See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/344418387

Changing Trends in Party System in India: Dominant Party System and its
Breakdown

Chapter · May 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 10,773

1 author:

Pushpa Singh
Miranda House, University of Delhi
31 PUBLICATIONS   16 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Politics of Knowledge in Development View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Pushpa Singh on 18 January 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1

3.

Changing Trends in Party System in India:

Dominant Party System and its Breakdown

Pushpa Singh

Abstract:

The Indian party system has been vital and unique to democratic politics and has gradually
evolved with the process of social transformation in the country. The complexities and
contradictions arising from the cleavages and heterodoxies of our society shape the dynamics
of its functioning. Interestingly, party politics holds on to the plural ethos of our polity, though
uneasily. The Indian party system has a rich legacy, but is occasionally marked by volatility,
ruptures, and pervasive crisis. Hence, the premonition from western scholarship predicting
its eventual decimation comes as no surprise. Nevertheless, the system has managed to not
only deliver, but also has augured democratic practices. It is almost established by now that
India is an example of a successful democracy and this fact is globally acknowledged. Parties
do tend to feed on polarization and schisms in society, but by and large, they closely monitor
their moves in order to retain the support of the masses. Attempt towards extreme
radicalization may put any party in pariah status. This sets in a natural check and balance
system where the ground realities determine the dynamics of party politics. This chapter
delineates the trajectory of evolution of party system in India, the dramatic shifts it has been
through since pre-independence days to contemporary times and also analyzes the challenges
that beset the successful working of the electoral democracy in the country.

Keywords:
Political Representation, Party System, Dominant Party System, Electoral Politics,
Cleavages, Coalition government, Federalization of Political Parties, Deepening of
Democracy

Political parties have emerged as the most distinctive feature of the process of political
representation. They constitute indispensable devices of democratic politics for contemporary
systems of representative governments. Most significantly, they form the link between the
government and the people. The growing complexities of administration and governance of
modern times accentuated the demand for a system in which people can choose those whom
they can saddle with this enormous responsibility of representing them. The range of tasks
parties perform make them central to all kinds of polities. Political parties stand for the act of
representation with an electoral system and process of recruitment of its leaders, defining the
goals and resolving conflicts within the internal system (Eldersveld, 1964, p.1). They create
the organizational base for mobilization and facilitate political participation. People identify
themselves with the parties in terms of ideologies, beliefs, and symbols as projected by them.
In India, political parties are viewed as an integral part of our democracy. It is hard to conceive
of India’s democratic system and its success without the crucial role played by parties (Hasan,
2010: 241). Political parties are not directly mentioned in the Constitution of India. The Tenth
Schedule added by the Constitution (Fifty-second Amendment) Act, 1985 first mentions them
in India in a specific context of defection.1 This chapter aims at exploring the functioning of
 2

party system in India with reference to its transformation from dominant party system to its
disintegration to an incoherent multiparty system to the present two-coalition multiparty
system.

Definition and Typology

MacIver defined political party as an association organized in support of some principle or

policy, which by constitutional means, endeavors to make the determinant of the government
(MacIver, 1926: 326). According to Giovanni Satori, a party is a political group that presents
and places candidates for public office through elections, (Sartori, 1976: 1). Schumpeter states
that the first and foremost aim of each political party is to prevail over the others in order to
get into power or to stay in it. This goal of attaining political power distinguishes political
parties from other groups in the political system, although the distinction is rather blurred at
times, especially with regard to pressure groups (Peters and Ball, 2005: 112). It is generally
agreed that democracy requires groups such as political parties to perform critical functions—
recruit leadership, formulate policy, organize decision making, communicate upward and
downward amongst leaders and the public, promote consensus, enforce responsibility, and
move the society towards the effective resolution of its conflicts (Eldersveld, 1964: 22). They
generate ideologies, beliefs, and symbols for political identification to the citizens. The nature
and scope of political parties are country specific. They rise and grow in response to the needs
of the social and political system in a particular milieu (Eldersveld, 1964: 2). There are certain
characteristic traits of political parties as highlighted by Weiner and LaPalambora. They view
parties as complex organizations that require (i) continuity in organization—an organization
whose expected life is not dependent on the life span of current leader(s); (ii) manifest and
stable permanent organization at the local level, with regularized communication and other
relationships between the local and national levels; (iii) self-conscious determination of
leaders to capture and hold decision-making power alone or in coalition with others, not
simply to influence the exercise of power; and (iv) concern on the part of the organization for
seeking followers at the polls or in some manner striving for popular support (LaPalombara
and Weiner, 1966: 6).

Even though the detailed analysis of classification of parties is not under the purview of this
chapter, yet a cursory mention may illustrate the different ways in which parties are
understood. Parties have been categorized in different ways by different scholars. Based on
their structure and functions, Maurice Duverger classifies parties into four kinds: Caucus,
Branch, Cell, and Militia (Duverger, 1954 15). Delineating new party types that can capture
the diverse democratic world as it is today, Richard Gunther and Larry Diamond divide them
as elite-based parties, mass-based parties, ethnicity-based parties, electoralist parties, and
movement parties (Gunther and Diamond, 2003:172). Discussing the newly emergent trend
of marketization of political parties in the 1980s, Panebianco coined the term electoral
professional party. It denotes the increasing inclination of parties to seek professionals like
pollsters and PR managers to project their parties as more appealing to the electorate
(Panebianco, 1988: 6).

The party system refers to a complex social and political process that explores the intricate
pattern of interactions and interrelationships among political groups and organizations,
societal associations and individual leaders (Mehra, 2003: 23). Based on the numerical
strength of political parties competing for political power in any country, party system is
 3

classified into one-party system, two-party system, and multi-party system. Single political
party acquires the monopoly of power in one party system and becomes permanently part of
the government. It enjoys close proximity with the state administration. Two-party system is
marked by dominant presence of two parties that virtually run all the political show in that
country, for example, United States of America, United Kingdom in the past. In multiparty
system, many parties across the spectrum compete for winning elections and getting control
of government offices. However, none of these classifications could capture the unique
character of the Indian party system. Though India adopted the multiparty system but,
initially, Indian politics reflected the predominance of the Congress party. This enabled it to
enjoy larger than life share in the electoral politics, which can be basically attributed to its
legacy of anti-colonial movement. Paul Brass states that party politics in India display
numerous paradoxical features, which reveal the blending of western and modern forms of
bureaucratic organization and participatory politics with indigenous practices and institutions.

