CHAPTER 1

THE CONGRESS SYSTEM AND COALITION POLITICS IN INDIA

O r g a n ~ s e d life 1s the lifeblood of any civilized society.

Politically organised societies tunction through governments. In

democracies people arz governed by their own representatives

elected tor a tixed ti:r~ure. Elections to the representative

bodies are held periodically. i n parliamentary democracy the

office of a11 elected government may not complete its full term

due to r t i t chariqinq kehaviour of people ' s representatives.

Periodic ele~:tions and the principle of majority rule constitute

the fundamentals of clemocratic government. In t he actual

working of democracy the role of political parties can never be

underestimated. Political parlies are seriously concerned with

securing majority in the representative bodies or legislatures s o

as to from a government of their own. In parliamentary a s well

as in presidential systern a majority government means a party

government The deveiopment of political parties is bound up

with that ot democracy. thar IS to say with adopt ion a n d

extension 6 ~ f populat suffrage a n d parliamentary institutions.'

In fact rtie i ~ l < ~ t i ~ : i i l 1 i p between democracy and political

parties is >o intlrnate that one cannot exist without the other.

In democracies po1itii:al parties are a means of expression along

with the l r~~ocess of s::emocr.at~zation of politics. At the s ame

t i r n . a ( ! spo! i s~bi i 3overi?rrient is "responsive" precisely

t~ecause p ~ l i t i c a l parr.es s u ~ p l y the channels for articulating,

cornmunicnring. and implementing the demands of the

governed. I t I S , then, the cumulative, self-sustaining

progression from faction to party, from responsible t o

responsive government, a n d from the parliamentary t o the

electoral party, that establish the fundamental function,

functional r e and systematic placement of par tie^.^

Any democracy can effectively function only with the

active participation cbf the people. This participation is

tacilitated I>'+ par ty n ~ l a c h i n e r ~ , party programmes a n d policies.

In this era of universal adult franchise the political parties

establish a direct and illtimate contact with their supporters a n d

sympathisets and c.ontii.sf ele8:tions with a view to capture power

and implement their programmes of social reconstruction a n d

economic development. "A political party can b e more

precisely defined a s o n e of the parts into which a s ta te o r

municipality may be divided by questions of public policy or

elections of public: off~cers . Essentially a political party is a

voluntarq a s s o c ~ a t ~ o r ! tc~rmecl by persons holding common views

on b a s ~ c r~o l i t~ca l . social and economic matters. Believing in

peaceful iliid co~~st i t i .~r ionai means, each political party tries to

capture power in the elections. A political party is no t a

community but a coilection of communities, a union of small

groups dispersed throughout the country (branches , caucus,

local associations etc. a n d linked by co-ordinating

institutions;.""

The inauguration of constitutional government a n d the

adoption ot parliarner~tary system paved the way for t he active

involvement of political parties in Indian politics. The origin of

the Indian National Congress in 1885 played a significant role

in organising the people of India. After Independence the

Congress Party, however, at tained the status of a political

part!y. Though the Congress Party was organised a s a popular

movement to Liberate India from foreign rule, the divergent

views o f its prominent leaders brought about two wings viz., the

extremists and the moderates. Though the extremists a n d the

moderates, held differing opinions regarding their programmes

on freedom struggle they remained within the larger framework

ot the freedom niovernent. That is, both these wings had a

united purpose or end while trying opposite means t o achieve

the end . Even when the Indian National Congress was involved

in getting r ~ d ot foreigri domination, the opposite views of its

leaders were evidently displayed on several occasions. It has

been always a characiteristic trait of the leaders of Indian

National Clongress that at certain stages of conciliation or

reconciliation on disputed issues they were ready to part with

their parent organisatlon t o set up new ones.

