BharatNotes Overview
India's political landscape underwent a fundamental transformation from the late 1980s onwards. The era of Congress dominance — often called the "Congress System" by political scientist Rajni Kothari — gave way to an era of multi-party competition and coalition politics. The 1989 general election marked the definitive end of single-party majority at the centre (with a brief exception in 1984), ushering in a period of hung parliaments, coalition governments, and the dramatic rise of regional parties. The implementation of the Mandal Commission recommendations, the Babri Masjid demolition, economic liberalisation, and the emergence of the BJP as a national alternative fundamentally reshaped Indian democracy. This era also saw critical institutional reforms through the anti-defection law and Election Commission interventions.
The Congress System and Its Decline
The Congress Dominance Phase (1947–1989)
| Period | Feature |
|---|---|
| 1947–1967 | Near-total Congress dominance at the Centre and in most states; Nehru's personal stature and the legacy of the freedom struggle sustained Congress hegemony |
| 1967 — First crack | Congress lost power in several states (Kerala, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Orissa, Punjab, Bihar); formation of non-Congress governments using coalition strategies — the Samyukta Vidhayak Dal (United Legislative Front) experiments |
| 1969 | Congress split into Congress (R) under Indira Gandhi and Congress (O) under the Syndicate (Morarji Desai, Kamaraj, etc.) |
| 1971 | Indira Gandhi's sweeping victory on the "Garibi Hatao" platform; re-established Congress dominance |
| 1975–77 | Emergency (1975–77); Congress defeated in 1977 by the Janata Party — India's first non-Congress government at the Centre under Morarji Desai |
| 1980 | Congress returns under Indira Gandhi |
| 1984 | Rajiv Gandhi wins the largest majority in Indian electoral history (414/533 seats) after Indira Gandhi's assassination |
| 1989 | End of Congress dominance — Congress reduced to 197 seats; hung parliament; dawn of coalition era |
Factors Behind Congress Decline
| Factor | Detail |
|---|---|
| Anti-incumbency | Cumulative resentment against Congress governance — corruption, dynastic politics, authoritarian tendencies (Emergency) |
| Rise of identity politics | Mandal Commission (OBC mobilisation), Hindutva politics (BJP), and regional/ethnic identities created competing political constituencies |
| Regional aspirations | Linguistic, ethnic, and sub-national identities found political expression through regional parties |
| Economic dissatisfaction | Uneven development and rural distress led voters to seek alternatives |
| Weakening of Congress organisation | Centralisation under the Nehru-Gandhi family; decline of grassroots organisation; inability to accommodate diverse social groups |
The Coalition Era — Key Governments (1989–2014)
V.P. Singh Government (1989–1990)
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| PM | Vishwanath Pratap Singh (National Front government) |
| Period | 2 December 1989 – 10 November 1990 |
| Support | Minority government supported externally by BJP (from the right) and Left parties (from the left) |
| Key decision | Announced implementation of the Mandal Commission report on 7 August 1990 — 27% reservation for OBCs in central government jobs and public sector undertakings |
| Mandal Commission | Chaired by B.P. Mandal; submitted its report in 1980; identified OBCs as 52% of India's population; recommended 27% reservations (to keep total below the 50% Supreme Court cap) |
| Anti-Mandal agitation | Massive upper-caste protests across northern India; self-immolations by young students; deep social polarisation |
| Fall | BJP withdrew support after V.P. Singh ordered the arrest of BJP leader L.K. Advani during his Rath Yatra to Ayodhya (October 1990); lost the vote of no confidence 356 to 151 |
Chandra Shekhar Government (1990–1991)
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| PM | Chandra Shekhar (Samajwadi Janata Party) |
| Period | November 1990 – June 1991 |
| Support | Congress provided external support (withdrew in March 1991) |
| Significance | Brief caretaker government; oversaw the early stages of the balance of payments crisis that led to the 1991 reforms |
P.V. Narasimha Rao Government (1991–1996)
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| PM | P.V. Narasimha Rao (Congress minority government) |
| Key achievements | 1991 economic liberalisation (LPG reforms) with FM Manmohan Singh; opened India's economy to globalisation |
