Chapter-2

Contextualising Federal Coalition

Governance in India-Historical Perspective
 Chapter-2

CONTEXTUALISING FEDERAL COALITION

GOVERNANCE IN INDIA-HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

No system of governance can properly be understood without

reference to the Socio-economic and political context in which it is

born and consolidated.1 In this chapter we are trying to understand

Historical development of federal coalition governance in India. So,

first we will take a brief history of Indian federalism. After that we will

see in what context coalition politics evolved in Indian federal polity.

Through much of India's history, the country remained divided

into numerous regional Kingdoms, with a dominant political centre

practically limited to periods of nearly 750 years of the mauryan state

in the ancient times, the Mughal state in medieval India, and the British

colonial state, in British India. Yet sovereignty or suzereignty cults of

'chakravarty' kingship, ritual sovereignty of vijaynagara Rayas, Mughal

Sulaha-e-kul, Maratha a jnapatra and chahatrapati kingship, British

1
Chakrabarty, Bidyut, 'Federalism and change' in 'Indian federalism in the new
millennium,' edited by B.D. Dua and M.P. Singh, Manohar Publishers and
distributors, 2003, pp. 110.

( 57 )
paramountcy, etc., have been a historically recurrent reality and iconic

role models for Indian rulers all along.2 Geography and history in an

interlocked grid have produced a dynamic political dialectics of unity

in the midst of diversity that would appear to be a breeding ground for

pluralist, confederal, or federal political formations.

Right from the smaller ancient Indian ganasanghas dotting the

northern land strip between the Ganges and the Himalayas, every

centralized state system in India was invariably followed by loose

confederacies which eventually broke up into smaller regional states.

The centralized bureaucratic monarchy of Mauryas was followed in its

decline by feudal parcellization of sovereignty in ancient India to

Iqtadars, Jagirdars or fagirdars in the medieval period, and the suzerein

princely Indian rulers linked through subsidiary alliances under the

paramount British crown.

Almost any state of some territorial and temporal consequence was

a three tier political structure comprising a fairly constant centre,

variable provinces, and invariable localities in territorial terms.

2
Singh, M.P. and Saxena, Rekha, 'Federalizing India an the age of Globalization',
Published by primus books, 2013, pp. 16.

( 58 )
Declining competence of the centre typically prompted the provincial

and local political elites to tempt providence or fate for greater

autonomy or even independence. All these facts and trends of history

made India a veritable political laboratory for devolutionary or

federative solutions.

The British raj adopted some features of pre existing political

formations, but it also innovated some new economic and political

institutions. Among major political innovations of the British Raj were

the first modern endeavours to introduce English education and limited

representative and federal political institutions in the first half of the

twentieth century, preceding the British withdrawal in 1947.

From the time of the Regulating act of 1773, which consolidated

British possessions in India to the Government of India act, 1935 the

process of cent ralization in India was carried to an extreme degree and

the superintendence, direction and control of the whole civil and

military Government of India was vested in the Governor general in

council.3 The joint parliamentary committee of the British parliament

3
Ramasubramaniam, K.A., 'Historical development and essential features of the
federal system', in 'Federalism in India-origins and development' edited by Nirmal
Mukharji and Balveer Arora, Vikas Publishing house Pvt. Ltd. 1992, pp. 105-106.

( 59 )
described the constitutional set-up existing before April, 1937 as "a

unitary and centralized government with the Governor-General in

council as the Key-stone of the whole constitutional edifice." The

montagu-chelmsford report (1918) had earlier observed : "our

conception of eventual future of India is a sister-hood of states, self-

governing in all matters of purely local or provincial interest. Over this

congeries of states would preside the central government." The

government of India act, 1919, provided for a considerable method of

devolution of Authority to the provinces. Provincial subjects were

classified into 'reserved' and 'transferred' categories, the latter being

entrusted to ministers who were to work in responsibility to their

legislatures. The Act further laid down that the powers of

superintendence, direction and control over provincial governments

vested in the government of India in relation to the transferred subjects

could be exercised only for certain specific purposes.

