NATIONAL & REGIONAL POLITICAL PARTIES IN INDIA

Political parties are essential institutions for representative democracy. Political parties perform various
roles, for example, the formation of government, formation of opposition, political education, political
socialization etc.

On one hand there are scholars like Laski who believe that political parties are essential for democracy.
On the other, there are leaders like Gandhi, MN Roy and Jaiprakash Narayan who believe in party-less
democracy.

What is party system?

Party system is not based on number of parties but it is based on number of parties having systemic
relevance. For example, at the time of independence there were multiple parties but Indian party
system was known as “one party dominant system”.
A dominant-party system, or one-party dominant system is a political system in which opposition groups
or parties are permitted, but a single party dominates election results.

Unique features of political parties in India and their difference from parties in the western countries

According to Zoya Hassan, political parties in India reflect many unusual features:
1. No concern for ideology there is a growth of ‘catch all parties’.
2. Rather than policy oriented, parties are office oriented
3. Disconnect between people and parties.
4. Connection between political parties and corporate groups including among the communist and
socialist parties.
5. Some parties have unique nomenclature like AIADMK.
6. None of the party has any grand design

Views of Paul Brass

Indian parties reflect paradoxical features. There is a blend of Western bureaucratic structure with
indigenous political practices and institutions. Political parties lack intra party democracy.

Views of Yogendra Yadav

Political parties in India are going through the process of institutionalization as well as
deinstitutionalization. On one hand their reach is increasing but on the other hand the depth and
intensity of the voters have been declining. The role of political parties has got reduced to the
instrumental act of voting. They have overlooked the broader agenda of democratic nation and nation
building.

Nature of Indian party system

Indian party system has multiple stages:

Stage 1. Up till 1967 (Congress system)
Stage 2. From 1967 to 1977 (Breakdown of Congress system)
Stage 3. 1977 in 1979 (Two party system)
Stage 4. From 1979 to 1989 (Emergence of multi party system.)
Stage 5. 1989 till 2014 (Multi party democracy system, age of coalition politics)
Stage 6. 2014 onwards (BJP dominant party system)

History of Party System in India

At the time of independence, India had multiple parties but Indian party system as described by Morris
Jones used to be known as one party dominant system.

Later on, Rajni Kothari has coined the term ‘Congress system’. Congress system shows the dominant
status of Congress. No other party with the exception of Kerala and Kashmir could form the government
even at the state level. Rajni Kothari calls Congress as party of consensus and other parties as the parties
of pressure.

In the year 1970, Rajni

Kothari published a major
book with the
straightforward title
Politics in India. The bulk
of the book was devoted
to the then dominant
Congress party. Kothari
argued that before and
after Independence, the
Congress was successful in
presenting itself as the
“authoritative spokesman
of the nation as well as its
affirmed agent of criticism
and change”.

The reasons for Congress hegemony were several. The party was a broad church, containing many
shades of opinion within it. It had a strong presence in all states of the Union.

It had been led by towering personalities — Gandhi, Nehru, Bose, Patel — men of charisma and
character who decisively shaped the country’s political discourse. The Congress imprint was so
substantial that even its rivals had to work within the ideological parameters set by the party and its
leaders. Thus, most parties who opposed the Congress still upheld welfarism, religious pluralism, and
non-alignment in foreign policy. Kothari was writing in the aftermath of the 1967 elections, when the
Congress’s countrywide dominance was seriously threatened for the first time. The party retained
power at the Centre, but lost in as many as eight states. Yet, as Kothari demonstrated, the Congress
remained ‘the preponderant political force in the country’. For in six of the states that the Congress
lost, the government was led by a former Congressman!

Towards the end of his book, Kothari offered one judgement and one prediction. This was the
judgement: “Because the Congress managed to be in power continuously and there was no united or
effective threat to its authority, the country’s political process gained incomparable advantages of
continuity and unity.”

And this the prediction: “The Congress is still, and is likely to be for a long time, the most organized
political party in the country, with a nationwide following and considerable depth in the localities.
This has two consequences central to the system’s functioning: it will continue to enjoy plurality at the
centre and thus a dominant voice in coalition-making; and it will continue to control widespread local
power and patronage even where it is no longer in power at the state level.”

Kothari’s book makes for interesting (and curious) reading today, when the Congress is at the nadir of
its influence in national politics. The party was humiliated in the 2014 general elections, when it won a
mere 44 seats. It has been reduced to a rump in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan
— major states where it was once the natural party of governance. In its former stronghold of Andhra
Pradesh it is more or less invisible. In its other stronghold of Maharashtra, it seems set to lose — and
probably lose badly — the assembly elections scheduled later in the year.

The Congress’s decline is very much of its own making. The party’s high command culture has
inhibited the growth of vigorous state units. With chief ministers and PCC heads appointed (or
dismissed) from Delhi, there is no incentive for talented leaders to cultivate grassroots support within
their own state.

Kothari’s book was published before the Congress converted itself into a family firm.

This happened in 1975, when Indira Gandhi assigned a major political role to her son Sanjay. Ever
since (with the exception of the period 1991-98), this has been a party led by the Nehru-Gandhis.
However, it now seems clear that, in electoral terms, the family’s allure and appeal is steadily
diminishing, for three reasons:

First, the young who make up an ever growing share of the electorate do not remember the (very real)
charisma of Nehru and Indira; Second, the young do not remember the brutal assassinations of Indira
and Rajiv either; Third, in an increasingly aspirational society, one cannot invoke the memory of one
ancestors to justify one’s own pre-eminence.

These structural factors are compounded by the weaknesses as a leader of the heir presumptive, Rahul
Gandhi. Lacking in energy and ambition, he may be the first member of his family not to command the
respect even of his own party colleagues. In the decade he has been in politics, Mr Gandhi has
conspicuously failed to motivate cadres (and voters) while campaigning in state (and national)
elections.
There seem to have been four distinct phases in Indian political history. The ‘Congress system’ that
Rajni Kothari identified continued till 1989. For a full four decades since Independence, the Congress
was almost continuously in power at the Centre, as well as in many states. The years 1989 to 1998
were a period of transition. Congress dominance weakened across India, as parties based on regional,
religious, caste and class identities won elections and ran governments in state after state.

The years 1998 to 2014 saw the emergence of a bipolar polity. This was a consequence of the rise to
national prominence of the Bharatiya Janata Party. The two poles were constituted by the Congress
and the BJP respectively, around each of which smaller parties clustered.

The 2014 general elections appear to have inaugurated a fourth phase. It is too early to say whether
we will once more witness the emergence of one-party dominance at both Central and state levels, of a
‘BJP system’ rather than a ‘Congress system’. However, it is very hard to see how the Congress — in its
present form — can radically improve its fortunes any time soon. Perhaps it will go the way of the
British Liberal Party, a party that once shaped its nation’s destiny that reduced itself to a marginal
player in its nation’s affairs.

