on interdisciplinary methods. Lasswell’s definition of politics as “who gets what, when, how” embodied a behavioural sensibility: focusing on the dynamics of competition and decision-making.
• Gabriel Almond (1911–2002): Almond played a crucial role in spreading behaviouralism to comparative politics (Behavioralism – Wikipedia). He helped establish the Social Science Research Council’s Comparative Politics Committee in the 1950s, which promoted cross-national surveys and systematic comparison. Almond, along with Sidney Verba, conducted The Civic Culture (1963) study – a pioneering survey of political attitudes in five countries, blending political science with sociology to understand cultural influences on democracy.
• Other notable contributors include Philip Converse, Austin Ranney, Heinz Eulau, and in the realm of voting studies, the team of Campbell, Converse, Miller, and Stokes who authored The American Voter (1960). Each brought new methodologies (like public opinion polling, aggregate election analysis, etc.) that enriched political science under the behavioural banner.

Behavioural vs. Traditional Approaches

The behavioural revolution starkly contrasted with the traditional approach in several ways. Traditional political science (exemplified by scholars like A. V. Dicey or Woodrow Wilson’s era) often focused on constitutions, legal structures, and philosophical debates about the state. It was largely qualitative, normative, and historical. Behaviouralists broke from this mold by prioritizing quantitative data and contemporary field research. For example, rather than just describing the provisions of the Indian Constitution or British Parliament (a traditional approach), a behavioural study would investigate how Indian voters actually behave during elections, or how legislators actually vote and form coalitions in Parliament. The aim was to uncover real-world patterns and causal relationships, not just formal rules or ideals.

This shift also meant changing the questions political scientists asked. Traditional scholars might ask, “What is the ideal form of government?” (a normative question), whereas behavioural scholars would ask, “How do people participate in politics and why do they behave as they do?” (an empirical question). The behaviouralists’ insistence on observable behavior and evidence was innovative, and it helped political science gain credibility as a modern social science (Behavioralism – Wikipedia). By the 1960s, behavioural approaches had become so influential that they were considered the new orthodoxy in American political science, with graduate programs training students in survey research, statistical methods, and behavioral theory.

Comparison with Other Approaches

The evolution of political science thought can be understood by comparing the traditional, behavioural, and post-behavioural approaches. Each has distinct assumptions, methodologies, and focus areas, as summarized below:

In the above comparison, the behavioural approach stands out as a middle path in terms of methodology – firmly empirical but aiming at theoretical generalization. Its advantages lie in bringing scientific discipline to political analysis: for example, behavioural studies have uncovered measurable patterns in voting (like the impact of education on voter turnout) and enabled comparative studies of political culture across nations. By contrast, the traditional approach gave rich qualitative insights (for instance, detailed histories of constitutional developments), but often lacked the tools to test whether those insights held true generally. The post-behavioural approach emerged as a critical supplement to behaviouralism, ensuring that political science remained connected to moral and practical concerns of society (such as democracy, equality, and peace) ().

It is important to note that these approaches are not mutually exclusive in practice. Modern political science often blends them: for instance, a study may use behavioural data (surveys, statistics) to inform a discussion of normative issues (like the quality of democracy), reflecting a post-behavioural sensibility. The table above serves to disentangle their emphases, showing how the discipline’s focus has shifted and broadened over time.

Application in Indian Politics

The behavioural approach has significantly influenced the study of Indian politics, especially from the 1960s onward, reshaping how researchers analyze elections, party systems, and public opinion in India. Adopting behavioural methods in a diverse and complex society like India has yielded valuable insights into the patterns of political behavior on the subcontinent.

Rise of Empirical Political Research in India

India’s vast democracy presented an ideal ground for behavioural political science, but early political studies (1950s) were often narrative or institutional – focusing on the Constitution, the Parliament, and nation-building ideas. The 1960s saw Indian scholars embrace the behavioural agenda, driven by both indigenous and international influences. The Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) in New Delhi, founded in 1963 by political scientist Rajni Kothari, became a hub for empirical political research (About Us – Lokniti) (Sanjay kumar, director of the centre for the study of … – On Think Tanks). Kothari and colleagues introduced systematic survey research and data-driven analysis into Indian political science. Notably, CSDS began conducting sample surveys coinciding with elections since 1967 to study voter attitudes and behaviour ( Lokniti ). This initiative was pioneering – it marked the first large-scale application of survey methodology to Indian elections, aligning Indian political studies with the behavioural approach’s emphasis on data.