Although these provisions gave a certain measure of autonomy to

the provincial authorities, the Government of India remained in essence

a unitary government. A limited Federal experiment in government

during British Raj had to wait too long. In fact, for all practical

( 60 )
purposes, nothing could get going on the ground. The three major

federal documents during British Raj were the Motilal Nehru

committee report, 1928; Government of India Act, 1935 and Sir Tej

Bahadur Spru committee Report, 1945. These exercises in documentary

federalism are very significant from the standpoint of intents and

purposes, but not so in terms of implementation. The Nehru and Sapru

Reports remained confined to papers, and even the 1935 act was partly

left in limbo due to the reluctance of the princely Indian states to join a

Union with the British Indian Provinces. But all the three documents

had a comprenensive revival and incorporation in the parliamentary

federal constitution of independent India.

It is true that India is a multicultural Society.4 Federalism is

possibly the best political structure in which both the values of unity

and diversity are equally legitimized and respected and linked within

the political layout of the country. 5 The consensual political cultures6

4
For an in depth study of multiculturalism, see Bhikhu Parekh, the politics of
multiculturalism, London. Macmillan, 1998. Although Parekh's concern is to
grasp the phenomenon in the context of Britain, his theoretical formulations have
a wider application.
5
Besides its natural strength, Federalism also helps the political system cope with
internal strife by 'quaranting' most conflicts within individual regions. See James

( 61 )
that upheld federalism was a legacy of the freedom struggle which tried

to base the concept of Indian unity on a confederal approach to

cultures. By providing a political template that turned India's enormous

diversity into a main source of strength for the future nation, the

nationalist movement, especially during its Gandhian phase, became

pan-Indian and mass based. One of the reasons for successful political

mobilization in a multicultural context lies probably in Gandhi's

conscious effort to both sustain and strengthen the distinctively

pluralist character of Indian nation.7 Following independence in 1947,

it was this ethos of pluralistic compositeness which was translated into

the founding institutions of the Indian state with several parallel and

mutually reinforcing principles of pluralism. Federalism, thus, appeared

as the best institutional device encompassing pluralism of regional

cultures.

Manor 'making Federalism work' Journal of democracy, Vol. 9, No. 3 1998. Pp.
21.
6
Ashis Nandy talks about 'The consensual political culture' in detail in 'Federalism,
the Ideology of the state and cultural pluralism' in Federalism in India : origin and
development, ed. Mukherjee N. and Arora, Balveer, Delhi: Vikas, 1992, pp. 31-5.
7
Sen, Amartya, ' India's pluralism', India International centre quarterly, Vol. 20,
No., 3, 1993. Pp. 33-43.

( 62 )
 The roots of coalition politics in India also can be traced back to

the nationalist movement, and especially in the Gandhian

conceptualization of Swaraj. As an Idea and a strategy, Swaraj gained

remarkable significance in the context of the nationalist articulation of

the freedom struggle and the growing democratization of the political

processes, that already brought in hitherto socio politically marginal

sections of society. So, Swaraj was a great leveler in the sense that it

helped mobilize people despite obvious socio-economic and cultural

differences. The coalition of forces that Gandhi brought together drew

largely on Swaraj that ideologically connected diverse social groups to

the nationalist campaign 8. It further demonstrates the importance of a

process whereby ideology gets articulated in a particular fashion in

India's multi-cultural socio-economic environment.