Nature and Legacy of the Indian Party System

Background:

The rise of nationalism in India in 19th century served as the backdrop for the emergence of
political party. The British colonial rule produced enormous resistance and resentment among
Indians. This acrimony resulted in development of feeling of nationalism and construction of
the imaginary of India as a nation. It also helped the country to consolidate itself as a unified
political entity. In 1885, association of middle-class professionals along with Allan Octavian
Hume, created the Indian National Congress (INC). It is the oldest political party in India and
one of the oldest parties in the world. By presenting Indian interest to the British Crown in a
systematic and organized manner, the INC soon became a leading voice of the Indian middle
class, constantly clamouring for more jobs under the colonial government and for greater
political participation (Mitra, et al., 2004: 8). With this, a political process conducive for the
crystallization of political parties and political groups were set in motion (Mehra, 2003: 25).

The contribution of the INC in the independence movement and in shaping the political
system in post-independence period has been seminal. It acted as the core of nationalistic
assertion. This umbrella organization provided a national platform to all kinds of forces to
unite against the colonizers. INC’s sustained battle against British occupation gradually led
the country towards liberation. Even in the post-independent era, Congress has been able to
harmonize easily its basic elements of leadership with national appeal and acceptability, a
pan-Indian ideology with recognition and accommodation of local and regional spirit and
district level cadre (Khare, 2004: 32). Down the line, it tried to continue to sustain its
propensity for preserving democratic tradition, though sometimes it failed miserably. Despite
its pan-Indian appeal, the Congress could not provide the nucleus for an institutionalized party
system.

It is interesting to look into the initial debates surrounding the future of party politics in India
in the post-independence era. Many seminal political figures were skeptical of the necessity
of parties in the Indian political system. They cautioned against the trivialities and petty
 4

politics that parties tend to generate. Because of this reason, they took a clear and open stand
against parties, advocating a democratic system free of them. The most prominent views were
of M.K. Gandhi, the father of our nation, who was never comfortable with the idea of a polity
driven by parties. Gandhi was deeply convinced that state and all its institutions are enmeshed
with power and are inherently repressive to the people. State becomes the repository of
endemic and organized violence and may pose a huge threat to the helpless citizens. Wary of
such insinuation, in his last piece of writing Last Will and Testament, Gandhi, therefore,
suggested the dissolution of Congress as a political organization after achieving independence
and replacing it with Lok Sewak Sangh (Servant of People Association) (Narayan, 1970:
235). Gandhi prescribed a democratic system based on village self-government for the
country and called it Gram Swaraj, where political parties will have no role. In his scheme of
decentralization of power, there was no place for power-seeking political parties (Narayan,
1970: 240). Similar reverberations are found in the thoughts of Jayaprakash Narayan in his
Gandhian phase. Narayan fervently advocated for party-less democracy with emphasis on
decentralization of power, village autonomy, and more representative legislature. He
observed that in parliamentary democracy, the electors are manipulated by powerful, centrally
controlled parties, with the aid of high finance and diabolically cleaver methods, and super
media (Narayan, 1959, p.66). However, this idea was outrightly rejected by the working
committee of the Congress. It was in no mood to fiddle away its enormous power and support
base that it had arduously generated over a long period of time. After independence, the nation
began its journey of enduring democracy with parties at the centre of political mobilization
and governance.

Different Phases:

Parties and party system in India have transformed through different phases with the changing
milieu. These phases can be generally categorized as the period from 1947–67 (marked by
clear dominance of Congress), 1967–77 (noted by rising dissent and opposition, period of
emergency), 1977–84 (rise of regional forces), 1984–90s (incoherent multiparty system), and
contemporary times (present two-coalition multiparty system).

The first phase of the Indian party system (1947–67) is clearly marked by the monopoly of
the Congress. When the Congress finally came to power at all levels of government beginning
in 1947, it had years of invaluable seasoning under its belt, giving India an advantage
unknown to many other decolonized nations (Varshney, 1998: 39). This specific historical
context provided Congress the character of a mass organization. The monopolistic position
of the Congress and the unorganized fragmented opposition which could not even adequately
ventilate popular grievances, enabled the former to emerge as a formidable political structure
(Kothari, 1961: 849). It is precisely because of this reason that the Indian party system has
been famously described as “single-party dominance” (Morris-Jones: 1971) or the “one party
dominant system” or “Congress System” by Prof. Rajni Kothari (Kothari: 1961). This implies
that the working of the party system in India in the beginning was such that the Congress
formed the core and rest of the parties operated from periphery, applying the pressure from
the margins. Because of Congress's popularity and its rule-based internal functioning, no
competitor with a similar nationwide mass base ever arose to challenge it for the leadership
of the national movement (Varshney, 1998: 39). Even the conflict and dissent came from
within the Congress rather from opposition parties outside Congress. This made the Indian
party system ‘party of consensus and parties of pressure’ (Kothari, 2002: 40). The choice of
 5

first-past-the-post electoral system also worked to the advantage of Congress. All these
features of party politics in India in the immediate post-independent era rendered the presence
of other smaller parties insignificant.

It was possible for Congress to create unchallenged aura around itself as it was dexterously
able to capture unexplored political space at the national level. Congress projected itself as
the authentic repository of the spirit of Indian nationalism, thereby instantly generating huge
goodwill, faith, and support. After independence, Congress acted as the main integrating
institution. This party became most important than all the formal institution of the state put
together (Manor, 1997: 95). It remained pragmatic and maintained considerable flexibility
and progressiveness in terms of its political program. Such policies helped Congress to sustain
its support among masses. Hence, little room was left for possibility of creation of any other
alternative political party representing similar conviction.

In this period, Congress wisely manoeuvred its ways towards projecting itself as the only
viable option for governing the country. By adopting the socialistic pattern society resolution,
it stole the thunder from the Praja Socialist Party; by modifying its agrarian policy in practice,
it prevented the Swatantra party from mobilizing the landowning classes against it and even
the Communists were forced to choose between "cooperating with Nehru" or going all-out
against the parliamentary system (Kothari, 1961: 847). We do not notice recurrent endemic
opposition emerging against Congress in this phase. The obstructions from dissident groups
were mediated and accommodated thus keeping the dissenting voices fairly satiated. The
opposition acquired the role of a watchdog, keeping a constant vigil over the ruling party.
Consequently, the Congress enjoyed more or less the unchallenged monopoly from 1947 to
1967.