(File:Long voting queues – Flickr – Al Jazeera English.jpg – Wikimedia Commons) Indian voters queue at a polling station during an election. Behavioural studies in India often focus on such electoral participation, using surveys and field observations to analyze voting patterns. ( Lokniti )

One of the earliest instances of behavioural research in India was the National Election Study of 1967, which employed surveys of voters across regions. Findings from these early studies revealed empirical patterns in Indian politics: for example, they documented how social factors like caste, community, and region influenced voting behavior, sometimes more strongly than ideology or manifestos. The famed political sociologist M. N. Srinivas’s concept of the “vote bank” – referring to blocs of voters influenced by caste or community ties – was substantiated by survey data that showed voting often followed identity lines. Similarly, Rajni Kothari’s analysis of the 1967 general elections (in which the Congress faced significant losses in several states) used empirical evidence to describe the end of the era of Congress’s one-party dominance (The Political Change of 1967 – jstor) (Lokniti Newsletter October 2014). Kothari’s influential theory of the “Congress System” (the idea that the Congress party in the first two decades operated as a pivot of a broad coalition accommodating various interests) was informed by observed political behavior and election results – a behavioural interpretation of India’s party system.

Electoral Behaviour and Voting Studies

The behavioural approach has been most visibly applied in studies of electoral behaviour in India. Starting from the 1970s, a series of empirical projects mapped voting patterns across the country. Indian scholars, often collaborating with international colleagues, carried out post-election surveys to gather data on why people voted as they did. For instance, in the 1971 and 1977 elections, teams of Indian and foreign researchers collected survey data to analyze the impact of issues like poverty, candidate image, and local caste dynamics on voter choices. Over time, these efforts coalesced into the National Election Study (NES) series, which was revived and expanded in the 1990s by CSDS’s Lokniti programme. The NES now represents one of the richest databases on Indian voting behaviour, with large nationwide surveys conducted for almost every Lok Sabha election from 1996 onward (as well as pioneering earlier surveys in 1967 and 1971) ( Lokniti ). These surveys ask voters about their voting decision, their opinions on leaders and issues, and their social backgrounds, enabling researchers to detect trends. For example, NES data have illuminated the declining hold of Congress and the rise of regional parties in the 1990s, the consolidation of caste-based voting patterns in states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, and the influence of factors such as education, media exposure, and economic class on voter turnout.

Party Systems and Political Competition

Behavioural approaches have also been used to study India’s party system and patterns of political competition. Instead of treating the party system only in formal terms (number of parties, ideology), behavioural scholars look at how parties mobilize support and how voters align with parties. For instance, quantitative analyses have been done on the “effective number of parties” in different states over time (Variation in effective number of parties in 15 Indian States 1967–2004.), revealing how competition intensified with the proliferation of regional parties after the decline of one-party dominance. Studies of election results data (another behavioural method using aggregate data analysis) show regional variations – e.g., why Kerala and West Bengal developed strong two-party or two-front competitions, whereas Uttar Pradesh saw multi-cornered contests.

These empirical studies help explain political phenomena such as the emergence of coalition governments and shifting voting alliances. Rajni Kothari’s Politics in India (1970) combined behavioural data (election returns, voter surveys) with a broader theoretical narrative to explain the transformations of the 1960s. Likewise, political scientists like Yogendra Yadav and Suhas Palshikar in the 2000s have used extensive survey evidence to characterize the ongoing evolution of India’s party system (for example, identifying the “Third Electoral System” in India, marked by coalition politics and regionalization from 1989–2009).