Why Congress was party of consensus?

Rajni Kothari calls Congress as Rainbow coalition. Congress itself was Grand coalition. Congress program
could incorporate the interest of the different sections of the society.
The status of opposition parties was like pressure groups. There located outside the margins of the party
system.

Unique features of India’s one party dominance system

China does not have democratic one party system, India’s party system retained democratic character.
The other parties were outside the margin but they made sure that the ruling party does not become
autocratic.

Reasons for the Congress system

Hegemony of the Congress was because of its role in the Indian National Movement. Congress became
mass party under the leadership of Gandhiji. Congress maintained centrist agenda. Congress rejected
communalism as well as communism.
Nehru maintained democratic intellectual climate within the party. Nehru promoted freedom of speech
and expression within the party, culture of toleration and accommodation. Nehru showed sensitivity
towards minorities. Most importantly, Nehru could convince Indian masses that Congress is critical for
the survival nation.

Breakdown of Congress system

Breakdown started in 1967 when Congress lost its majority in nine States. In 8 states for the first time
non Congress government could come to power and in the 9th State Congress could form government
only in coalition.

Why decline of Congress system?

Internal and external factors

Internal factors
 De-institutionalization of democracy within the party
 Concentration of power in the hands of a single leader
 Lack of intra party democracy.
 Intra-party elections have not taken place since 1972.
 Congress lost the touch with grassroot leaders.
 New line Central leadership was dependent on loyalists.
 There is no scope for internal criticism and descent.

External factors
 As suggested by Yogendra Yadav, decline of Congress is linked to deepening of democracy. 1st
democratic upsurge has resulted into OBCs coming out of the party.
 2nd democratic upsurge resulted in the Dalits coming out of the party.
 Today, Congress remains the party of minorities and Scheduled Tribes community. At present,
Congress’ social base comes from minorities and even in 2014 election 35% of minority words
had gone to Congress.
 Other cause for decline of Congress system includes Green Revolution and state reorganization.
This has resulted into the strength of OBCs and the rise of regional party.

Increasing participation of the people in the democratic politics of the country is broadly characterised as democratic
upsurge. Based on this principle, social scientists have characterized three democratic upsurges in post-independence
history of India. The ‘First Democratic Upsurge’ could be attributed from the 1950s till 1970s which was based on the
participation of Indian adult voters to the democratic politics both at the centre and in states. Falsifying the western
myth that the success of democracy requires modernization, urbanization, education and access to media, the
successful holding of elections to both Lok Sabha and legislative assemblies all across states on the principle of
parliamentary democracy were the testimony of India’s first democratic upsurge.

During the 1980’s, the increasing political participation of the lower classes of the society such as SCs, STs and OBCs
has been interpreted as ‘Second Democratic Upsurge’ by Yogendra Yadav. This participation has made Indian politics
more accommodative and accessible for these classes. Although this upsurge has not made any major change in the
standard of living of these classes, especially Dalits, the participation of these classes into the organizational and
political platforms gave them the opportunity to strengthen their selfrespect and ensure empowerment in the
democratic politics of the country.

The era of Liberalization, Privatization and Globalization from the early 1990s is attributed to the emergence of a
competitive market society encompassing all important sectors of economy, society and polity thus paving way for the
‘Third Democratic Upsurge’. The Third Democratic Upsurge represents a competitive electoral market which is based
not on the principle of survival of the best but rather the survival of the ablest. It underlines three shifts in India’s
electoral market: from State to Market, from Government to Governance, from State as Controller to State as
Facilitator. Moreover, the Third Democratic Upsurge seeks to promote the participation of the youth who constitute a
significant chunk of Indian society and have emerged as the real game changers in view of their increasing electoral
preference for both development and governance in India’s contemporary democratic politics.
PRESENT STATUS OF CONGRESS

According to Suhas Palshikar, Congress is not in a state of decline, rather 2014 election mark the death
of Congress. The number of seats which country got in 2014 election is even less than the number of
seats Congress could get after emergency. Congress’ social base as well as territorial base has shrunken.

FUTURE PROSPECTS

Views of Pratap Bhanu Mehta

Congress should leave the majority and minority complex. Congress should know how to make strategic
alliances. Instead of the party of defense, Congress should emerge as a party of transformation. The
party should go back to the role of organizing social movements and should not restrict itself to electoral
calculus.

THE NATURE OF PARTY SYSTEM IN INDIA SINCE 1989

Politics does not operate in a vacuum; similarly, parties also do not operate in vacuum. The party system
gets influenced by all factors internal and external. Indian party system is also changing in context of the
changing external and internal development. India, which is known as one party dominance system, got
transformed into a multi party system. From 1989, the era of coalition politics started. From 1977 itself
we see the process of fragmentation and regionalization.

CAUSES FOR THE RISE OF REGIONAL PARTIES

There are institutional factors:
a) Delinking of parliamentary and state legislative elections. It has given opportunities for Regional
parties for mobilization of people on local issues.
b) India’s Federal system
c) State governments deal with those shoes which are of day to day relevance. This also gives
advantage to the regional parties. The leaders associated with regional parties are in Greater
contact with the people at the Grass root level.
d) Linguistic reorganisation of states has given rise to the dominant caste forming their own
regional parties.

Social and economic factors

 The Green Revolution gave rise to the intermediate caste asserting their power even in the
political sphere.
 The deepening of social cleavages as a result of continuous mobilization of people on ethnic
grounds.
 The growing politicization of religion
 The growing consciousness about rights and democracy
 The suspension of democracy and introduction of emergency also led to the fragmentation of
Congress and strengthening of regional parties.
CONSEQUENCES
Regionalization of Indian political party system has resulted into both negative as well as positive
consequences.
a) It led to the rise of coalition politics.
b) Coalition politics in the absence of healthy coalition culture has given rise to
 Party paralysis
 Increased role of money and muscle power.
 Politicization of the post of speaker.
 Decline of parliament.

On the other hand, regionalization has resulted into,

 Our democracy becoming more representative.
 Regionalization has strengthened the federal axis of Indian political system. It has strengthened
the bargaining power of state governments.

Some of the other consequences include

 Regional issues dominate over national concerns.
 Greater role for state even in foreign policy.

REGIONAL PARTIES

SUMANTRA BOSE in her book “TRANSFORMING INDIA: THE WORLD’S LARGEST DEMOCRACY IN THE
EARLY 21ST CENTURY”, emergence of regional parties has deepened India’s democracy.

According to MILAN VAISHNAV, rise of regional political parties is an eternal theme of Indian politics.
Regional parties operate within limited geographic area and bank on language, minority, religion etc.
Number of regional parties in India is much larger due to large variety.

According to SUDHA PAI, regional parties are rooted in regional ground. They should not be seen as a
byproduct of regionalism, rather phenomenon in its own right. It is a result of linguistic reorganization,
decline in congress system, uneven development etc.