Gandhi used 'Swadeshi' in his anti-British campaign (that is an

Indian expression, popularized with loaded meaning in the course of

the freedom struggle which meant collective pride, ancestral loyalty

and communal integrity) to nationalism. Gandhi avoided the language

8
Chakrabarty, Bidyut, 'Coalition politics in India, Oxford University Press' 2014,
pp 2-6.

( 63 )
of nationalism primarily because he was aware that the congress

flirtations with nationalist ideas in the first quarter of twentieth century

had frightened away not only Muslims and other minorities, but also

some of the Hindu lower castes. Underlying this lay the reason why

Gandhi and his congress colleagues preferred 'the relaxed and chaotic

plurality of the traditional Indian life to the order and homogeneity of

the European nation state [because they realized] that the open, plural

and relatively heterogeneous traditional Indian civilization would best

unite Indians'.9

Indian constitution also worked favourably for coalition politics

because it was based on consensus and the principle of

accommodation.10 While the former is a manner of making decisions

by 'unanimity' or 'near unanimity', the latter refers to the ability to

reconcile and harmonize. Based on these constitutional values, the

institutional fabric that the Indian constitution set out for independent

India is tuned to the nation's diverse social texture that seems to have
9
Parekh, B. 'Ethnocentricity of the Nationalist discourse, Nation and Nationalism',
Journal of the Association for the study of ethnicity and nationalism, Vol. 1, issue
1, March, 1995, Page 25-52.
10
Austin, G. 1999. The Indian constitution: cornerstone of a Nation, pp. 309-10,
318. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

( 64 )
created a mindset which is appreciative of divergent politico

ideological views. Unlike general perception coalition in politics is not

a very new concept for Indian politics. Undivided India got its first

experience of coalition government in 1937 when the government of

India act, 1935 became operative. At the time Jinnah asked for a

coalition consisting of congress and Muslim league in UP but congress

11
the party holding majority did not entertain this demand. Mohd Ali

Jinnah at that time argued that in India coalition was the only

respectable device to give to the Muslim a fair share in governance.

India experience its first coalition government even before the

transfer of power when after refusing to share power with congress: the

muslim league joined the interim government a mouth later. The

function of this 14 member coalition government formed on Oct 25,

1946 lasting one month. This government highlighted the travails of a

coalition of unlike minded parties giving a good lesson in what a

coaltion should not do. Naturally this coalition was between a party

11
Sudesh Kumar and Mudasir Ahmad Lone, Coalition politics in India: conceptual
Analysis, Emergence, course of Action and Aftermath for society, Acme
international journal of multi disciplinary research, volume I, issue III, March
2013.

( 65 )
opposing partition of the country and the other one backing partition it

shows lack of homogeneity in Ideas.

The congress was India's ruling party for almost two decades since

independence in 1947 because it was primarily an umbrella

organization that represented diverse social, economic, and political

interests. Being a coalition of various compatible ideological forces,

differences were never allowed to became disruptive since consensus

building through negotiation was its main motto, which added the

survival of the party.12

So the congress party evolved into a 'system', argued Rajni

Kothari,13 which sustained its popularity due to the care that its

leadership took to maintain consensus since the attainment of national

independence. The system continued almost uninterruptedly till the

1967 elections when the non-congress governments came into power in

several states, setting a new trend of coalition politics in India.

12
Chakrabarty, Bidyut, 'Coalition politics in India, Oxford University Press, 2014,
pp. 9-10.
13
Kothari, R. 1970 (a). 'Continuity and change in the Indian party system', Asian
survey, Vol. 10, No. 11, elections and party politics in India: A symposium (Nov.
1970), pp. 937-948.

( 66 )
 The breakdown of the federal and coalitional pillars of congress

reinvigorated regional politics. The centralization of power within

congress party from the early 1970s weakened the regional roots of the

party and unleashed disastrous consequences, that of the rising

importance of the party high command. Regional demands were no

longer filtered through party channels, but began to be asserted with

rising irritation and enmity with the central leadership. While initially

these demands were confined to those endorsing their identities as

distinct socio-cultural entities in the polity; later they were articulated

as demands for 'full scale autonomy' and 'separatism', as evident in

Punjab and Kashmir.

So centralization and Neglect of federal channels 'incited strident

regionalism; the substitution of a national electorate and the

redefinition of democracy forced congress into inviting local identities

into the national arena, which worked to the advantage of those who

claimed to represent more directly and intimately these grouping of

religion and caste.14

14
Khilnani, S. 1997. The Idea of India, pp 57-184. London: Hamish Hamilton.

( 67 )
 The increasing importance of coalition is also illustrative of the

expansion of political participation among historically disadvantage

and marginalized groups at the centre of political system and

governance at all levels. The rapid politicization and accelerated

participation of groups such as other backward classes (OBCS) and

Dalits raises questions about inclusion, exclusion, and varied patterns

of empowerment and the impact of the latter on the growth and

consolidation of democracy.