(File: Indian election rally – Flickr – Al Jazeera English.jpg – Wikimedia Commons) A political rally during an Indian election campaign. Behavioural political science examines such mass political participation — rallies, voting drives, grassroots party mobilization — to understand voter alignments and public opinion formation. (File: Indian election rally – Flickr – Al Jazeera English.jpg – Wikimedia Commons) (File:Indian election rally – Flickr – Al Jazeera English.jpg – Wikimedia Commons)

Public Opinion and Issue-Based Research

Another area where the behavioural approach is evident in India is the study of public opinion on policy issues. Polling organizations (some academic, others media-related) have conducted opinion polls on topics ranging from economic reform, corruption, and national security to social matters. For example, during elections, pre-poll and exit poll surveys (often conducted by agencies in partnership with media and research institutes like CSDS) gauge public sentiment on leaders and pressing issues. Although not always academically published, these polls generate data that scholars can analyze to link opinions with voting behavior. Academic projects have also examined political participation beyond voting – such as participation in protests, membership in political parties or movements, and grassroots decision-making in Panchayati Raj (local self-government). For instance, field studies combined with surveys have investigated how villagers in different parts of India perceive local elections and what motivates them to attend a rally or join a campaign.

Case Studies blending Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches: It’s worth noting that in India, behavioural research often goes hand-in-hand with qualitative case studies. Given India’s socio-cultural diversity, many researchers use a mixed-methods approach: they might embed a survey within a detailed field study of a village or a city to interpret the numbers in context (Studying Elections in India: Scientific and Political Debates) (Studying Elections in India: Scientific and Political Debates). A classic example is the study of election campaigns in a North Indian village by anthropologist F. G. Bailey in the 1960s, which, while mostly ethnographic, drew on survey-like interviews to understand voter loyalties. Similarly, political scientist Paul Brass conducted intensive local studies in Uttar Pradesh (e.g., analysis of the 1977 and 1980 elections in specific constituencies) to uncover fine-grained behavioural patterns, such as how factional rivalries and local issues influenced voting (Studying Elections in India: Scientific and Political Debates) (Studying Elections in India: Scientific and Political Debates). These case studies complement larger surveys by providing depth, and together they strengthen the behavioural approach’s findings in the Indian context.

Overall, the behavioural approach has greatly enriched our understanding of Indian politics. It moved the study of Indian political science from primarily narrative accounts – like “Congress party was dominant because of the freedom movement legacy” – to evidence-based explanations, such as measuring how different sections of society (caste groups, classes, linguistic communities) shifted their support over time, or how voter attitudes toward democracy and governance have changed. Empirical research has shed light on phenomena like the rise of Hindu nationalism (by analyzing opinion trends and social profiles of voters of the Bharatiya Janata Party), the persistence of vote buying and clientelism in certain regions (through voter surveys and observational studies), and the impact of media exposure (by correlating access to television/WhatsApp with political awareness and turnout).

Challenges and Criticisms

While the behavioural approach has been fruitful in India, it is not without challenges and criticisms. The Indian context – with its scale, diversity, and unique socio-political factors – has tested the limits of behaviouralism and prompted scholars to question its universal applicability.

Diverse and Complex Society

India’s immense cultural and social diversity poses a challenge to the behavioural approach’s search for generalizable regularities. Behavioural theories developed in Western contexts do not always neatly apply. For instance, early voting behavior models assumed relatively stable individual voter preferences, but in India, collective identities like caste, religion, and ethnicity play an outsized role in shaping political behavior (View of Caste, Religion And Language As Drivers Of Voting Patterns …). Voters may not act as isolated individuals; community leadership and kinship networks often influence decisions. This means survey researchers must design instruments very carefully to capture the nuanced influences of caste hierarchy, religious affiliation, and local patron-client relationships. A standard questionnaire may fail to grasp these subtleties or may be misinterpreted by respondents across languages and literacy levels. Thus, one criticism is that a purely quantitative approach could oversimplify the motivations of Indian voters. Scholars often need to supplement surveys with qualitative interviews to understand, say, why caste loyalty translates to a vote in one village but not another.