In the second phase of party system in India (1967–77), Congress visibly started losing grip
due to disintegration of consensus within the party. The intra-party contradiction led to the
first split in Congress in 19692 and subsequent splits in 1980, 1994, and 1999. One of these
split groups, Congress-I, represented by Indira Gandhi tried to project itself as the true
inheritor of the Indian National Congress. The split of 1969 shocked the nation, creating the
perception of “crisis of regime” in those times. After her victory in 1971, Indira Gandhi
adopted a more confrontational posture, both towards opposition parties at the national level
and towards opposition-controlled governments in various states (Dua, 1979: 101). She
created a pyramidal decision-making structure in party and government thus concentrating all
powers in herself. The result was a new way of doing politics, marked by centralized decision
making, weakening institutionalization, and creating an overly personalized regime (Manor,
1997: 101). The Congress was clearly marked by the abandonment of intra-party democracy
in the party during this period. The new dynamics has been described by Rajni Kothari as a
dominant party model giving way to a more differentiated structure of party competition.
Morris-Jones reflected that the new situation brought many opposition parties fully into the
market place, and competition that had previously occurred within the Congress was now
brought into the realm of inter-party conflict.

The troubles of Congress did not end here. The new political process proved unable to manage
the tensions and cleavages of heterogeneous party operating in a heterogeneous society
(Kochanak, 1976: 104). It denoted an impending crisis in the system. These provocations
provided opportunity to the opposition to consolidate itself, chiefly under the leadership of
 6

Jayaprakash Narayan. However, Mrs Gandhi retorted with increased authoritativeness in her
tone and tenor. These developments culminated in the imposition of emergency by the
Congress party under Indira Gandhi, marking a new low in Indian politics. Emergency was
declared in June 1975 and stayed for 19 months. During this period, opposition leaders were
jailed, the party system and open politics were closed down, and even Congress leaders were
intimidated (Manor, 1997: 97). This led to considerable waning of party’s credibility and vote
base. Post-emergency period, Congress lost the election due to the anti-incumbency wave.
Janata government, the first non-Congress government was formed in 1977. Janata party was
constituted by the coalescence of many parties like Bharatiya Jan Sangh, Bharatiya Lok Dal,
Socialist Party, Congress (O) who were all united in their common objective of defeating the
Congress. Unfortunately, this government could not sustain more than two years. The fierce
ambition of its leading politicians Morarji Desai, Jagjivan Ram, and Charan Singh doomed
the political fate of this hastily assembled coalition. The leaders of these parties, although
experienced and talented, were unable to work out a broad program to aggregate political
groups and to overcome the deep-seated party identities as they were embroiled in suicidal
power intrigues (Suri, 2004).

The third phase refers to the 1980s which is distinct due to the rise of regional political parties
that became the fulcrum of state politics across India. The stage has already been set in the
1960s and 70s when non-Congress parties were able to form government in eight states in
India. Since the 1980s, the Congress became increasingly incapable of generating mass
support and holding all elements together. So far political scientists and commentators have
worked out theories of one-party dominance or felt anxious about the conduciveness of such
a party system for the democracy to blossom. However, this juncture of party system
witnessed a new situation where too many parties started stampeding and jostling for space
in the party domain (Suri, 2004). The disintegration of the Janata government resulted in
splintering of its constituting groups. Similar breakaways occurred in Congress, giving rise
to numerous fragmentary parties. Massive defections became rampant within the parties. This
state of utter confusion was utilized by Mrs Gandhi to project Congress-I as the only coherent
national party despite its misdoings and win the 1980 election. Nevertheless, it was
considerably diminished in its stature and effectiveness. On the other hand, regional forces
became more assertive and increasingly cut into the vote share and political space of
Congress.

The Indian party system appeared in a state of flux in the 1980s with myriad forces toiling
hard to claim their share in politics. These alterations progressively expanded the democratic
canvass of party system in India. An array of regional parties like Jharkhand Mukti Morcha
in Jharkhand (1972), Telugu Desam Party in Andhra Pradesh (1983), Asom Gana Parishad in
Assam (1985), National Conference (NC) in Jammu and Kashmir (1932), Shiromani Akali
Dal (SAD) in Punjab (1920), Haryana Vikas Party (HVP) in Haryana (1991) (that later
merged with Indian National Congress), Biju Janta Dal (BJD) in Orissa (1997), Trinamool
Congress in West Bengal (1998) emerged that captured the power in the states. Alongside
various splinter parties of SAD, DMK, the Anna DMK, Republican Party of India, and Kerala
Congress began to appear due to break up of regional and national parties. Some of these
regional parties have been products of unfaltering struggle and long drawn movement, for
example, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Asom Gana Parishad, National Conference,
Shiromani Akali Dal, Shiv Sena, etc. The election fortune of these regional parties varied
greatly. On occasions, they won by huge margins, at times some of them gradually perished
 7

to oblivion. Most of the time, these state ruling parties did not share a cordial relation with
the Union government, usually constituted by the Congress. This emerging hegemony of
regional parties was not easily accepted by national parties. More often the center decried
regional parties of use of “parochial,” regional, and linguistic identities for partisan purposes
and the state parties championed them (Suri, 2004). Further, these frictions translated into
center–state hostilities posing a major threat to the federal framework of the nation.

The period of 1984 onwards may be seen as the fourth phase of party politics in India. This
phase witnessed the ascent of Rajiv Gandhi as the prime minister of India. The assassination
of Indira Gandhi in 1984 secured an emotion-based victory for the Congress. The party under
this new leadership showed greater accommodating and conciliatory approach towards the
opposition and regional movements. Nonetheless, the charismatic appeal of Rajiv Gandhi
could not completely revive the sagging Congress. After the death of Rajiv Gandhi, Congress
sought Sonia Gandhi, his widow, to lead the party. This shows how the party has been sucked
into the Nehru-Gandhi dynasticism and could move beyond. Meanwhile, in the hinterland,
regional aspirations further bolstered demands for greater space in national politics. Leaders
of local parties felt that national parties neglected the cause of regions and therefore, they
needed to separately represent themselves. This led to the mushrooming of regional political
parties during this time.