IDEOLOGICAL & SOCIAL BASES OF PARTIES

RISE OF RIGHT

From 2 seats in 1984 to 282 seats in 2014 and 303 seats in 2019, there is no question on the rise of right
in Indian politics.
Thomas Blom Hansen in his book ‘SAFFRON WAVE’ has explained the phenomenal rise of BJP and the
forces of Hindutva. Milan Vaishnav also suggests that there is a big change in the electoral behaviour of
people in India. For long, Indian politics was based on the agenda of secularism and minoritism. The
present Indian politics is a rejection of both minoritism and Congress version of secularism and the
assertion of majoritarianism in combination with the concern for good governance and development.

STATISTICS
 In 1984, BJP got 2 seats and 7.4% of total votes.
 In 1989, BJP got 88 seats and vote share of 11.56%.
 In 1991, BJP got 120 seats and vote share of 20.95.
 In 1196, BJP got 161 seats and vote share of 20.3%.
 In 1998, BJP got 182 seats and vote share of 25%.
 In 1999, BJP got 183 seats and vote share of 23%.
 In 2004, BJP got 138 seats and vote share of 22.16%.
 In 2009, BJP got 116 seats and vote share of 18.8%.
 In 2014, BJP got 282 seats and vote share of 31.5%.
 In 2019, BJP got 303 seats and vote share of 37.36%.

Causes of the rise of BJP

 Decline in Congress.
 Demise of the left.
 Organizational strength till grassroot level.
 Nationalistic rhetoric.
 Globalization.
 NRIs provide huge support to BJP’s policies.
 Globalization has given rise to ethnic politics worldwide, leading to strengthening of
religious identity.
 The rising fear of Islamic fundamentalism.
 Economic policy which matches with globalization.
 The growth of middle class in India.
 Strong leadership.

HISTORY OF BJP
BJP is a successor to Jana Sangha formed in 1951 by Shyama Prasad Mukherjee. The other prominent
leader was Pt. Deendayal Upaddhyaya. Party believed that strong opposition was necessary for
democracy. So, they wanted to give strong challenge to Nehruvian consensus.

Jan Sangha was part of Janata Party government. In 1980, over the disputes of association with RSS and
policy of secularism, Jana Sangha members came out of Janata Party and formed BJP on 6 April 1980.
BJP is influenced by cultural nationalism, Gandhian socialism, positive secularism. Unlike Hindu
Mahasabha, positive secularism of BJP aims at giving equal protection to all religions.

INTEGRAL HUMANISM OF PT. DEENDAYAL UPADDHYAYA

Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya was a philosopher, sociologist, economist and politician. The philosophy
presented by him is called 'Integral Humanism' which was intended to present an 'indigenous socio
economic model' in which human being remains at the centre of development. The aim of Integral
Humanism is to ensure dignified life for every human being while balancing the needs of the individual
and society. It supports sustainable consumption of natural resources so that those resources can be
replenished. Integral Humanism enhances not only political but also economic and social democracy and
freedom.
As it seeks to promote diversity, it is best suited for a country as diverse as India. The philosophy of
Integral Humanism is based on the following three principles:
• Primacy of whole, not part
• Supremacy of Dharma
• Autonomy of Society
Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya opposed both Western 'capitalist individualism' and 'Marxist socialism'.
According to Deendayal Upadhyaya, capitalist and socialist ideologies only consider the needs of the
human body and mind, so they are based on materialistic purpose whereas spiritual development is
equally considered important for the complete development of human being which is missing in both
capitalism and socialism. Basing his philosophy on the internal conscience, pure human soul to be called
Chhitti, Deendayal Upadhyaya envisaged a classless, casteless and conflict-free social system.

According to Pt. Deendayal Upaddhyaya, western ideas are not suitable for India because they have not
been part of India’s history. India should adopt modern science but not the western way of life. He gives
the example of Japan, which has modernized without adopting western culture.
Integral Humanism is a philosophy based on Indian way of life. It is a philosophy which integrates mind,
body and soul.

Views of Scholars

Thomas Blom Hansen

According to Hansen, rise of BJP is not a religious phenomenon, nor is it a strictly political phenomenon.
It is happening in the backdrop of the democratic transformation taking place in the country. As lower
castes and OBCs are mobilizing themselves, the amorphous Indian middle class becomes anxious. Even
lower class Hindus got attracted towards BJP’s majoritarianism rhetoric, constructed in the name of
nationalism, cultural pride, order, development and leadership.

James Manor
With the decline of Congress, people were left with two options: Left or BJP.
Left ideology lacked imagination. Left also lacked leadership. Right appeared to be a better option from
all perspectives.

Christophe Jaffrelot
The sense of insecurity among the Hindus as Congress policies were seen as minority appeasement.
Congress, which was once an umbrella party, has been reduced to the status of party of minority.
The overwhelming victory of the Bharatiya Janata Party in two consecutive Lok Sabha elections has heralded
India into a new era. Some observers describe this emerging pattern of competition as the second phase of one-
party dominance, the first one referring to the period of Congress domination over national and state politics in
the 1950s and 1960s.

The current configuration, however, is of a slightly different nature because of how it is setting up a new political
culture – not just by co-opting civil society groups and local elites but also its opponents.

The fundamental characteristic of a single dominant party is that it is “centripetal”, meaning it draws all
elements of civil society into its ambit. The politics is structured in a way that allows the dominant party’s
organisation to penetrate into all elements of society, which manifests itself in the ideological centrality and
electoral superiority of the party.

In the Indian context, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has sought to centralise political power in its national
unit, through the charismatic authority of Narendra Modi.

The party also has developed a significant resource advantage in terms of campaign finance and driving media
narrative. This has coincided with the BJP-led government unabashedly promoting an ideological agenda that
will re-define majority-minority relations on the ground, re-ignite the debate on citizenship norms, dramatically
alter the federal balance of power, and construct a new political culture.

Ideological centrality
The BJP within the six months of coming back to power has pushed legislations to realise some of its long-
standing projects such as the abrogation of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status through Article 370, the
construction of a Ram temple in Ayodhya, the implementation of National Register of Citizens (NRC) and of the
Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). Despite serious setbacks in recent state elections, these policy decisions retain
a high level of popular support, to the point that even the opposition seems to be mirroring its ideas and tactics.
Data suggests that a larger proportion of citizens are now identifying with the BJP. The Centre for the Study of
Developing Societies (CSDS)-Lokniti surveys have asked respondents to identify which political party, if any, they
feel close to. The proportion of respondents who identify with any political party has mostly remained the same
across the five decades beginning 1970 – approximately one-third of the Indian electorate. However, there has
been a sea-change in their partisan preference.