The Congress a s a national movement represented the

heterogeritous charac-ter oi the lndian society. Almost all

interests, castes and c:ommunities and generally people holding

all shades of opinior: were incorporated into the Party with the

sole objective ot attaining independence. The divergent views

of the component elements came to the forefront during a n d

after the elections to the Parliament or Sta te legislatures in

order to shape and share power. The Indian system can be

described as a system of one-party dominance, which, it may b e

noted, is very differe:it from what is generally known a s a one-

party system. I t is a c:ompetitive party system but o n e in which

the competing parties :?lay rather dissimilar roles.4

In the lndian co i~ tex t communal a n d caste considerations

enhanced the ichances of political formations. The Muslim

League formed by Sir. Sayyed Ahamad Khan infused a sense of

loyalty into t h e mintis of lndian Muslims toward the British a n d

thus protected their {rwn sectional interests.

Th,t pos t -~ndependen t India witnessed the emergence of a

multi-party system .nore importantly after the decline of the

one-party dominance cc~f the Congress Party. In the present se t

up there are numerous political parties, national or regional in

character, each having its own programmes of action a s well a s

methods of achieving its goals. The nature a n d working of

political parties are ~.:losely llnked with the pre- independent

organisatiot>s like the [ndiari National Congress, The Muslim

League. and Hindu 'vlaha Sabha . However, most political

parties that emerged after the Independence whether national

or state or local. made their presence felt a s splinter groups of

Indian National Cor~gress without substantial ideological

difference. All the splinter groups are personality-centred that

can be led to any direction, left, right or middle path according

to the exigencies of t ~ n l e and circumstances. The Congress, on

the other hand , is said to be a party of consensus which

functions through an elaborate network of factions a n d o n e

which provides the chief competitive mechanism of the Indian

system. 5

At the national l.c:vel t h s one-party rule of the Congress

lasted for t i le first thrc'e decades of free India since no other

part!,, could ofter ;in ettective alternative to the Congress. The

Congress rule IS charai:terisecl by many scholars a s 'one-party

dominant system lrltiia developed neither one-party system,

two-party s ~ s t e m inor ~riulti-party system. The Indian system is

20

. . a peca!l,ll tcpt' oi 3 palctv system suited to the prevailing

conditiorls ot India cittc'r t h ~ independence where the congress

played ar! unrnatche(1 role in shaping the political destiny of

this country. The d e ~ : l i n e of the Congress Party resulted in the

emergence of various types of coalitions at the Centre as well

as in many States .

Multi-party systern is an essential feature of any

parliamentary democracy today. It provides a wide choice for

the electorate. Coalition and alliances of political part ies a r e

inevitable in a multi-party system because of the absence of a

single party. which car), by itself, form a government. Political

parties during t h e e l ec t~ons serve a s a potential link between

the public and the government. Traditionally, political parties

are expected to organise both the government a n d the

opp'ssition and are cc~nsidered to serve as brokers of various

interests."

1. Coalition Scenario in India-At National Level

C o a l ~ t ~ o n s are fundamentally a result rather than a cause

of political unrest T h e electorate discontented with t h e single

party rule resorts to allernatrves to effectively reflect public

grievances D~ssatisfied members of the ruling single party or

2 1

the opposition party o r the ,garties that have been long away

from power centres. either shift their s tand to form new

alliances or form break away groups. These groups or factions

try to find au t a frameluork for a new arrangement t o capture

power. I r i any case none of the factions forming a new

coalition generally trames policies a n d programmes much

different from those ot the parent party. Usually they adop t a

new agenda to place before the electorate. Instability in the

government and the c:onfusion among the voters radically

change the entire political a tmosphere . Elections under such

circumstani-2s hardly producs a stable government since n o

single parti or allranc-e ot pariles can muster absolute majority

111 the l e q ~ _ i , ~ ~ t u l e

Thci (.i~aiitiori exl.;etimer-it is iiot new to in India. The e ra

of coa1itio1- governan,:,? in Ir-i'dia first began in 1946, when a n

Interim Government wiis formed under the leadership of Pandit

Jawaharlai Nehru, co~i,iisting ot the Indian National Congress,

the iUuslim League, and the Hindu Mahasabha. Since the new

Con:stitution of India came into force on 26'h January 1950, the

coali!tion history at the national level began first when the

Congress Party under Smt. lndira Gandhi during 1969-70

became a rninority qovernment a n d kept running with t he

22

support extended b y t h e Communist Party a n d the

Dravida Munnetta Kazhaka~n (DMK) of Tamil Nadu. Indeed the

Jana ta Government led by Shri. Morarji Desai (1977-79)