1990s onwards symbolizes the contemporary phase Clearly, political competition amongst
parties has intensified. Also, frequent party splits, mergers, and counter splits have been very
common. Most significantly, this period marked the ascendency of the Bhartiya Janata Party
(BJP), the reincarnation of Jana Sangha of 1980, in national politics. The political vacuum
created by the diminishing Congress and fragmented regional parties was strategically
captured by BJP. Since 1984, it won two elections in a row and also gradually enhanced its
seat tally. The distinctive shift of this period is reflected in terms of three issues—Mandal,
Mandir, and Market referring to caste-based reservation, upsurge of Hindu nationalism which
led to the demolition of Babri Masjid, and the liberalizing policy, respectively (Kumari, 2009:
225). “Mandir’” symbolizes the growing assertions of right-wing political forces associated
with the rise of BJP. “Mandal” represents reworking the political strategies in terms of caste
affiliation, especially Other Backward Classes/Castes. Whereas these two represent the
political shifts, “Market” stands for the politico-economic repositioning of the state in the
neoliberal era of a globalized world. Thus, began a new chapter in the party politics of India.

Transformation of Indian Party System: Rise of New Trends

The dynamics of party politics of contemporary times is completely different from its
preceding phases. As Ajay K Mehra aptly remarks, the emergence of the BJP has not only
created the basis for bi-nodal party politics in India in the near future, since the third front
remains in total disarray, it has also paved the way for coalition politics based on a federalized
party structure with participation from national and regional parties alike (Mehra, 2003: 22).
This bipolarity became an increasingly stable feature of politics at the center as well as in the
states. The Congress and BJP became two power centers, deciding the alignment and
framework of politics in India. These two parties turned out to be two decisive mobilizers
overshadowing the rest of the parties in India. Even then for a good amount of time, no party
has been capable of securing a single-party majority. They failed to accommodate the diverse
 8

stakes of the electorate belonging to varied caste, class, religious, regional, linguistic, and
ethnic interests, and fetch votes of all. The natural outcome has been two-coalitional party
system in the form of United Progressive Alliance (UPA) and National Democratic Alliance
(NDA) led by Congress and BJP, respectively. Balveer Arora believes that the new realities
have resulted in federalization and renewal of party system in India. The federalization of
party system seems to be a natural outcome of the extremely diverse political spectrum of
India. But it requires an integrating arrangement that could ensure greater power and influence
to the state-based parties. Congress was both unwilling and ill-prepared to assume this role,
entrapped as it was in its centralist and dynastic legacies (Arora, 2013: 92). On the other hand,
the BJP accepted coalition politics as inevitable and therefore engaged diligently to work out
power sharing strategies. It understands that India’s polity is a network of states in which
castes, communities, classes, and parties cooperate and compete for benefits conferred by
political power (Arora, 2013: 92). This party wins as it works out skillful alliance for
successful federal coalitions.

BJP has fetched steady electoral gains and established itself as an alternative to the Congress.
Its ability to jell with the way the new middle class in India wanted to redefine the nation and
articulate the cultural and material aspirations of this class helped it to consolidate (Yadav
and Palshikar, 2003: 44). Oliver Heath has argued that the rapid political and geographical
expansion of the BJP and its emergence as a main political force was due its ability to
delicately redefine itself and its social base and forge alliances with regional parties having
different social bases. Strategically, it distanced itself from the hard-core issues of Hindutva
with which it was associated since its inception, due to necessities of real politics. It sought
to accommodate its coalition partners by publishing a national agenda which omitted the
controversial issue of the building of Ram temple at Ayodhya, the Uniform Civil Code, and
Kashmir’s special constitutional status as a part of its moderation strategy (Basu, 2002: 399).
BJP mellowed down its militancy and repositioned itself to invoke a pan-Indian appeal. It
realized that moderation and centrist ideology can only stabilize it in the longer run.
Therefore, we see periodic toning up and subduing of its Hindutva rhetoric displaying cycles
of moderation and militancy according to the contingent situation (Kumari, 2009: 226). A
closer observation alludes to the dwindling importance of ideology in party politics in India.
Ideology never remains static for a party but undergoes transformation along with time and
experience, the compulsions of practical life and in interactive struggle with rival ideological
tendencies (Suri, 2004). Often, it is used to disguise the tactics to gain votes from the
electorate. Moreover, apart from communist parties, most parties define themselves as secular
and democratic parties; that do not identify themselves in terms of left or right.

While electoral fortunes of BJP surged in recent times, few old parties like Communist parties
have been constantly losing their base, especially at the national level. They have never been
able to achieve the threshold to form a government, and have existed more like reformist
party, exerting pressure on the ruling forces. The party has gone through several splits due to
difference of opinions of members vis-à-vis ideological debates on the character of the Indian
state, path to revolution in India, and strategy and tactics (Suri, 2004). At state level, Bihar,
Punjab, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu has seen subsequent diminishing of
vote share of communist parties, especially CPI. Kerala, West Bengal, and Tripura have been
exceptions where these parties have enjoyed prolonged entrenchment. Communist parties
have been staunchly critical of the liberalization, privatization, and globalization policies of
the Indian state and refused to engage with such issues all together to enjoy the support of
 9

workers, peasants, and agricultural laborers. But this approach has been seen as impractical
and retrogressive by the Indian youth. Analysts attribute this attrition in the left parties to lack
of visionary leadership, pragmatic approach, and flexibility to mould and respond to the
changing times and contexts.

One of the remarkable shift of recent times is the downward thrust of mobilization of socially
deprived people like dalits, Adivasis, all other minorities with added vigor. This process has
been described as the second democratic upsurge by Yogendra Yadav, which has further
widened the contours of Indian democracy. 3 All these transformations have helped the
democratic process to deepen with dramatic participatory upsurge among the socially
underprivileged in class and caste hierarchy (Hasan, 2000: 147), which have been almost non-
existent earlier. James Manor explains these changes in the Indian party system in terms of
two features: democratization and decay. He says that different sections became more
assertive thereby claiming their share in the political space in government and politics making
it difficult to govern. Manor points out the continued decay and fragmentation within parties
coupled by a tendency towards personalized control of parties and failures of institutions to
respond creatively to the pressures of the systems (Manor, 1997: 95).