Figure 1: Identification with the BJP has increased

Source: NES Datasets, Lokniti-CSDS

In 1971, an overwhelming number of those who felt close to a party picked the Congress (almost 70 per cent). By
1996, the BJP and the Congress had similar levels of support from partisans (those who feel close to any party),
about 27 per cent each. In 2019, the BJP had more than twice as many partisans identifying with it (41 per cent)
than the Congress (18 per cent). As an analytical concept, the importance of party identification lies in the fact
that it is relatively exogenous to the more specific short-term factors and provides a stable basis of support for a
party. They make for a party’s core support base and give it a mainstay on which to mobilise new vot

Disjuncture between state and national elections

One of the more curious aspects of the current party system is that the electoral dominance at the national level
does not extend to the state level. If anything, the recent trend has been for the BJP to lose the election, or at least
a significant vote share, in states in which it performed well in the national election. In Delhi, Haryana, and
Jharkhand assembly elections (all of which took place within a year of the BJP’s 2019 Lok Sabha election
triumph), the BJP lost at least 18 percentage points in vote share as compared to its national performance.

Nowhere is this disjuncture more evident than the electoral behavior of Odisha — which held its assembly
election simultaneously with the national election. This means that voters cast two ballots – for state- and
national-level leaders. Of Odisha’s 21 Lok Sabha (national) seats, the BJP won eight with an average seat-wise
vote share of 38 per cent in 2019. Going by its 33 per cent average seat-wise vote share in the assembly (state)
election, the BJP would have won none of Odisha’s 21 Lok Sabha seats.

But this too is a manifestation of the centralisation of power as well as campaign resources in the BJP’s national
unit. In a bid to make sure that Narendra Modi remains its most popular leader, and reduce factional feuds in the
party, the current avatar of the BJP has weakened the position of its own regional leaders. This state of affairs
simultaneously puts the BJP at an electoral advantage in national elections and at a disadvantage in state
elections. If the BJP continues to remain dominant nationally, ascribing more power to the central leadership is
likely to weaken India’s federal bargain.
The changing social bases of politics
Since 2014, the rise of the BJP has been associated with an upsurge of representation of traditional elite groups,
namely the upper castes, across the Hindi belt. In several important states such as Uttar Pradesh or Bihar, upper
caste representation has gone back to pre-Mandal levels, around 40 per cent of the seats and between 45-50 per
cent of all the BJP’s elected representatives. Other Backward Classes (OBC) representation, which rose
significantly during the 1990s, has either plateaued or decreased in most north Indian states, around 23 per cent.
Most chief ministers appointed by the BJP since 2014 belong to the upper castes, who are also over-represented
in regional cabinets.

The data, however, indicates that the upsurge of traditional elite representation precedes the rise of the BJP
(Figure 2). In the Hindi belt, upper caste representation in the Lok Sabha jumped by 10 per cent between 2004
and 2009, to 43 per cent of all MPs from those states. An examination of the caste composition of all major
parties shows that, by and large, upper castes have regained their lost political strength in elected assemblies by
virtue of being co-opted by most parties – if not all – including by the regional parties that initially rose in
opposition to the traditional social and political order.

Figure 2: Caste and community representation in the Hindi Belt (1962-2019)

Source: SPINPER project – The Social Profile of the

Indian National and Provincial Elected Representatives.

Over the past few decades, parties that used to mobilise a core electorate defined narrowly in specific caste terms
have been incentivised to build up more inclusive platforms and seek to appeal to a larger array of groups, by
offering them representation. This has essentially meant that most parties tend to recruit their candidates from
the same sociological pool of local elites. The BJP offers much continuity in that regard and has succeeded in
combining the elite co-optation strategy that used to work for its adversaries with its encompassing Hindutva
project. By reconciliating Mandal and Mandir, the BJP has, in effect, enhanced the elitist character of India’s
political class.

In the past two decades, Indian politics has been undergoing a significant transition, which includes rapid
changes in the demographic composition of Indian electorate (for example, more middle class) and voters (for
example, more women turning out), alongside advancement in information and communication technology,
which meant a larger population now consumes mass media.

The full impacts of these changes are yet to be known. Nonetheless, recruitment patterns within political parties,
nomination criteria, and campaign strategies, among other indicators of electoral contests are undergoing a
visible reorganization. This rearrangement of forces, along with the BJP as a system-defining party, is likely to
generate long-lasting social and political transformations in Indian society.
THE STUDY OF INSTITUTE OF SOUTH ASIAN STUDIES, NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE

In the 2019 Indian general election, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) returned to power with a larger
mandate than in 2014. The party expanded its electoral
reach in rural and ‘rurban’ areas and brought in new
voters, 65 per cent of whom belonged to the Other
Backward Castes (OBCs), Scheduled Castes (SCs) and
Tribes (STs), groups which had traditionally not voted
for the BJP. It also made inroads into new areas like
Odisha and West Bengal. Despite losses in subsequent
state elections, such as Jharkhand, Maharashtra and
Delhi, and a narrow win in Bihar, the BJP’s dominance
over the political system appears to be quite
established. However, questions remain regarding how
long this dominance will last, whether India’s current
system is indeed one dominated by a single party, akin
to that of the Congress in the 1950s and 1960s, or
whether the BJP is displaying its own set of mechanisms
and characteristics reflecting the party’s efforts to
shape India in its own mould.

SUHAS PALSIKAR in his article “TOWARDS HEGEMONY: BJP BEYOND ELECTIONS”

In electoral terms, BJP has become the central pole; there is an enormous expansion in its social base
which has transformed the party from merely competitive to markedly dominant. BJP has managed to
exert its dominance ideologically with its twin emphasis on Hindu nationalism and new
developmentalism, it has saturated the world of ideas when congress legacy of secular nationalism has
fallen out of favor. Along with electoral and ideological dominance, its position has been propelled by
the personality of Modi.

LEFT PARTIES IN INDIA

Praful Bidwai, in his book PHOENIX MOVEMENT: CHALLENGES CONFRONTING INDIAN LEFT suggests
that the decline of left is an old story. It is surprising that left in India could never take root despite the
prevalence of mass poverty. It is also surprising that youth in India is attracted towards right rather than
toward left. 2019 elections showed the worst performance of left. Left managed to get only 5 seats and
2.33% of vote share. The best performance of left was in 2004 when they got 64 seats.
Initially, left was the major opposition to the Congress. Its vote share was double the vote share of Jan
Sangha (rightist party). Today, rightists are in position to form government on its own. BJP has given a
halt to coalition politics. But unfortunately today, the left has got completely marginalized.
There have been following problem with Indian left:

 Because of their shifting stand during Indian freedom struggle, left could never gain the trust of
Indian masses.
 Neither then, nor now left has presented any serious understanding of the peculiar
circumstances of Indian Politics. They are still dependent on imported doctrines.
 The principle of democratic centralism, which does not allow dissent and internal debate, has
been the factor for weakening of left. Left in India also has high command culture.
 Left leaders do not have grassroot base. Most of them have been picked up from universities.
 Left agenda was initially hijacked by INC and now by AAP. Congress was a better version of
Indian form of socialism and AAP is a better version of new left.
 There is a lack of internal solidarity among the left parties.
 The main feature of the left politics is politics of social movements as radical democracy. But left
has confined itself to the electoral politics.
 Left in India has not done the politics of class or development. It has also done the politics of
religion and caste.
 Globalization has made left ideology redundant. Left ideology does not meet the ambitions of
youth in India.
 Left foreign policy is completely redundant. Left has taken up the foreign policy left by Congress.
Today the strongest advocate of non-alignment is not Congress, rather Indian left.
 Left foreign policy is based on anti-globalization, anti-Americanism and pro-Chinese stand.
 Left also lacks leadership. For 2014 elections, none of the left leaders was among the top
preference for Prime Ministerial post.
 Globalization has created foot loose workforce. Hence it is difficult to build and organize trade
unions.
 Left lost in W.B. because the left govt. in W.B. used force on his own constituency and favoured
its adversarial class (corporate class).