| Crisis | Babri Masjid demolition (6 December 1992) — the 16th-century mosque in Ayodhya demolished by kar sevaks; communal riots across India; Rao criticised for inaction |
United Front Governments (1996–1998)
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| PMs | H.D. Deve Gowda (June 1996 – April 1997), then I.K. Gujral (April 1997 – March 1998) |
| Nature | Coalition of regional and Left parties; Congress provided external support |
| Significance | Demonstrated the viability of non-Congress, non-BJP coalition governments; highlighted the growing power of regional parties; the "Gujral Doctrine" in foreign policy |
NDA-I: Atal Bihari Vajpayee (1999–2004)
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| PM | Atal Bihari Vajpayee (BJP-led National Democratic Alliance) |
| Period | October 1999 – May 2004 |
| Coalition partners | 24+ parties including TDP (Chandrababu Naidu), AIADMK/DMK, JD(U), Shiv Sena, BJD, AGP |
| Key events | Pokhran-II nuclear tests (May 1998 — during the earlier brief 13-month Vajpayee government); Kargil War (1999); Golden Quadrilateral highway project; India Shining campaign |
| Fall | Lost the 2004 election unexpectedly despite economic growth and the "India Shining" campaign |
UPA-I and UPA-II (2004–2014)
| Feature | UPA-I (2004–2009) | UPA-II (2009–2014) |
|---|---|---|
| PM | Manmohan Singh | Manmohan Singh |
| Alliance | Congress-led UPA with Left support (outside), DMK, NCP, RJD, etc. | Congress-led UPA with TMC (initially), DMK, NCP |
| Key achievements | NREGA (2005), RTI Act (2005), Indo-US Nuclear Deal (2008), Forest Rights Act (2006), National Food Security Act (later) | AADHAR, DPP, continued economic growth |
| Challenges | Left withdrew support over the Indo-US Nuclear Deal (2008) | Corruption scandals (2G spectrum, Commonwealth Games, coal allocation); policy paralysis; anti-incumbency |
NDA-II (2014 onwards)
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| PM | Narendra Modi (BJP-led NDA) |
| 2014 election | BJP won 282 seats on its own — first single-party majority since 1984; ended the coalition era at the centre (though NDA continued as an alliance) |
| 2019 election | BJP won 303 seats; NDA total 353; comprehensive majority |
| 2024 election | BJP won 240 seats (below the 272 majority mark); returned to coalition dynamics within NDA with dependence on alliance partners (TDP, JD(U)) |
| Significance | The 2014 and 2019 results marked the return of single-party dominance; the 2024 result showed that coalition compulsions can re-emerge |
The Rise of Regional Parties
Major Regional Parties and Their Impact
| Party | State/Region | Key Leaders | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| DMK / AIADMK | Tamil Nadu | Karunanidhi / M.G. Ramachandran, Jayalalithaa | Dravidian parties dominated Tamil politics since 1967; Congress has not won TN on its own since 1962 |
| TMC (Trinamool Congress) | West Bengal | Mamata Banerjee | Ended 34 years of Left Front rule in West Bengal (2011) |
| SP (Samajwadi Party) | Uttar Pradesh | Mulayam Singh Yadav, Akhilesh Yadav | OBC-Muslim politics in India's largest state |
| BSP (Bahujan Samaj Party) | Uttar Pradesh | Kanshi Ram, Mayawati | Dalit political assertion; Mayawati was India's first Dalit CM of a major state (UP, 1995) |
| TDP (Telugu Desam Party) | Andhra Pradesh/Telangana | N.T. Rama Rao, Chandrababu Naidu | Founded 1982; challenged Congress dominance in AP; key NDA ally |
| JD(U) (Janata Dal United) | Bihar | Nitish Kumar | Key coalition partner at Centre; Bihar politics |
| Shiv Sena | Maharashtra | Bal Thackeray, Uddhav Thackeray (split 2022) | Regional identity politics; Marathi manoos; split into two factions |
| AGP / BPF | Assam | Prafulla Kumar Mahanta | Assamese identity and anti-foreigner movements |
| SAD (Shiromani Akali Dal) | Punjab | Parkash Singh Badal | Sikh political representation; long-time BJP ally |
| NCP / SCP | Maharashtra | Sharad Pawar (split 2023) | Maharashtra politics; coalition player at Centre |
| JMM (Jharkhand Mukti Morcha) | Jharkhand | Shibu Soren, Hemant Soren | Tribal politics; statehood movement |
Why Regional Parties Rose
| Factor | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Federal structure | India's federal system provides space for state-level parties to govern and leverage power at the Centre |
| Social diversity | Caste, language, ethnicity, and religion create constituencies that national parties cannot fully represent |
| State-level issues | Irrigation, land reform, local development, and regional identity create demand for local representation |