In India, caste identities have been strong. Therefore, caste has served as a formidable base
for political mobilization. This trait is clearly manifested in the voting pattern of people which
has been primarily caste driven. It is generally said that Indians don't cast their votes, but they
vote their caste. Rudolph and Rudolph (1967, p. 90) thought that caste associations were
vehicles for the operation of democracy in India where tradition and modernity blend in a fine
way. Kothari and others believed that as India got modernized, caste got politicized, as the
parties and leaders find in it a readily available institution to make use of. From 1950 till
present, caste has been the most crucial determinant of politics in India. We find newer forms
of assertion on the basis of caste in the 1980s. In case of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, parties were
created on the basis of exclusive support of particular castes. Explaining this increasing
entrenchment of caste in party politics, K. C. Suri states that with the emergence of an urban
middle class among the lower castes, largely due to the state policies of land reforms,
reservations in education and employment, the elites from these castes broke away from the
catch-all parties and formed caste-specific parties to stake their claim for power.

In north India, BahujanSamaj Party (BSP), Samajwadi Party (SP), and the Rashtriya Janta
Dal (RJD) emerged as an immediate response to Mandal politics. BSP was founded in 1984
by Kanshi Ram as a pan-Indian dalit party. It was mobilized and propelled by the
overwhelming support of dalits. RJD came to the forefront in Bihar under the leadership of
Lalu Yadav. SP has been the substantial beneficiary of Mandal upsurge. In its multi-pronged
strategy, SP seeks to consolidate the caste cleavage by uniting OBCs and also appealing to
upper-caste votes in the name of development and globalization (Verma, 2004: 1509). It
works out its vote base on such lines and has been able to retain its rulership in Uttar Pradesh.
These developments caused further decimation of the Congress in these regions. Congress
was disrobed of its character of rainbow coalition structure, mutilated, and marginalized
(Yadav, 1999: 2393). BJP emerged as the “new social bloc” generally of the upper strata
comprising the upper castes and upper classes.

Party Politics and Democracy in India

 10

The Indian democracy offers a unique political experience. Most characteristic perquisites of
functional electoral democracy that were perceived as mandatory have been absent here. Yet
the system has survived rather successfully. Numerous factors can be identified to be
contributing towards this success, the presence of vibrant political parties being one of them.
As parties exist to support and sustain democracy, a brief analysis of the contribution of
parties in India in this regard seems necessary. Till date, India is nothing less than an enigma
for western scholars, especially for the likes of Seymour Martin Lipset and others who
perceived prosperity as the precondition of democracy. This inclination is typically reflected
by most of scholars having allegiance to the school of political modernization and
development who construed industrialization as the sine-qua-non of democratic politics.
Their correlation might be validated by case studies of other post-colonial societies, but India
definitely stands out in this matter.

In western models, one finds direct correlation between the extent of education,
industrialization, urbanization, and prosperity with voting. On the contrary, in India, high
participation rate come from those falling on the lower rung of the class and caste hierarchy.
In fact, parties have played a critical role in the democratic process, especially in drawing
historically disadvantaged sections of the society into the political system, thus making the
system more democratic (Hasan, 2002: 2). Parties aiming for central leadership have to be on
a constant guard of not falling out on their vote base. This necessarily induces the centripetal
tendencies among most parties aspiring to see themselves in central politics. Additionally, it
produces some form of check and balance system where the agendas of most parties get
naturally moderated by real politic of the ground. More parties mobilize around issues that
are requirements of the electorate. However, society also witnesses occasional ruptures in
form of communal polarization often resulting in violent clashes aided by some members of
a political party.

Kaviraj provides one of the most comprehensive and incisive account of the relationship
between democracy and development in India. He states that political exigencies and the
newly found freedom made Nehru to choose democracy over development (Kaviraj, 1996).
Despite persistent and virulent forms of ethnic strife mostly in form of Hindu–Muslim riots,
caste-based friction; insurgencies in Kashmir and the Northeast, "sons-of-the-soil"
movements in Assam, Telangana, and Maharashtra, and language-based riots in the 1950s
and 1960s, India has endured democracy. The most interesting part is that political parties,
even though mobilize around ethnic issues, the range of the turmoil is more local in effect,
generally not spilling beyond one state. This materializes a unique system in which, locally
many issues crop up temporarily drawing an apparent cleavage, but such ruptures are not
replicated at national levels. This has prevented the systemic breakdown and simultaneously
allowed federal polity to successfully pursue its perceived prospects. According to Varshney,
potentially, only the divide between Hindus and Muslims can rip India apart. Looking at the
response and management of the Congress party to this problem, one observes that whereas
Nehru tries to maintain secularism in letter and spirit under the guise of Congress, post 1970s
is reduced to populist strategies and electoral calculations (Varshney, 1998: 44). However,
some scholars see religion having a potential in binding people together in a positive way.
Pradeep K. Chhibber states that in India, where important institutions like state, political
parties, bureaucratic apparatus fail to deliver, religion comes as a rescue in a way. In India,
the state is by and large exclusionary, capricious, corrupt, and displays ad hoc treatment to its
 11

citizens; on the other hand, religious practices create identic ties among citizens of different
social strata sharing a religious practice (Chhibber, 2014: 174). Religious practice may
privilege a few over many, as in traditional anti-clerical accounts, and in some cases even
provide an avenue for political mobilization against other religion, as in traditional accounts
of religious doctrines as mutually exclusive, therefore, hostile to each other (Chhibber, 2014:
174). But in a deeply hierarchical society like ours, religion also creates a shared space and
sympathetic relation between people of different social standing who may be different to
come together.

2014 Lok Sabha Election: Beginning of a New Paradigm?

The 2014 Lok Sabha Election has produced interesting results. A single party won the
majority after a long spate of three decades and stretched phase of coalition politics. With 550
million votes, Modi and BJP appeared to have far exceeded all predictions and achieved
spectacular victory (Burke, 2014). The National Democratic Alliance (NDA), the BJP-led
coalition, was able to win 336 seats out of 543 Lok Sabha seats. Congress already appeared
in a state of perpetual decline in contemporary times, but this election put Congress
dangerously on the downhill, heading towards lowest ever tally. This has been described as
triggering a tectonic shift in Indian electoral politics.