SUGGESTIONS
Indian left needs introspection. It is much better if they go back to the original idea of left politics i.e.
politics of social movement, radical democracy, organizing the exploited sections of society and working
for their rights.

Left as an organised entity, as an intellectual and

political establishment is as good as dead. For the last
100 years or so, the Left has come to mean a rigid,
doctrinal politics. It meant adherence to Marxism, or
rather its narrow interpretation by Lenin. The death of
this orthodox Left is not accidental. The collapse of the
Soviet Union and Eastern European Communist regimes
had already exposed deep contradictions in the theory and practice of the Communist Left: its failure to
respect human quest for liberty, its inability to recognise the need for economic incentives and
enterprises, and its creation of the sheer bureaucratic monstrosity in the name of state socialism.
Besides, the Indian Left never quite understood Indian society: their Euro-centric frame prevented them
from meaningfully engaging with the Indian national movement, Indian traditions and religions or taking
on the caste system. The surprise is not that the orthodox Left faces a dead-end; the surprise is that it
survived nearly three decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

3rd FRONT: 3rd front is a fluid category. It is combination keep on changing. It is primarily the collection
of regional parties. 3rd front is not insignificant. It continues to have significant share of votes and has
dominant presence at state level. Since 3rd front represents OBCs as well as other sections like Muslims,
Dalits, 3rd front is always an important force. 3rd front has also formed government at the union level 2
times. In 1989, National Front Govt. was formed with the support of BJP and United Front Govt. in 1996,
with the support of Congress and CPI (M).
However, 3rd front could never provide stable government. It has never been stable internally. It
emerges before elections and dissolves after elections.
In 2008, 3rd front formed United National Progressive Alliance.
In 2014, 14 parties formed 3rd front as an alternative to corrupt Congress and communal BJP. However,
it was dissolved within 24 hours.
In 2019 elections, 3rd front was formed under the banner of ‘Mahagatha-bandhan’ and even Congress
was part of it. It was, however, ineffective to influence election outcome.

Problems with 3rd front

 Too many leaders.
 Opportunism.
 Too parochial in their approach.
 Lack nationalist agenda.

AAP Phenomenon

AAP (Aam Adami Party) is a byproduct of globalization. AAP phenomenon is not unique to India. The
other parallel examples are Tehreek-i-insaf in Pakistan, Syriza Party in Greece, Workers Party in Brazil,
People’s movement in Hong Kong.
AAP is also considered as urban phenomenon. Globalization has resulted into the increase of
inequalities. Globalization has increased democratic consciousness awareness about good governance.
AAP was formed in 2012. It emerged out of anti-corruption movement. AAP describes itself as anti-
politics and anti-ideology. AAP is against power politics.
According to them, they are joining politics, not for power, but for change. They need power to change
the system from within because the pressure from outside has not worked. AAP rejects high command
culture. AAP goes for bottom-up approach. AAP stands for the intra-party democracy. No two members
of the same family can contest elections or can become member of executive council. Members have
right to recall the executive council members.

The Aam Aadmi Party

is often described as
a centrist, post-
ideological party. The
Aam Aadmi Party is
the political
expression of the new
urban middle class, as their imagination, their symbolism and their voter-base point to. It started as a
movement on 2011; it is seen as a milestone in Indian politics. The primary features of its narrative are
accountability, transparency and good governance. It has ideological elasticity that it can shift from
right to left.

BSP

The Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) is a national level political party in India and was founded in 1984 by
Kanshi Ram; the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) is led by Mayawati at present. According to Kanshi Ram, the
Bahujans comprised 85 percent of India's population, but were divided into 6,000 different castes.
Kanshi Ram advocated for the rights of the backward and down-trodden and worked for the betterment
of the Dalits. In 1989, the party contested its first elections in Uttar Pradesh. In 1995, the BSP’s
Mayawati became the chief minister for the first time. BSP has been a force in national politics.
BSP in terms of ideology is not specific other than its opposition to and outspoken criticism of
inequalities of caste system. Its mains tenets are focused on upholding the constitutional rights of the
lower sections of the society.

COALITION POLITICS IN INDIA

Coalition government is the feature of parliamentary form of government. It emerges in the situation of
hung assembly or parliament. William Riker has explained the coalition as ‘power sharing arrangement’.

Is coalition government unique to India?

It is not unique to India. It is a regular feature of countries in continental Europe. In Europe, Italy’s
coalition culture comes near to India’s coalition culture.

History of coalition in India

Coalition is not new to India. Coalition governments were formed even in 1937. Congress itself was a
‘grand coalition’. Even Janta Party was a coalition of many non-Congress parties. Coalition politics has
become a regular feature of national level from 1989 onwards. But it has been a regular feature of the
state level since 4th general elections.
Coalition politics at the state level has been more mature than the coalition politics at the union level.
Kerala & W.B. give one of the best examples of mature coalition culture.

UNIQUE FEATURES OF INDIA’S COALITION CULTURE

BIDYUT CHAKRAVARTY
 According to Bidyut Chakravarty, coalitions in western countries are ‘coalition by design’.
Whereas, coalition in India are ‘coalition by political calculations’, still searching for design.
 Coalitions are power sharing arrangements and hence in western countries, we see minimum
winning coalition. However in India ‘oversized coalition’ have been formed.
 In western countries, ideological convergence is taken into account but in India Rainbow
coalition has been formed. (Different ideology).
 In case of India, negative coalitions have been the regular feature. Coalitions have been formed
not to run the government but to stop someone else from coming to power. Once that objective
is achieved, it becomes difficult to maintain the solidarity as there is little ideological coherence.
 The core (main) party has not followed the practice of consultation with the partners of
coalition.

CONSEQUENCES OF COALITION POLITICS IN INDIA

Unfortunately, there have been more negative consequences of coalition politics. The problem does not
lie in the coalition but problem lie in India’s coalition culture. Some of the negative consequences are:
 Policy paralysis.
 Decline of parliament.
 Decline in post of speaker.
 Decline in dignity of speaker.
 Judicial activism.
 Presidential activism.
 Frequent elections.
 Horse trading.
 Defection.
 Increasing role of money and muscle power.
 Increasing use of ethnic mobilization.
 Weakening of institution of PM. (In a coalition, there are more than one PMs. For a particular
faction, their own leader is PM).
 Increase in corruption.