the Samaiwadi J ana t a Government led by Shri. Charan Singh

(1979 August-1980 January) ; the V. P. Singh's National Front

Go.vernment (1980 December-1990 November); or a short lived

Chi3ndra Shekhar ' s Gover r~ment (1990 November-1991 J u n e )

are not regarded a s genuine coalition governments, because in

the J ana t a Government. the parties had merged together a n d

other coaiition goutzrnrnents were minority governments,

supported b y a iargei group trom outside, without entering the

co r r ido~s t r!<ower Truly speaking, the United Front

Governrr~ent (1996 Jul ie-1998 March) led by Shri. Deve Gowda

and. S h r i l . K Gulrai and the present BJP-led Coalition

Government ( 1 9 9 8 March-) headed by Shri. Atal Behari

Vajpayee, have been described a s the first a n d second true

coalition governments at the Centre, because for the first t ime

in the post- independent history of India, more than a dozen

political parties. both regional a n d national holding different

ideologies have loined together to form government with the

sole purpose of shar~r lg power and keeping away the Congress

from the Government

Table 1 Coalition Governments at the Centre r----. ~ - ~ ~ . ~ ~- .~ .-

i SI. 1 Prime Minister ; No i I

I 1. 1 Sri. Morarji Desai / 24-03-1977 to 28-07-1979 1 . - - - - --

k ~ ~ b I - C h a r a n Singh =07-1979 to 14-01-1980 1 ( 3. 1 Sri. Vishwar~ath Pratap 02-12-1989 to 10-11-1990 1 1 t - . ~~~ -

1, 4 . i Sri. Chandra Shekhar F 0 - 1 1 - 1 9 9 0 to 21-06-1991 1 +--- -~

1 5 F i . Atal Behari L'ajpayee L +_ - - -- - : 6. ; Sri. FI. D . Deve C;owada E l - 0 6 - 1 9 9 6 to 21-04-1997 1

1 8. 1 Sri. A . B. Vajpaee 19-03-1998 to todate ~ ~- ~

Table 2 A Typology of Governments of lndia ~~

No. of + . - .. . .

Parties Majority Governments +

One party ' Jawaharlal Nehru

1 La1 Bahadur Sastri I Charan Singh I I I lndira Gandhi ( Chandra Shekhar I I Naras~rnha Rao (latter Part) I Narasimha Rao (early part) 1 I Morarjl Desai I V.P. Singh i I i

(Janata Party) 1 A B Vajpayee I Coalition of Deve Gowda parties I.K. Gujral

~~- ~ 1 A Source: Mahendra Pracad Singh "Minor i ty Governments in lndia:

,Ar: A n a i y s ~ s . ' i ) l S u n 3 ; l r Ram ( E d . ) Coalit~on Politics in !nd;a ii Sear:./? for rtability, [ N e w Delhi: National P u b l i s h ~ r l g H O I I ~ ; ~ 2001 I p . 1 1 1

Table 3 Level of Coalition-Building " ~ ~- -~ . ~-

I Electoral Legislative "-- + - - .

I J ana ta Party Naticnal Front

I I I Nat~ona l Flont Nara51mha Kao I BJP-Shcv

;Earl[,' parti Sena I

i I I \.~jnitt,l.i Fror i~ I

-~ . -. - - . 1_ _i____i S o ~ ~ r c e Mahendra Prasad Singh "Minority Governments in India:

.+,I, Analys i s . " r Sur~dar Ram ( E d . ) Coalition Poiitics in a a Seaicii f o ~ stability, (New Delhi: National P i r i ~ I i s h ~ n ( ; H r : ~ ~ i s e 2001 p 11 1.