It seemed as if more than establishing the primacy of Narendra Modi, this Lok Sabha election
actually paved the path of decimation of the Congress. Numerous reasons are enlisted by the
political savants for this churn out. Modi’s advocacy for “development” enabled him to attract
many voters cutting across caste and religious equations. There are multiple factors which
helped him to be “first past the post,” his aggressive style, his success in banking upon
weaknesses of Congress, his ability to communicate with the masses, supplemented by the
lacklustre campaign of the Congress (Ram, 2014). A slew of massive corruption scandals
involving public funds and resources battered the Congress-led coalition leading to anti-
incumbency vote among voters.4 Whereas Congress was discredited due to being bogged with
corruption and ineffective governance, BJP under the leadership of Modi was seen as the
redeemer of all such fallacies. This support for BJP and Narendra Modi was resonated in
many quarters. The youth of the country associated themselves with the image of new India
with improved infrastructure, employment generation, and urge for upward mobility. The
Indian business leaders wholeheartedly stood for him as he was seen to galvanize the
government machinery, overhaul the infra structure sector, replace tardy policies, kick start
the economy, and invite foreign investments. The electorate expected this dispensation to
reboot the entire economy. In other words, the expectations from this government have been
very high. However, analysts say that this singularly may not be sufficient. Now, that it has
already spent 4 years in the office, there is divided public opinion about the performance of
current regime that whether it has been able to implement its election manifesto, development
written large on them, into effective national policies.

Challenges and Prospects

Numerous obstacles can be identified in the way of functioning of party politics in India. It
has a long history of social inequalities and social injustice. Endemic problems such as
poverty, illiteracy, and backwardness have kept on rocking its boat and freedom for all has
been a far-fetched dream. Society has been hierarchically constituted on the lines of caste,
 12

class, gender, religion, ethnicity, linguistic identities, and so on. Discrimination has been
rampant on these basis leading to exclusionary tendencies in politics. Political parties had this
huge task of reconciling aspirations of all sections and ushering in the goal of incremental
change in a fragile society like India. The feminist and subaltern critique of society exposes
the denial of equal rights and entitlement to women, dalits, Adivasis, and other marginalized
sections. Corridors of political power are typical male bastion and deliberately deny
admission to women. Political parties are informed by patriarchal constructs, societal
prejudices, and cultural practices that hinder the free and fair political participation of women
and other weaker sections. Political discourses of parties have been deliberately dismissive of
the question of women. The persistent feminist struggles for equality and empowerment
resulted in the 73rd and 74th Amendment Act, 1992 resulting in the 33 percent reservation
for women in the panchayati raj institutions, nagar palikas, and municipalities. There is
assiduous demand for replicating this reservation for women in the lower house of the Indian
parliament and in state legislative assemblies in the form of Women’s Reservation Bill but
has been pending so far. Parties should also ensure at least 30 percent reservation for women
at every organizational position.

Indian society is clearly marked by cleavages. Among all divisions, the religious cleavage is
the starkest and perturbs the functioning of the state and society very often. Some parties
primarily identify themselves as the patron of specific religions and adopt religious language
for electoral mobilization, for example, BJP. Many scholars are wary of these tendencies of
political parties. Varshney expresses his concerns that if the BJP ever managed to implement
its ideology, India would leave the democracy-friendly realm of what Dahl called "subcultural
pluralism" and enter the more dangerous one of "cultural dualism," with a Hindu majority
lording it over a non-Hindu minority. However, he adds on that there are less likely chances
of that happening. The judiciary has been acting as the vanguard of democratic principles and
constitutional rights. Besides, the contingencies of politics leave little space for parties to
hook on to radical positions. Given that ideological moderation has carried the BJP to power,
while ideological extremism would have kept it in pariah status, there is now good reason to
expect that the BJP will avoid becoming radicalized (Varshney, 1998: 46). Any party aspiring
to enjoy the support of the majority will always adopt a centrist position rather than sway to
either of the extremes—left or right.

One of the drawbacks of parties in India is strong reliance on personality cult. Charismatic
leaders have always managed to garner huge electoral gains; a lack of them has resulted in
dramatic decline of their parties. Death of J L Nehru and Indira Gandhi incurred irreparable
losses for Congress. Similarly, S P Mookerjee’s death brought great disadvantage to the Jan
Sangh. R M Lohia’s death created a lacuna in the socialist forces, which was very difficult to
fill. It implies that somehow the parties have not been able to institutionalize themselves in
true sense. The structure, ideology, and modalities of a party should take precedence over
those who lead them. The leaders must be mindful of institutional constrains while managing
the decision making. In a parliamentary system, this means accepting the sovereignty of
parliament, working within the constitution of one's party, opposing adverse court rulings
only through proper constitutional channels, and if the system is federal, respecting the degree
of autonomy afforded to state governments (Varshney, 1998: 46). When leaders become very
powerful and over controlling, they concentrate power in their own hands and use it for their
own end in politics. Sometimes they subvert the entire party organization and rule with the
help of a small clique and personalized network as was done by Indira Gandhi. It is believed
 13

that the split in the Congress in 1969 was not at all about the ideological divide within the
party. It happened because Mrs Gandhi wanted to establish herself as the unchallenged leader
in the party. She functioned largely outside the framework of constitutional practice, due
procedure, and convention; both party and government became vehicles sometimes yoked
together, sometimes not, for driving the agenda of the state (Sen, 2010: 45). Rajeev Gandhi’s
tenure displays similar tendencies where the leadership was centred around him only. After
his death, Sonia Gandhi emerged as the party boss.