Is coalition is desirable in India?

The bigger question is, is coalition avoidable in a country like India? Since coalition is not avoidable in a
country like India with huge diversity, it is more important to think about how to make coalition work
rather than thinking over its desirability.
Coalition itself is not bad. Coalition makes democracy more representative, consociational. However,
coalition may impact national interest of country if it does not have healthy coalition culture. Hence, we
have to think how to bring healthy coalition culture.
We can learn from countries like Germany which shows sound coalition culture. We can incorporate
some of the features found in Germany, rather than basing India’s parliamentary system entirely on
West ministerial model. In Germany, Chancellor enjoys a stronger status in comparison to the PM of
British model. Since the major problem of coalition politics is political instability. Hence we can
constitute the system of ‘constructive vote of no-confidence’. We can also think of Japanese model
where PM is elected by members of the lower house.
We should rather shift to Chancellors model because in coalition politics, the position of PM becomes
weak. Coalition partners get huge bargaining power. Role of PM gets reduced to manager of coalition
rather than leader. This is avoided in Chancellor System. The Chancellor determines the policies of
different department. Ministries have to work as per the policy directed. Cabinet system comes into
practice only when there is a conflict between two ministries.
Former PM Manmohan Singh used to suggest that India lacks Coalition Dharma.
India should institutionalize the practice of Steering Committees on the regular consultative mechanism
with all the members of the coalition. If core party goes for greater transparency, there will be less
scope for bargaining by smaller parties. There is a need for reforming anti-defection laws.
There is a need to strengthen such mechanisms which can check the corruption among the members of
the parliament. There is a need to bring electoral reform which can reduce the influence of money and
muscle power, the influence of caste and religion in Indian politics. There is a need to introduce ethics in
politics.

Coalition politics in India: Consensus, or the lack of it - a boon or a bane?

The repeated paroxysms of instability and chaos in Karnataka politics since the
Kumaraswamy govt came into power presents a study of whether the model of coalition
politics is a viable one for India or not.

Key Highlights
 Initial years after Independence
saw solid, single-party governments
 Morarji Desai formed the first
coalition government in 1977
 Most coalitions in the period
between 1989-99 were unstable

It is difficult to put a date to when

democracy came to India, but the concept
itself has popularly been associated with the Romans and the Greeks. In the Indian context,
Jawaharlal Nehru mentioned a rudimentary form of democratic set-up in his famous tome
‘Discovery of India’. As per his book, at the end of the Indus Valley civilization when the Aryans
descended into the hinterland during the Vedic Period (1500- 500 BCE), they introduced the
concept of living in small communities, where the headman was chosen through a collective
(inevitably male-dominated) decision and the measure of prosperity of the herd was the number
of livestock it held.

Later, India, as a gamut of small and large kingdoms was mostly ruled by monarchial regimes. It
is at the end of the British Empire when sovereignties had withered with time or were forced into
submitting to a larger dream of nationhood, that fiefdoms were sacrificed completely at the altar
of democracy.

The Coalition Experiment in India

The early years of post-Independence saw extremely solid, nearly monolithic
governments formed by the Congress. The death of the first Prime Minister lit the embers of
ambition in the hearts of a few Congressmen but these were quickly extinguished as Indira
Gandhi employed an iron clasp over the party and country. [The first coalition ministry of
Morarji Desai lasted all of 857 days (between March 1977 and June 1979) and that of Charan
Singh for 171 days (between July 1979 and January 1980).]

(Charan Singh with the then PM Morarji Desai

and Jagjivan Ram after the swearing-in
ceremony at Rashtrapati Bhavan)

It was in the decades after her death in 1984

that the experiment with coalitions was truly
tried and tested; even then mostly to little
success. For example after 1989 for many
years, no single party managed to form a
government on its own. The 1990s, therefore,
witnessed a succession of unstable and short-
lived formations – India got a new government
in each of these years - 1989, 1990, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999. Eight governments were formed in
10 years instead of the regular two terms that
were expected in the same period. [VP Singh
for 344 days (between December 1989 and
November 1990) / Chandra Shekhar for 224
days (between November 1990 and June
1991) / Atal Bihari Vajpayee for 13 days in
May 1996 /Deve Gowda for 325 days
(between June 1996 and April 1997) /
IK Gujral for 333 days (between April 1997
and March 1998) / Atal Bihari Vajpayee for
394 days (between March 1998 and April 1999).]

Fatigued with battered governance, Indians got some semblance of normalcy in the form of the
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) alliance in 1999-2004
and then two terms of the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) between 2004 and
2014. While Atal Bihari Vajpayee was constantly pestered by
AIADMK’s J Jayalalithaa and finally lost the plot with his
India Shining campaign, citizens grew weary of the Left’s
tantrums and the way it held the Dr Manmohan Singh
government hostage.

Finally, in 2014, BJP secured 282 seats, ushering in another

era of strong single-party governments, which had allies only
because of some pre-poll understanding or based on
strategic partnerships rather than a necessity for its survival
at the helm.

The Many Cs – Compulsions of Creating a Coalition and the

Constricting Consequences
In a multi-party democracy, when no single party is able to garner the requisite numbers to
cross the half-way mark, a coalition is a natural option. Mostly, though not always, parties with
broadly similar sensibilities come together to cobble a majority number, so as to be invited (as a
cohesive whole) to form a government. They also usually draft a basic minimum common
programme which they agree to implement.

There have been exceptions to this rule when hitherto political and ideological foes have come
together simply to grab power or to create bloc resistance against a third party. The current
Karnataka coalition of the Janata Dal (Secular) [JD(S)] and Congress is a prime example of the
former, and a Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) - Samajwadi Party (SP) coalition in UP as a
syndicate against the BJP could be viewed as a sample of the latter. Another good example is
that of the several disparate players who came together to take on Narendra Modi in the General
Elections of 2019.

The adverse impact of such an arrangement is the inability of providing good governance or
pushing through policies. For most of the year, since the HD Kumaraswamy government was
sworn in, most of the time (of the ones at the coalition's helm) has been lost in keeping the flock
together rather than making a positive difference to the lives of those whom they govern.

As mentioned earlier, the tenure of the UPA government was not all one of smooth-sailing. In the
first tenure itself, in July 2008, Dr Manmohan Singh’s government survived a no-confidence
motion with the help of SP and BSP when the Left withdrew support over the N-deal issue. The
second term too was wrought with trouble as first the Trinamool Congress left the coalition over
business reforms and then DMK got embroiled in the 2G spectrum scam and later left the ship
completely over the issue of war crimes against Tamils in Sri Lanka. The day was once again
saved by SP and BSP who came to the aid of the government which had been reduced to a
minority with just 228 seats.
Dr. Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi It goes without saying that the impediments created by
frequent skirmishes with allies were severe roadblocks to policy implementation and UPA II
came to be associated with governance paralysis.