Data Collection Challenges

Conducting behavioural research (especially large surveys) in India faces practical hurdles. Literacy and language differences mean questions must be translated and sometimes asked orally. Until recent decades, rural areas had limited access and respondents were not accustomed to opinion surveys, potentially affecting the reliability of responses. Ensuring representative sampling in a country with over 900 million voters is a colossal task – obtaining a truly random sample across remote villages, urban slums, and varying socio-economic groups requires enormous logistical effort and funding. In the earlier years, the infrastructure for data collection was weak: for example, the 1967 and 1971 election studies were path-breaking but covered only certain regions due to resource constraints ( Lokniti ). This opened behavioural research to the criticism of urban or elite bias – that conclusions might be based disproportionately on accessible populations. Over time, organizations like CSDS improved methodologies to reach a more balanced sample (including multilingual field teams, etc.), but challenges remain, especially when trying to survey on sensitive issues (e.g., ethnic conflict or illicit voting practices).

Western Bias and Cultural Relevance

Critics have pointed out that behaviouralism in political science originated in the West and carries certain implicit biases. Concepts like “rational voter” or survey techniques were developed for Western democracies and might not fully align with the political culture of India or other developing nations. In fact, during the 1970s and 1980s, some Indian scholars were skeptical of what they saw as the “Americanization” of Indian political science – the wholesale import of behavioural methods without adaptation. Yogendra Yadav, a leading Indian political analyst, noted that initially the label ‘survey research’ was considered “methodologically naive, politically conservative and culturally inauthentic” in the Indian context (Studying Elections in India: Scientific and Political Debates) (Studying Elections in India: Scientific and Political Debates). This critique was two-fold: methodologically, survey-based behavioral studies were seen as simplistic number-crunching that might miss the deeper meaning of political acts; politically, there was concern that focusing on measuring public opinion could entrench the status quo (e.g., just recording people’s caste-based voting rather than questioning it), and culturally, that questions and interpretations might reflect foreign assumptions. As a result, there has been a push to indigenize behavioural research – making sure that concepts, questions, and interpretations resonate with Indian realities. For example, researchers have developed context-specific survey measures for things like caste consciousness or clientelism, and have combined ethnographic methods to validate survey findings (a process Yadav calls “transfer as transformation”, meaning importing methods but transforming them to local needs (Studying Elections in India: Scientific and Political Debates)).

Neglect of Normative and Structural Issues

A general criticism of behaviouralism, which applies in India too, is that by concentrating on the measurable immediate behavior, scholars might ignore larger structural or normative questions. In the Indian scholarly community, there have been voices (often from Marxist or critical perspectives) arguing that behavioural studies of voting or public opinion do not tackle deeper issues of power, inequality, and ideology. For example, a survey might tell us that a majority of voters support a particular policy, but it doesn’t address whether that policy is just or whether the political system offers equal voice to all citizens. Some critics say that behavioural political science in India became too focused on elections at the expense of studying social movements or state repression, which are harder to quantify. In the 1970s and 1980s, as India faced significant events (authoritarian drift during the Emergency 1975–77, rise of peasant movements, etc.), scholars like Rajni Kothari himself began to critique an over-reliance on apolitical number crunching. Kothari warned that political science should not lose sight of the normative vision – e.g., how to strengthen democracy or achieve social justice – which a narrow behavioural focus might sideline.

Role of Caste, Culture, and Regionalism

Paradoxically, while caste, culture, and regional identities are precisely what many behavioural studies in India try to measure, these factors also pose limits to behavioural generalizations. The strong role of caste and region means that findings in one state may not apply to another. Behavioural patterns are highly localized – for instance, electoral behaviour in Tamil Nadu, driven by Dravidian regional ideology and personality cults, differs markedly from that in Uttar Pradesh, which is driven by caste coalitions and religious polarization. This fragmentation makes it difficult to build a single grand theory of Indian political behavior. Critics argue that behaviouralists, in searching for national-level generalities (like pan-Indian voter trends), might overlook crucial local dynamics. Moreover, cultural nuances – such as the meaning of voting in a society where a vote can be seen as an assertion of dignity by a historically oppressed group – require interpretation beyond numbers (Studying Elections in India: Scientific and Political Debates) (Studying Elections in India: Scientific and Political Debates). Anthropological studies (e.g., by W. W. Cooper or Mukulika Banerjee) have pointed out that for many Indian voters, elections carry symbolic significance akin to a festival or ritual of democracy, which purely behavioural accounts don’t fully capture (Studying Elections in India: Scientific and Political Debates) (Studying Elections in India: Scientific and Political Debates). This doesn’t invalidate the behavioural approach but suggests that it must be complemented by cultural understanding.