Parties also have been marked for lack of internal democracy. Whenever there is demand for
greater degree of democratization and transparency, leaders manoeuvre their ways of securing
votes by parochial practices of invoking caste, community, religious, and such other
affiliations. This has been a major inhibitor in the way of democratization of society. At times,
political practices of parties and their leaders appear highly disapproving in the way they
engage with each other and the system itself. Representative bodies have become domains of
myopic strategies and populist politics. Decline in the quality of leadership, increasing
criminality and corruption among party leaders, undermining constitutional and democratic
institutions by both ruling and opposition parties, growth of factionalism, stifling of internal
democracy, concentration of power in a single leader are some of the recurring problems of
political parties in India (Suri, 2004). Indian parties have also been marked by pervasiveness
of dynastic rulership, but their degree varies across parties, some being more dynastic than
others. Indian parties are for the most part dynasties, and dynastic parties are less likely to be
representative (Chhibber, 2014). The INC is a dynastic party par excellence; in 2004, 2009,
2014 Lok Sabha elections, it elected 396 MPs of which 145 (37 %) had family members
precede them in politics (Ziegfeld, 2016). Sonia Gandhi is the fifth member of Nehru-Gandhi
family to hold the position of party president of Congress. Primary objection to dynastic
politics in a modern democracy is that it introduces birth-based exclusion among elected
representatives that is antithetical to democracy (Chandra, 2016: 47). Our political parties
appear to be in internal disarray as the oldest of them, the Congress, has no institutional
mechanisms for incorporating new groups or generating a set of leaders with some popular
base or having an open discussion of ideas (Mehra, 2003). On the other hand, the BJP seems
to be all beset with its own contradictions and precariousness.

For a long time, the party system has also been eclipsed due to the interference by the nexus
of money, muscle, and mafia. Occasional political violence jeopardizes the otherwise
peaceful discourse of electoral politics in India. The magnitude of criminalization, which has
crept into the electoral system, has to a large extent vitiated the value of vote (Mohanty, 2004:
110). It can devastate the democratic foundations of the society. The growing corporatization
of political parties has to be closely scrutinized. The parties must be self-disciplined to audit
its account and not to allow members to feed on the spoils generated by undue means. The
expenditure of electoral campaigns must be restricted to a bare minimum to stop the splurging
of resources wastefully. This in-turn will minimize the burden of parties to solicit huge funds
from dubious donors.

The functioning of political parties throws interesting account of political processes around
the world. There are some enigmas associated with them as well. On one hand parties are
perceived to be crucial for the development of democracies in Asia, Central and Eastern
Europe, on the other hand, their relevance have been declining for governing in established
democracies (Ball & Peters, 2005: 139). Similar views are reflected by other scholars who
 14

are alarmed at the declining rate of party membership and party identifications terming such
situation as “parties without partisans” (Dalton, 1996: 912). Some scholars point towards
irrelevancies of party as they believe that parties are failing to respond successfully to the
series of challenges and many of their functions are performed better by less formally
organized social movements, through direct contact between politicians and citizens via
broadcast media or the internet, or by innovations in direct democracy (Gunther, et al., 2002:
1).

Conclusion

Undoubtedly, the Indian experience of party system is unique in itself. Since the 1950s till
present times, it has been constantly evolving with the changing milieu. The changing
contours of India’s electoral politics are, in significant ways, a reflection of new assertion
among the socially and economically underprivileged sections of Indian society. Despite
working amidst hierarchically constituted diverse interests, most parties in India represent the
entire spectrum of the society. They have been creatively engaged with the issues of
entitlement and social justice. The recent phenomenon of increasing federalization of parties
reaffirms our faith in diversity and heterogeneity and has further strengthened the democratic
fabric of the nation. Indian party politics gives the impression of the country as a pluralist
society, where the interests of multiplicity of private associations and other various forces is
aggregated, and they have considerable influence on policy formation (Brass, 1994: 65).
Nonetheless, as political parties are public institutions, they must refrain from becoming
dynastic and converting governance into their family business.

Summary of the Chapter

• Clearly, there have been remarkable shifts in the dynamics of party politics, redefining
its character at periodic intervals. Engagements with the changing trends in party
system in India produces a fascinating account of electoral politics, the prevalence of
one-party dominant phase and its gradual breakdown.
• For some time, there remained projection of multiparty system, especially in the
coalition era, where regional parties became formidable in their power and influence.
From this time onwards, there is no denial of the fact that party system has become
truly federal as regional parties have started enjoying greater share in moulding
national politics.
• Interestingly, the power dynamics of electoral politics has taken another turn again and
the 2014 Lok Sabha elections has given way to two party system in India, represented
by the BJP and the Congress. However, it is yet to be seen how long this phase lasts.
In that sense, the upcoming Lok Sabha elections of 2019 will be decisive in a major
way.
• The party system in India remains beset with challenges. Parties that aspire to remain
at the core of the Indian party system need to truly engage with the objective of social
justice. This is a massive challenge for BJP as if it remains fraught with the
contradictions, securing another historic mandate in next general election will become
extremely difficult to achieve. Therefore, parties must genuinely try to bring every
section in its fold by evening out the asymmetrical developments and working on the
rightful claim of citizens.
 15

Review Questions

Q.1 Discuss the changing nature of party system in India with reference to the dramatic shifts
in the past few decades.
Q.2 Indian parties are reflections of the cleavages of the society. Critically analyze the salient
features of the party system in India under the light of this statement.
Q3. Critically examine the factors responsible for the decline of one-party dominant system,
the rise of multiparty system and loose bi-party system in recent times in India.
Q4. Analyze the various challenges confronting Indian political parties in contemporary
times.

Endnotes:
1
Tenth Schedule deals with the disqualification of a person for being a member of either House of Parliament [Art. 102(2)]
or the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State [Art.191(2)], on ground of defection. The Election
Commission of India is responsible for the conduct of election and giving recognition to the political parties.
2
The schism of 1969 resulted in creation of Congress-I, and Congress (O). Congress-I, was a breakaway group of
Congress represented by Indira Gandhi and her supporters when she was expelled from the party for violating party
discipline. Congress-O, or the Indian National Congress (organization) or the old Congress was represented by Kamaraj,
which later merged with the Janata Party
3
For detailed discussion, refer Yadav (2000).
4
“Election Results 2014: 5 Factors that Helped BJP and Narendra Modi Win the Election,” available on
www.ndtv.com/cheat/sheet/election-result-2014-5-factors-that-helped-bjp-and-narengra-mod--win-the-elections, last
accessed on 15 September 2016.

References:

Arora, Balveer & Kailash K. K. 2013. “The New Party System Federalised and Binodal” in Mehra,
A. K. (ed). Party System in India: Emerging Trajectories, New Delhi:Lancer Publisher.