Gains of a Union
Considering the chequered history of coalitions in India,
there is, however, an equal need to look at the benefits of
such a complex arrangement. There have been a few
success stories like the coalitions in Kerala; and at the
national level, all said and done, the first full term of the
NDA under Vajpayee and the two tenures of the UPA
were seminal in many ways for the country.

For one, they pulled India out of the uncertainty and instability of the past decade.

The second major value of such a proposition is that it is a platform for regional aspirations in a
diverse country like India and is more representative in nature. It facilitates a system that hears
the voice of segments that are non-powerful and remotely located, helping to provide a more
inclusive and decentralised model.

Thirdly, a coalition can provide an ideal counterbalance, providing a hedge against possible
hegemony and unbridled power in the hands of one or a few people.

Mostly though, it can be said that pre-poll partnerships are more durable and ideologically
relatable than a motley crowd lobbying together to grasp power after the results disclose that no
one party has the numbers.

The final take on coalition remains a delicate one – with so many advantages that the concept
brings, it needs to be checked that the structure does not degenerate to serve narrow, parochial
interests of politicians and that the grouping presents itself not as a barrier but as an enabler or
even a catalyst of national interest.

PRESSURE GROUPS IN INDIAN POLITICS

PRESSURE GROUPS / INTEREST GROUPS

Pressure groups are known as ‘invisible empires’. Pressure groups are considered as integral component
of pluralist democracies. Every democracy recognizes freedom to form association.
Pressure group politics is most influential in USA. Pressure groups are not very powerful in countries
where political parties represent specific ideology e.g. Britain, where Labor party is assumed to work in
interest of working class.
Pressure groups in India have also not played an effective role. However, since 1990s, there is a growth
of pressure group politics in India. One of the earliest studies on pressure group politics in India has
been done by Rajni Kothari.
According to Rajni Kothari, pressure groups have been agents of modernization, reservoirs of
leadership. In India, communal pressure groups have been more dominant. However, pressure groups
did not enjoy much legitimacy in the eyes of the people. The predominant status of Congress party did
not allow pressure groups to gain primacy. In fact, the status of other political parties was like pressure
group. Hence, Rajni Kothari calls them, ‘Parties of Pressure’.

Rudolph & Rudolph have also analyzed the role of caste association. Myron Weiner, in his book
POLITICS AND SCARCITY has highlighted the role of communal pressure groups.

Christophe Jaffrelot has studied the role of RSS in Indian politics.

According to Prof. Anand Chakravarty, GOI should have shown greater accommodation towards
pressure groups as many pressure groups were banned under ULPA. If govt. had accommodated them,
it would have been easier to address the alienation and secessionist trends.

CHANGING NATURE OF PRESSURE GROUPS IN INDIA

Robert Hardgrave and Stanley Kochanek has highlighted the changing nature of pressure groups in
India. Since 1990s, pressure group politics is shifting from state dominated pluralism to more powerful
pressure group politics. Pressure groups started gaining legitimacy as a result of liberalization and
globalization. Govt. of India has incorporated different interest groups in policy making institution. Like
NAC, NSAB and now NITI Aayog.
There is a substantial increase in the power of business groups. Business groups are also part of the
delegation of foreign countries. The traditions of organizing parallel business summit along with political
summit have become the regular feature. There is a greater pressure and influence of foreign lobbies
and advocacy groups.
Communal pressure groups, pressure groups of corporate sector, pressure group of rich farmers, all
continue to play dominant role. India still does not have dominant women organization. Environmental
lobbies, student unions, trade unions continue to be junior partners of political parties and many
pressure groups primarily of left wing have been banned under ULPA.
State continues to be dominant actor in India. At times state has been not tolerant towards certain
pressure groups. Recently there was a highly disputed report of IB which has pointed out that many
NGOs are having anti-national propaganda and their activities have been detrimental to India’s growth.

ELECTORAL BEHAVIOUR

The study of electoral behavior is a result of the growth of behavioral movement in political science.
According to Milan Vaishnav, the study of electoral behavior in India is a challenging task because of
size and diversity. We can also put forward the argument of Kenneth Arrow who has given ‘impossibility
theorem’. In case of elections, it is difficult to determine the preference, when voters have more than 3
choices. Still, India is an interesting case study of the electoral behavior.

It is a big puzzle, why do Indians vote. And vote in such a huge numbers. And when despite voting,
nothing gets translated into any concrete achievement as far as governance and development is
concerned.

Mukulika Banerjee and her team have conducted ethnographic survey of Indian voters. Survey gives
many interesting findings.
 Many voters consider that act of voting is an assertion of their citizenship right and duties.
 Elections are the time when power inversion takes place.
 People think that it is better to choose and reject who govern them.
 Some vote out of feeling of revenge.
 Some vote because a member of their caste or community is contesting.
 Some vote because they think that election commission is doing great job.
 Some feel the edifice of democracy in India will collapse otherwise.
 Some even consider voting as their sacred duty.

TRENDS IN ELECTORAL BEHAVIOUR

According to study, poor are more sophisticated and strategic voters than the rich. Poor people have
higher dependency on government welfare provisions. They have been found to be more aware and
understand the value of their vote than the educated middle classes, who vote for not anything in
return but as a duty towards nation.
According to LOKNITI (a part of CDSS), following trends can be seen in India’s electoral behaviour:
 Caste and religion remain the major long term determinant.
 Corruption and anti-incumbency does not matter.
 No difference in the preferences of men & women, rural & urban.

According to Yogendra Yadav, people in India are moving from identity politics to identity plus politics.
It includes concern for identity as well as development.

The reconfiguration of India’s political elite: profiling the 17th Lok Sabha
Christophe Jaffrelot & Gilles Verniers