Post-Behaviouralist Influence

The rise of post-behavioural thinking globally also impacted Indian political science. Scholars increasingly called for research that was not just on India but for India – meaning studies should aim to address the country’s pressing political challenges (poverty alleviation, caste discrimination, gender inequality in politics, etc.). Behavioural research has been steered in more policy-relevant directions in recent decades. For example, survey data on public service delivery or on citizens’ trust in institutions are now used to inform governance reforms. The critique that behaviouralism was too “academic” or detached is being answered by integrating its findings with public discourse. Today, it’s common to see election survey results discussed in the media, and those discussions often revolve around what they imply for democratic deepening or communal harmony – essentially blending positive (empirical) analysis with normative concerns.

In sum, the behavioural approach in India has faced the dual challenge of maintaining scientific rigor while remaining relevant and sensitive to India’s context. The criticisms have led to a more reflective practice of behavioural political science: researchers design better surveys, are cautious in interpretation, and often triangulate quantitative data with qualitative insights. The field has moved away from any one-size-fits-all mentality, recognizing India’s complexity.

Conclusion

The Behavioural Approach to Political Science has undeniably enriched political science, offering tools and perspectives that have deepened our understanding of how politics actually works. In India, its impact has been profound: it introduced systematic empirical research into a field that was once dominated by constitutional and theoretical discussions. Through behavioural studies, we now have detailed knowledge of Indian electoral trends, voting determinants, party dynamics, and public opinion shifts that simply did not exist in the early years after Independence. This approach illuminated, for example, how voter alignments changed after the Congress’s dominance waned, how caste and community networks influence elections, and how Indians view democratic participation at the grassroots.

Key findings from behavioural research in India include the documentation of one-party dominance (1950s–60s) giving way to a competitive multi-party system, the role of caste blocs in states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, the emergence of issue-based voting (e.g. the economic liberalization in 1991 or the “good governance” plank in recent elections), and the increasing importance of media and communication in shaping political opinions. By providing hard data, behavioural approach has often challenged conventional wisdom – for instance, it showed that the so-called “silent majority” of Indian housewives do have political opinions and voting agency (countering a stereotype that only men decided votes), or that economic development does not always translate into electoral victory (as seen in some state elections, where well-performing governments were voted out due to other factors).

However, the journey of behavioural political science in India also teaches that methodological rigor must go hand in hand with contextual understanding. The future of this approach in India will likely involve an even more integrative methodology. We can expect greater use of technology and data in studying political behavior – for example, analysis of social media trends, big data from online political engagement, and more sophisticated statistical models to handle India’s complex data. These will enhance the behavioural toolkit. At the same time, future research must remain attuned to ground realities: using local languages, capturing minority voices, and addressing questions that matter for India’s democracy (such as political inclusion, governance outcomes, and the quality of representation).

In an era where India’s political landscape is rapidly changing – with new social movements, the rise of youth voters, and evolving party ideologies – the behavioural approach will remain invaluable for making sense of these developments. Future prospects include expanding behavioural studies beyond elections: into areas like policy implementation (how citizens respond to and engage with policies), political socialization of the young generation, and comparative sub-national studies (comparing political behavior across Indian states systematically). Collaborations between political scientists, sociologists, and data scientists may yield new insights, aligning with the behavioural ethos of interdisciplinary research.

In conclusion, the behavioural approach to political science has proven its worth in the Indian context by moving the analysis from armchair speculation to evidence-based understanding. It has had to adapt and evolve in response to criticisms – becoming more self-aware and inclusive of India’s cultural specificities – which ultimately strengthens the approach. For researchers and students of Indian politics, a behavioural lens, tempered with contextual wisdom, offers a powerful way to analyze the world’s largest democracy. The recommendation for further research is to continue this balanced trajectory: keep collecting data and testing theories, but also continually ask how those findings connect to the normative goals of Indian society – such as better governance, social justice, and a more informed and engaged citizenry. By doing so, behavioural political science in India will not only chart political behavior but also contribute to the betterment of political practice, truly fulfilling the promise that post-behaviouralists envisioned of a relevant, action-guiding science.

(India CSR)