2. First Coalition Government at the Centre (24-3-1977 to

28-7-1979). Janatha Government under the Prime

Ministership of Shri. Morarji Desai

The year 1967 saw the rise of coalition governments in

many States, b u t Central Government continued t o b e under

the domlna~ ice of the Congress Party. Many political analysts

remarked that though the non-Congress coalition governments

ruled in several States i t was not so easy to change the political

scenario at the Centre

H o h e s ~ e r . r h e s~ l ' g l e e v e n t that brought about a total

change in the political scenario at the Centre was the

declaration of Nationai Emergency in India in 1995 a n d the

detention ot rnany polirical leaders and activists including M.Ps.

T h r o ~ g h this act ion, t h e opposition to the amendments of the

Constitutior: that proposed to curb the citizen's civil liberties,

freedom ot the press arid of the iildiciary was sought to be

throttleti. T h ~ s reprc.i:;lve actlor1 was a desperate response to

the agltciron a g a i ~ ~ ~ , t corruption spearheaded by the J P

movement in Bihar, Gujarat and elsewhere.

' I ' t~esr aiitl-den\- sratic .actions initiated by Prime Minister

Indira C;alidhi iause:ct an unprecedented anti-Congress wave.

Tiit! i n c l ~ i i i ; National (:clingre~s(Ol, the Bharatiya Lok Dal, the

Bharatiya lana Sangtl and the Socialist Party merged informally

to form the J ana i a Party. Mechanically it was not a coalition

because its four constituents had agreed to merge a n d fight the

election on a single manifesto a n d on a shared symbol. In the

elections to the Lok S a b h a held in March 1977, the Congress

faced its wt2rst rout. For the first time the Congress lost its

power at the Centre giving room t o the J ana t a Government .

The Jana t a Party Government formed by Shri. Morarji Desai

was supported b y tile CPIIM) from outside. The Jana t a

Governnient. cornm~tted to common progressive election

manifesto 'Bread with lzreedom', caught the at tention of the

people a n t i roused their hopes and aspirations. But

temperamental incompatibility of some of its leaders a n d fierce

inner controversy ovel. the dual loyalty of the J a n a Sangh

activists to the J ana t a Party a s well as to the RSS wrecked the

Jana ta Party and its government which in reality was a coalition

government ' A no-cotifidence was moved in the Lok S a b h a by

the leader ot the o p ~ 3 s i t i o n against the J a n a t a Government

hesded bb Morarli Dcsai. While the no-confidence was being

discusset-l 1 1 t h e Lok Sabha . t h e Prime Minister Morarji Desai

realizing that h e hacl lost the majority mainly because of the

defectiorrs trorn his party tendered his resignation t o the

President. '

3. Second Coalition Government at the Centre by Chaudhary

Charan Singh (July 28,1979-January 14, 1980)

The splitter group of the J a n a t a Party headed by Shri.

Chaudhary Charan Singh formed a n al ternate coalition

government a t the natlonal level on July 28, 1979 with the

uncondi t~ona l support of the Congress(1). This coalition

i n c l ~ ~ d e d leaders and groups trom o n e end of the spectrum to

the other-from the CPl (M) and the CPI on the one hand to

those w h o h e r e close t'r, big business. There was the pro-west

George Fernandez group and the pro-Soviet Union Bahuguna

faction in its fold "

The party headed by Shr i . Charan Singh was a party of

defec:tors and was not recognised a s a political party in the Lok

Sabha . Consequently. Shri. Charan Singh's Ministry did not

last long. Before facing the Lok S a b h a Shri. Charan Singh

tendered his resignation to the President because o n e of his

coalition partners. the C:ongressiI), withdrew its support t o his

Governnl t r r~ t o n i h e v e r y d a v Shr i . C h a r a n S i n g h h a d t o s e e k

confidenc* tor his coalit ion government . H e r e c o m m e n d e d t o

t h e Pres ident the r i s s o l u t ~ a r ~ ~ of t h e Lok S a b h a a n d t h e

Pres ident tiissolvt,d i t i n d o r d e r e d a mid- te rm pol l .