The state-level experiment of coalition was articulated at the

centre-level, and in 1977 when the Janta party was formed with the

merger of the Jana Sangh, Bharatiya Lok Dal, Congress (O), and the

socialist party when the national Poll was announced after the

emergency. It was a hurriedly formed coalition of parties to fight a

suddenly called election in the aftermath of the 1975-77 emergency.

Theoretically the Janta party experiment was drawn on the Idea of

'Total revolution' that the veteran Gandhian Jayaprakash Narayana,

popularly known as JP, had articulate. He defined 'Total revolution' as

nothing but a continuity of Lohia's Saptakranti-the seven revolutionary

changes. The spatakranti consist in revolutions,

( 68 )
(1) For man-woman equality;

(2) Against inequality based on colour;

(3) Against social inequality and caste, and for special opportunities;

(4) Against colonialism and foreign rule;

(5) For maximum achievable economic equality;

(6) For privacy and democratic rights; and

(7) Against weapons of mass destruction.15

JP found in this formulation the ideological roots of opposition

coalition, that was missing in state level coalition experiments. So, his

effort to further the cause of opposition unity was a fulfillment of the

promise that the aborted Lohia experiment of 1967 had made. But the

ideological distance was soon evident and the Janta party coalition

disintegrated in 1979, mainly over the double membership of the Jana

Sagh members of the Janta party and the RSS. With the return of the

congress in 1980, the anti-congress coalitions received a severe Jolt.

India's federalism had thus undergone a paradigmatic shift on the

eve of the 1977 national elections which replaced the congress party by
15
Limaye, M., 1994. Janata Party experiment: An insider's account of opposition
politics, B.R. Pub. Corp.

( 69 )
a loose-Knit Janata coalition representing a variety, if not contradiction,

of interests.16 During the brief interlude of the Janata regime (1977-80)

probably because of other preoccupations, No serious attempt was

made to counter the centripetal tendencies which had, by them, firm

roots in Indian politics. Indira Gandhi's style of functioning completely

destroyed internal democracy within the congress party. With the

disintegration of provincial congress organizations, the state leaders

became mere clients of the central organ of the party. As she became

the key to political power and personal gain, there was little challenge

to her leadership and the party became almost a nonentity. The

consequence was disastrous. The state tended to ignore the demands of

the constituent units and favoured concentration of power simply

because those who mattered in political decision making neither

questioned nor endeavoured to provide an alternative to centralization.

The breakdown of the consensus model led to the rise of various

other structures, both political and non-political, which became

16
Chakrabarty, Bidyut, 'Federalism and change', in 'Indian federalism in the New
millennium' edited by B.D. Dua and M.P. Singh, Manohar Publishers and
distributers, 2003, p. 116-117.

( 70 )
formidable in the era of mass politics. Despite Nehru's limitations as a

statesman, the congress party under his tutelage had both absorbed new

demands and attempted to provide avenues for their fulfillment. With

the collapse of the party as an effective institution and the inability of

the system to create new institutional modes for dealing with newer

demands, there emerged 'a new social class of mediators in the political

process.17

Thus the erosion of parliamentary, party and federal institutions

and decline of authority of the state and of the national political

leadership has also been one of the main reason for the emergence of

New federal coalitions (1989, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2004, 2009) at the

national level.

The rise of these new actors on the scene has given birth to new

forms of political expression and new definitions of the content of

politics.18

17
Mitra, Subrata Kumar, 'Democracy and political change in India'. The Journal of
commonwealth and comparative politics, vol. 30(1), 1992, p. 27.
18
Kothari, Rajni, 'State Against democracy : in Search of Human governance,
Delhi, Ajanta: 1988, p. 30.

( 71 )