| Coalition leverage | In hung parliaments, regional parties become kingmakers — able to extract policy concessions and ministerial positions |
| Charismatic leaders | Many regional parties built around strong personalities (NTR, MGR, Jayalalithaa, Mamata Banerjee, Naveen Patnaik) |
Anti-Defection Law — The Tenth Schedule
Background
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| Problem | After the 1967 elections, rampant party-hopping by legislators destabilised state governments; by one estimate, almost 50% of the 4,000 legislators elected in 1967 and 1971 subsequently defected; the phenomenon was called "Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram" (after a Haryana MLA who switched parties multiple times in a single day in 1967) |
| Solution | 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985 — introduced the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution |
| Passed | Lok Sabha: 30 January 1985; Rajya Sabha: 31 January 1985; Presidential assent: 15 February 1985; effective: 18 March 1985 |
| Government | Rajiv Gandhi government — enacted immediately after securing a massive majority in the 1984 elections |
Key Provisions of the Tenth Schedule
| Provision | Detail |
|---|---|
| Grounds for disqualification | A member is disqualified if they (a) voluntarily give up membership of their political party, or (b) vote or abstain contrary to the party whip without prior permission |
| Independent members | If an independently elected member joins a political party after election, they are disqualified |
| Nominated members | Nominated members have 6 months from taking their seat to join a political party; joining a party after that period leads to disqualification |
| Decision-making authority | The Speaker (Lok Sabha / State Assembly) or Chairman (Rajya Sabha / State Legislative Council) decides disqualification petitions |
| Exception — merger | Originally, a "split" (1/3rd of members) was permitted. The 91st Constitutional Amendment (2003) removed the split provision; now only a merger (2/3rds of members of a legislative party merging with another party) is exempt from disqualification |
Criticisms and Debates
| Criticism | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Speaker's bias | The Speaker (who often belongs to the ruling party) decides defection cases — no fixed time limit for decisions; partisan delays are common |
| Stifles dissent | MPs/MLAs cannot vote according to conscience — forced to follow the party whip on all matters, reducing the role of individual legislators |
| Wholesale defection | The law prevents individual defection but allows wholesale party mergers (2/3rds) — the "bulk defection" loophole |
| Supreme Court intervention | In Kihoto Hollohan vs. Zachillhu (1992), the Supreme Court upheld the law's validity but ruled that the Speaker's decisions are subject to judicial review |
Election Commission — Institutional Reforms
Key Reforms
| Reform | Year | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Multi-member Election Commission | 1993 | EC expanded from single CEC to three members (CEC + 2 ECs); the Chief Election Commissioner can only be removed by impeachment (like a Supreme Court judge) |
| Model Code of Conduct | Evolved over time | Enforced strictly from the announcement of elections; restricts government from making populist announcements |
| EVM introduction | 2000s | Electronic Voting Machines replaced paper ballots; VVPAT (Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail) introduced for transparency |
| NOTA | 2013 | "None of the Above" option on ballot — following Supreme Court direction in PUCL vs. Union of India |
| Voter ID | 1993 onwards | Photo ID cards (EPIC) to prevent bogus voting |
| Expenditure limits | Ongoing | Candidates' spending capped; EC monitors campaign expenditure |
T.N. Seshan's Legacy
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| Who | T.N. Seshan — Chief Election Commissioner (1990–1996) |
| Impact | Transformed the Election Commission from a largely passive body into a powerful, assertive institution; strictly enforced the Model Code of Conduct; cracked down on booth-capturing, money power, and misuse of government machinery; his tenure is credited with making Indian elections significantly freer and fairer |
Coalition Dynamics — Advantages and Challenges
| Aspect | Advantages | Challenges |
|---|---|---|
| Representation | Broader representation of India's diversity — regional, linguistic, and social interests get a voice at the Centre | Instability — governments vulnerable to withdrawal of support by allies; frequent crises |