 Resurgence of upper-caste representation

The data collected for the last three General Elections reveal that representational trends
among major caste groups have been stable. The upper caste accounts for 28–29% of all MPs,
against 23% of OBC MPs and 14% of intermediate-caste MPs. SC and ST representation is stable
by virtue of being mandated by quotas.5 Muslims’ representation remains low, slightly above
4% of all MPs.
 The marginalisation of non-dominant groups
 Even though upper castes are over-represented in the Lok Sabha, there remains a good number
of MPs who belong to intermediate castes or to various OBC groups. Historically, dominant
groups have been over-represented among the OBCs. Three groups – Yadavs, Kurmis and
Gujjars – have made up more than 60% of all OBC MPs in the Hindi belt since the early 1960s.
 Stable Hindu over-representation
The Lok Sabha’s lack of representativeness is most glaring when one considers its religious
composition. 91% of MPs are Hindus (for a share of 82% of the population), against 4.8%
Muslims (who make up 14% of the population) and 2% Sikhs and Christians.
 Women (still) missing in parliament
Another strong indicator of the lack of representativeness in India’s Lower House is the relative
absence of women MPs. With 78 women elected out of 542 seats (14.6%), India stands at the
unenviable global rank of 141st with regard to women’s representation in national parliaments.
This is still the highest number achieved by women candidates in India, despite the fact that
nomination rates remain low (9% in 2019).
 The resilience of political dynasties
Dynasticism, or the prevalence of elected representatives belonging to political families, is an
old phenomenon in India. Many political parties are led by political families, whose origins can
be traced back to the founding of their party and to earlier times.
 The richer the better
Data on candidates’ assets are available in India since the 2004 elections, when the declaration
of income, assets, personal criminal record and the various socio demographic informations was
made mandatory by the Supreme Court to run for office in India. The data is largely self-
declared and prone to error and manipulations, but provides nonetheless valuable material,
which has been used to assess linkages between crime, wealth and performance in Indian
elections.
 Occupation
Establishing the occupational profile of candidates and MPs is an arduous task. First, this is self
declared data and therefore scarcely reliable. The categories used (farmer, business …) are
broad and vague. Many politicians are reluctant to declare their actual source of income. Others
obfuscate their actual occupation behind meaningless categories such as social or political
worker. Individual candidates dealing with state business tend to have their companies
registered under the name of relatives, or of their spouse. Some are engaged in illegal activities,
by definition discreet professions. Coding the data extracted from the Association for
Democratic Reforms (ADR), is also difficult, since many candidates declare more than one
profession, or no profession at all.
 Implications and explanations
The portrait that we can draw so far of the Lok Sabha is that of an assembly dominated by men,
mostly Hindu, disproportionately upper-caste, a significant number of whom belong to political
families. These four markers of elitism are further compounded by a selection of candidates
through wealth and the occupational profile of MPs, increasingly grounded in business activities.
 As such, India’s Parliament bears little resemblance to the broader population it is meant to
represent.
Post-Mandal politics saw the rise and assertion of elite segments of specific groups among
backward groups, who have entered the electoral fray as well as the competitive fields of
business, from the ground up. The current period has seen a resurgence of upper-caste
assertion and representation, as well as a growing diversification of representation on the basis
of caste, both as reaction to the rise of dominant OBCs.

The focus on national factors and on party leadership has the effect of obfuscating the elements,
nuances and contradictions that shape electoral politics in India. Despite the prevalent rhetoric of
inclusiveness, there is evidence that electoral politics in India remains as elitist as ever, although the
centrality of money in candidate selection tends to favor more moneyed elites grounded in business
networks and activities. While the rising cost of entry to politics makes access to positions of power
narrower than before, it does not alter the fundamental significance of elitism. As the BJP consolidates
its presence and dominance across states, it contributes to creating new political elite, a new
establishment in which both traditional and new elites can find their place.

ASSESSMENT OF INDIAN VOTERS

Prannoy Roy, Ashok Lahiri and David Butler in their book titled A COMPENDIUM OF INDIAN ELECTIONS
show that the voting behavior of Indians is many times more mature than the voting behavior of voters
in western countries.
According to M P Singh, the credit for success for India’s democracy goes to the great common sense
shown by ordinary voters in India. He suggests that we cannot say that verdict of any election was ever
wrong. People always vote for the best possible option.

COMPOSITION OF 17TH LOK SABHA

PARTY SEATS % SHARE OF VOTES

BJP 303 37.36%
INC 52 19.49%
DMK 23 2.26%
AITC 22 4.07%

17th (2019) Lok sabha has 78 women members. This is the highest number of women MPs in lower
house, ever.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF LEGISLATURE

Parliament is a mirror of society. Profile of parliament gives us many valuable indications about the
nature of society and the changing direction of society. There is no difference in profile of members of
parliament and state legislature. There is no difference in the profile of members of upper house and
lower house.
Upper house – peter sober.
Lower house – peter drunk.

3 PHASES: Shankar and Rodrigues have divided the changing profile of MPs in 3 phases;

1st Phase: Till 1967; In terms of caste, Brahmins dominated the parliament.
OBCs, women and minorities were under represented. Representation in proportion of population for
members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes ensured their presence. In terms of education, most
of them were graduates from foreign universities, including the members of scheduled caste
community. In terms of profession, lawyers were more in number and the 2nd position was of
agriculturalists.

2nd Phase: 1967 – 1989; the phase of transition.

As a result of state reorganization, green revolution and deepening of democracy, there was a rise of
intermediate caste. A phenomenon described by Yogendra Yadav as 1st democratic upsurge.
Now OBCs became the most dominant section. In terms of profession, agriculturalists were in majority
and 2nd was of social service members. Earlier professionals were joining politics and politics was not a
source of income but now the trend started where the politics became the full time profession. The
trend started because of JP movement and Sanjay Gandhi youth congress. Youth entered the politics at
the time of career formation.
Numbers of graduates from foreign universities have declined. Nothing changed as far as the
representation of minorities and women is concerned. Representation of women got stagnated around
8-10% of total seats.

3rd Phase: From 1989; the phase of plebeianization (mobocracy).

Prof. Yogendra Yadav explains it through the term ‘2nd democratic upsurge’. Parliament continues to
be dominated by OBCs and in terms of profession, by agriculturalists and social workers. Not much
change with respect to women and minority representation. Number of graduates has increased. Since
1990s, there has been too much presence of persons from criminal background and the phenomenon
known as ‘criminalization of Indian politics’.

Data: As per data released by Association of Democratic Reforms, in 2009, 30% had criminal charges; in
2014, 34% has criminal charges; in 2019, 43% had criminal charges. In 2019, 43% had criminal charges
and out of these 29% are accused of heinous crimes. ADR study also show that the chances of winning of
the candidates with criminal background are 1.5% more.
 This shows that Indian democracy is not yet inclusive in terms of
gender, minority representation. The most alarming aspect is the
magnitude of the persons with criminal background. As remarked by
Christophe Jaffrelot, in India people are not under the rule of law,
they are under the rule of money and muscle power.

As remarked by Christophe Jaffrelot, in India people are not under

the rule of law, they are under the rule of money and muscle power.

PROFESSION 2014 2019

Agricultural background 27% 38%
Social workers 24% 39%
Business background 23% 23%

EDUCATION 2014 2019

Studied till 12th 17% 27%
Graduates 75% 72%
Post graduates 42% 49%

CRITERIA 2014 2019

AVERAGE AGE 50-55 YEARS 54 YEARS
FIRST TIMERS 58% (316 MPs) 49% (267 MPs)
WOMEN MPs 11.3% (62 MPs) 14% (78 MPs)
CRIMINAL CASES 34% (185 MPs) 43% (233 MPs)
ACCUSED OF SERIOUS 16% (87 MPs) 29% [159 MPs]
CRIMES