The Shiromani Akali Dal occupies a unique place in Punjab’s political history. Founded in 1920 as part of the Gurdwara Reform Movement, it played an important role in Sikh political mobilisation and in shaping the political identity of Punjab. Over the decades, however, another pattern has repeatedly emerged: the Akali Dal has often struggled to remain united. Its history is marked by factionalism, leadership rivalries, mergers and repeated splits.
A timeline of repeated divisions
1920–1966: The Akali Dal emerged from the Gurdwara Reform Movement and gradually became a major political force. But internal differences appeared even in the early decades. After Punjab was reorganised in 1966, the Akalis came to power in 1967, but internal groupism and leadership conflicts weakened the early governments.
1967–1968: The first Akali government in post-reorganisation Punjab was troubled by competing groups and power struggles. The conflict between different leadership camps eventually helped Parkash Singh Badal emerge as the dominant figure in Akali politics.
1970s–1980s: Differences between Akali leaders continued. The political turbulence of the 1980s further fragmented the party. Following the 1985 Akali government led by Surjit Singh Barnala and the subsequent political crisis, the party split into several factions, including groups associated with Parkash Singh Badal, Surjit Singh Barnala and Simranjit Singh Mann.
1994–1996: The emergence of the Akali Dal (Amritsar) and other factions demonstrated again that disagreements over ideology, leadership and political strategy could produce separate parties. By the mid-1990s, Parkash Singh Badal succeeded in bringing several moderate factions together and consolidating his control.
1999: Gurcharan Singh Tohra formed the Sarb Hind Shiromani Akali Dal after being expelled from the SAD. The two sides eventually reconciled in 2003.
2004: Another splinter, Shiromani Akali Dal (Longowal), emerged under Surjit Kaur Barnala. The ticket-related disagreement involving Prem Singh Chandumajra was one of the factors associated with the formation of the faction. It later returned to the SAD fold before separating again.
2018: Senior leaders including Ranjit Singh Brahmpura, Rattan Singh Ajnala and Sewa Singh Sekhwan formed the Shiromani Akali Dal (Taksali) after being expelled from the party. Their central criticism was that the Badal family had taken the party in the wrong direction.
2020: Sukhdev Singh Dhindsa and Parminder Singh Dhindsa established the Shiromani Akali Dal (Democratic), again reflecting dissatisfaction with the existing leadership.
2021–2024: Several splinter groups subsequently merged or reunited, but the underlying disagreements did not disappear. The post-2017 decline of the SAD created fresh leadership battles and competing claims over who represented the “real” Akali Dal.
2024–2026: The latest phase has again been dominated by factional conflict, with competing Akali groups and leaders claiming legitimacy. The pattern is striking: when the party loses power, internal differences often become more visible; when it gains power, leadership becomes more centralised around those controlling the organisation. A political analysis cited by ThePrint summarised this pattern bluntly: Akalis have often quarrelled among themselves when out of power, but when in power, their conflicts can shift toward others.The bigger question: party or family-centred politics?
One of the strongest criticisms against the modern SAD concerns the concentration of political power within the Badal family. Critics argue that during periods when the party controlled Punjab, political opportunities including organisational influence and electoral tickets were frequently concentrated among family members, relatives and a closely connected political network.This criticism should not be presented as a blanket allegation against every Akali candidate or every government decision. But it is a legitimate political question: Was the party functioning as a broad-based movement representing Punjab, or increasingly as a leadership structure in which political opportunities were controlled by a small circle?For ordinary party workers, the issue is particularly important. A political worker may spend years building an organisation at the village or constituency level, but the final decision about a ticket is usually made by the party leadership. When loyalists, relatives or established political families receive repeated opportunities, grassroots workers can understandably feel that their contribution is being taken for granted.
“When they are in power, they forget others”
This is another criticism that deserves examination—not only of the Akali Dal but of every political party in Punjab.Opposition parties frequently promise that they will listen to ordinary people, workers, farmers, youth, employees and smaller communities. Once in government, however, political priorities can change. Access to power becomes concentrated, bureaucratic systems become difficult for ordinary citizens to navigate, and party workers can become more interested in maintaining their own political influence.The SAD should therefore not be judged only by its speeches or its historical legacy. It should be judged by what happened to ordinary Punjabis when it actually held power.And the same standard must apply to Congress, AAP and BJP. Punjab does not need another political argument in which one party claims to be morally superior to all others. The public needs accountability from every government that occupies the Punjab Secretariat.
But there is one area where the Akalis deserve credit: villages
It would be unfair to ignore the positive side of Akali governments. The SAD has historically maintained a strong connection with Punjab’s rural population, and village-level development has been an important part of its political strategy. Roads, rural infrastructure, water and sewerage projects, community facilities and other local development works have often received political attention under Akali governments.The party’s organisational strength has also traditionally been rooted in the villages and among the rural electorate. That connection explains much of the SAD’s long-standing political influence in Punjab.But development alone cannot settle the question of governance. A government can build roads and community facilities while still being criticised for political favouritism, lack of transparency, family dominance or poor accountability. These issues have to be assessed separately.
The lesson for Punjab
The long history of Akali politics offers an important lesson: splitting and reuniting cannot be a substitute for political reform.A new faction is created, leaders accuse one another, the public is asked to choose sides, and after some years the same leaders may come together again. Punjab has witnessed this cycle repeatedly.
What people should ask today is much simpler:
Who gets the ticket? Who gets access to power? Who gets heard? Who benefits from government schemes? Are grassroots workers respected? Are decisions transparent? And, most importantly, does the government serve every citizen or only those politically close to it?The Akali Dal has a proud historical legacy, but history cannot be used as a permanent shield against criticism. If the party wants to regain the confidence of Punjab, it needs more than unity among leaders. It needs credibility among ordinary people.Punjab does not merely need a united Akali Dal. It needs an accountable Akali Dal—one that remembers villages when it is in power, respects workers who build the party from the ground up, gives opportunities on merit, and places Punjab’s interests above family, faction and personal political ambitions.And ultimately, the same test should apply to every political party seeking the people’s vote in 2027.
Disclaimer: This article and accompanying images are for informational and illustrative purposes only. Some visuals may be AI-generated or digitally enhanced and may not depict actual events or persons.Views expressed are based on publicly available information and analysis