| Federal balance | Regional parties ensure that state interests are represented in national policy-making | Policy paralysis — need for consensus among coalition partners slows decision-making |
| Power-sharing | Prevents concentration of power in a single party; checks authoritarianism | Blackmail politics — small parties can hold the government hostage for disproportionate concessions |
| Consensus | Encourages negotiation and accommodation among diverse groups | Lack of accountability — no single party takes full responsibility for governance |
| Democratic depth | Brings marginalised communities (Dalits, OBCs, tribals) into mainstream politics | Ideological incoherence — coalitions may include parties with contradictory ideologies |
Key Constitutional and Political Developments
| Development | Year | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Mandal Commission implementation | 1990 | 27% OBC reservation in central government jobs; transformed India's social politics permanently |
| Babri Masjid demolition | 1992 | Communal polarisation; rise of BJP; challenged the secular framework |
| 52nd Amendment (Anti-Defection Law) | 1985 | Curbed party-hopping; stabilised legislatures but limited legislative dissent |
| 73rd and 74th Amendments | 1992 | Constitutional status to Panchayati Raj and Municipalities; deepened grassroots democracy |
| 91st Amendment | 2003 | Removed the "split" exception from anti-defection law; capped Council of Ministers at 15% of Lok Sabha/Assembly strength |
| RTI Act | 2005 | Transparency and accountability in governance |
| Representation of People Act amendments | Various | Regulated electoral process, disclosure of criminal records, expenditure limits |
Recent Developments (2024–2026)
2024 General Elections — Return of Coalition Government (NDA-III)
The 2024 Lok Sabha General Elections (Phase I–VII: April 19 – June 1, 2024; results June 4, 2024) produced a hung Parliament outcome where the BJP won 240 seats — below the 272 majority mark — making the NDA coalition (BJP + TDP, JD(U), and others) essential for government formation. PM Modi formed his third government (NDA-III, sworn June 9, 2024) as a coalition government, ending the post-2014 phase of near-single-party majority.
This marks a return to coalition dynamics that this chapter analyses, with regional parties (TDP under Chandrababu Naidu, JD(U) under Nitish Kumar) holding critical leverage — echoing the 1989–2014 coalition era dynamics.
UPSC angle: Prelims — 2024 Lok Sabha results, NDA-III government. Mains GS1 — coalition era post-2024; regional parties' role; implications for Indian federalism and governance.
Electoral Bonds Scheme — Supreme Court Strikes Down (February 2024)
The Supreme Court of India (5-judge Constitution Bench) struck down the Electoral Bonds Scheme on February 15, 2024, declaring it unconstitutional for violating the voters' right to information. The State Bank of India was directed to disclose all bond transaction data. This landmark verdict on political funding directly intersects with the coalition era's concern about money power in elections — a theme spanning the post-Seshan electoral reform era.
UPSC angle: Prelims — Electoral Bonds SC verdict (February 15, 2024). Mains GS1 — evolution of electoral system; money power in politics; GS2 — electoral reforms.
Exam Strategy
Prelims: Focus on the anti-defection law — 52nd Amendment (1985), Tenth Schedule, 91st Amendment (2003, removed split provision). Know the coalition governments and their PMs: V.P. Singh (1989), Deve Gowda and Gujral (1996-98), Vajpayee (1999-2004), Manmohan Singh (2004-14). Remember the Mandal Commission (B.P. Mandal, 27% OBC reservation, V.P. Singh implemented 1990). The "Aaya Ram Gaya Ram" phrase (1967, Haryana) is a classic one-liner. Know T.N. Seshan's role in EC reforms.
Mains: Be prepared to discuss the impact of coalition politics on governance, federalism, and policy-making in India. Common questions include: Has the coalition era strengthened or weakened Indian democracy? What is the role of regional parties in national politics? Analyse the anti-defection law — has it served its purpose? Discuss the impact of the Mandal Commission on Indian society and politics. The relationship between identity politics (caste, religion, region) and electoral democracy is a high-value Mains theme.
Sources: Election Commission of India (eci.gov.in), Constitution of India (legislative.gov.in), PRS Legislative Research (prsindia.org), Rajni Kothari's writings on Indian politics, Britannica