Ball, Allan & Peters B. Guy. 2000. Modern Politics and Government, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Basu, Amrita. 2000. “The Transformation of Hindu Nationalism? Towards a Reappraisal,” in

Francine R. Frankel, Zoya Hasan, Rajeev Bhargava, and Balveer Arora (eds), Transforming India.
New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Brass, Paul R. 1994. The New Cambridge History of India: The Politics of India since Independence.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Burke, J. 2014. "Narendra Modi’s Landslide Victory Shatters Congress Grip on India,” available on
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/16/narendra-modi-victory-congress-india-election,
accessed on 10 September 2016.
 16

Chandra, Kanchan. 2016. (ed.) Democratic Dynasties: State, Party and Family in Contemporary
Indian Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chhibber, Pradeep K. 2014. Religious Practice and Democracy in India. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Dalton, R.J. 1996. “Citizen Attitude and Political Behavior,” Comparative Political Studies 33, no.6:
912–40.

Dua, Bhagwan D. 1979. Presidential Rule in India, 1950-1974: A Study in Crisis Politics. New Delhi:
S. Chand.

Duverger, Maurice. 1954. Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State.
Wiley: Methuen.

Eldersveld, Samuel, J. 1964. Political Parties: A Behavioural Analysis. Bombay: Vora and Co.
Publishers Pvt Ltd.

Gunther, R., Jose Ramon Montero, and Juan J. Linz. 2002. “Introduction,” Political Parties: Old
Concept and New Challenges. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gunther, Richard and Larry Diamond. 2003. “Species of Political Parties: A New Typology,” Party
Politics 9, no.2. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Hasan, Zoya. 2000. “Representation and Redistribution: The New Lower Caste Politics of North
India,” in Francine R. Frankel, Zoya Hasan, Rajeev Bhargava, and Balveer Arora (eds) Transforming
India. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hasan, Zoya. 2002. “Introduction,” Parties and Party Politics in India. New York: Oxford University
Press.

Hasan, Zoya. 2010. “Political Parties,” in Niraja Gopal Jayal and Pratap Bhanu Mehta (eds), The
Oxford Companion to Politics in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Kaviraj, S. 1996. “Dilemmas of Democracy and Development in India,” in Adrien Leftwich (ed.),
Democracy and Development: Theory and Practice. Polity.

Khare, Harish, 2004. “Problems of Survival and Reinvention in Political Parties in South Asia,” in
Subrata K. Mitra, Mike Enskat, and Clemens Spiess (eds), Political Parties in South Asia. Westport
CT: Praeger.

Kochanek, Stanley A. 1976. “Mrs Gandhi’s Pyramid: The New Congress,” in Henry C. Hart (ed.),
Indira Gandhi’s India. Boulder: Westview. <THIS TITLE WAS NOT CITED IN TEXT: PLEASE
CHECK>

Kothari, Rajni. 1961. “Party System; Form and Substance in Indian Politics-V,” Economic and
Weekly,:847, vol. 5, 3 June 1961.

Kothari, Rajni. 2002. “The Congress ‘System’ in India,” in Zoya Hasan (ed.), Parties and Party
Politics in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
 17

Kumari, Pushpa. 2009. “Party System in India: One Party Dominant System to Multi-Party System,”
in Neera Chandhoke and Praveen Priyadarshi (eds), Contemporary India. New Delhi: Pearson.

MacIver, R.M. 1926. The Modern State. London: Oxford University Press.

Manor, James. 1997. “Parties and the Party System,” in Partha Chatterjee (ed.), State and Politics in
India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Mehra, A. K. 2003. “Introduction,” in Ajay K. Mehra, D. D. Khanna, and Gert W. Kueek, (eds)
Political Parties and Party System. New Delhi, Thousand Oaks/London: Sage Publication.

Mehra, A. K. 2013. Party System in India: Emerging Trajectories, Lancer Publisher, N. Delhi.

Mitra, Subrata K., Mike Enskat, and Clemens Speiss. 2004. Political Parties in South Asia. Westport
CT: Praeger.

Morris-Jones, W.H. 1971. Politics Mainly Indian. Bombay: Orient Longman.

Narayan, J. P. 1959. A Plea for Reconstruction of Indian Polity. Kashi: Akhil Bharat Sarva Seva
Sangh.

Narayan, J.P. 1970. “Gandhi and Politics of Decentralisation,” in Sibnarayan Ray (ed.), Gandhi, India
and the World. Bombay: Nachiketa Publication Limited.

LaPalombora Joseph and Weiner Myron. 1966. Political Parties and Political Development.
Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Panebianco, Angelo. 1988. Political Parties: Organisation and Power. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Ram, Puniyani. 2014. “Modi’s Victory 2014: Paradigm Shift of Indian Politics,” South Asian Citizens
Web, available on www.saw.net/article9775.html, accessed on 12 September 2016.

Rudolph and Rudolph. 1967. The Modernity of Tradition: Political Development in India,
Chicago: University of Chicago Press Books.

Sartori, Giovanni. 1976. Parties and Party System: A Framework of Analysis. London: Cambridge
University Press.

Sen, Suhit, K. 2010. “The Political Constitution of India: Party and Government, 1946–1957,”
Economic and Political Weekly, xlv, no. 33 (14 August).

Suri, K.C. 2004. “Parties Under Pressure: Political Parties in India since Independence,” available on
http://www.democracy-asia.org/qa/india/KC%20Suri.pdf, accessed on 30 September 2016.

Varshney, Ashutosh. 1998. “Why Democracy Survives, India Defies the Odds,’ Journal of
Democracy, 9.3.

Verma, A.K. 2004. “Samajwadi Party in Uttar Pradesh,” Economic and Political Weekly, 39, nos.
14&15 (3–10 April):1509.
 18

Yadav, Yogendra. 1999. “Electoral Politics in the Time of Change: India's Third Electoral System,
1989–99,” Economic and Political Weekly, 34, no. 34/35 (21August–3 September): 2393–99.

Yadav, Yogendra. 2000. “Understanding the Second Democratic Upsurge,” in Francine R. Frankel,
Zoya Hasan, Rajeev Bhargava, and Balveer Arora (eds), Transforming India. N. Delhi: Oxford
University Press.

Yadav, Yogendra and Suhas Palshikar. 2003. “From Hegemony to Convergence: Party System and
Electoral Politics in the Indian States—1952–2002,” Journal of the Indian School of Political
Economy, January–June.

Zeigfeld, Adam. 2016. “Dynasticism across Indian Political Parties,” in Chandra Kanchan (ed.),
Democratic Dynasties: State, Party and Family in Contemporary Indian Politics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

View publication stats