4. Third Coalition Government at the Centre by Viswanath

Prathap Singh of the National Front (December 2, 1989-

November 10,1990)

T h e Ninth Lok S a b h a e lec t ions in 1989 a r e possibly t h e

mo:st impor tant everit in t h e 43 y e a r history of Ind ian

democracy . T h e then ruling par ty , t h e Congress ( I ) , h a s b e e n

ous ted troni power for the s e c o n d t ime. Mr. Viswanath P r a t a b

Singh of J a n a t a Dal w a s e lec ted unan imous ly by t h e Nat ional

Front amids t s c e n e s ot l ~ i l d en thus ia sm. S i n c e t h e largest par ty

in the Lok S a b h a . thi? C o n g r e s s ( l ) , d id no t s t ake its claim t o

forrn t h e g o v e r n m e n t . t h e P res iden t Sr i . R. Venki t ta R a m a n

invited V . P S i n g h , the leader of t h e s e c o n d largest pa r ty , t o

forrn t h e rninistrji T h e B J P e x t e n d e d its gene ra l b u t 'critical

suppor t ' to the National Front G o v e r n m e n t . T h e four left

par t ies - t he CPI , t h e CPI(MI, t h e RSP a n d t h e Forward Block

a lso informed t h e Pres ident in writing t h a t t hey wou ld e x t e n d

their s u p p o r t t o t h e Na t iona l F ron t Government .

T h u s as a result of t h e 1989 Lok S a b h a e lec t ions , t h e

count ry witnessed t h e iirst minori ty-cum-coal i t ion g o v e r n m e n t

28

at the Cer-itre. t t~ouyti i t was supported by a majority of M.P.s

from outside. Almos-t all the non-Congress groups big a n d

small, Rightists and Leftists joined hands to back the National

Front Government led by V P . Singh. However the BJP a n d

the CPI(M) basically hostile t o each other decided not t o extend

its support to a Government where o n e of them was a co-sharer

o f power with the National Front." Consequently both

supportea. rhe government from outside.

V.P. Singh Government could not complete even a year in

office due to internal squabbles in the J ana t a Dal such a s the

threat oi the Deputy Prime M~nis ter Devilal t o resign from the

Ministry. tiis sol) Or71 Prakash Chautala ' s exit a s t he Chief

Minister of Haryana arid Rama Krishna Hegde's resignation

trorn the pc~st ot Depii i~! Cha~rrrian of Planning Commission. In

addition t o these. Dc.~~~ilaI1s dismissal from the post of Deputy

Prirne Miri~stersh~p, '" :he implementation of the watered down

version oi the Mar-11iaI Commission Recommendations for

Central Government cJobs,:'4 Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid

c o n t r o ~ e r s ~ ' ~ and d i s s~den t activities within the J a n a t a Dal led

to the premature death of the National Front Government a t the

Centre.

The KJP withdrew its support t o the National Front

Governmenr on Octobel. 23 1990 when the Bihar Government

on the a d v ~ c e of Prime Minrster V.P. Singh arrested the BJP

leader I.K. Advan: during his spectacular 'Rath Yathra ' from

S o m n a t t ~ in Gujarath to Ayodhya in U.P. to render Kar Seva

and thereby to construct the Ram Temple irk the place of Babri

Masjiti " T t i e i u i t i ~ ~ l . ~ a w a ! ot the BJP's support deprived the

Natio~ial F ~ C I I I ; Go\!~,l :~nmer-t ot a majority in the Lok S a b h a .

The President asked V.P. Slngh to prove his majority o n the

tloor of the Hi:~ust-> V.P. Singh's coalition government was

defeated on the motion of confidence on November 7, 1990 in

the Lok Sabha and he tendered his resignation t o the President

on November 10. 1990

5. Fourth Coalition Government at the Centre- By Chandra

Shekhar (November 11,1990-July 21,1991)

The ~n te rna l squabbles of J a n a t a Dal led to a split in

November 1990 A good number of M.P.s broke away from the

parent parry anci forr:~ed a new party called Samajwadi J a n a t a

Dal under the leadership of Chandra Shekhar .

When V.P. Singh 's coalition government was defeated in

the confidence inotion in tne Lok S a b h a , all major political

parties declined to form an alternate government a t the Centre.

Chandra Shekhar however, staked his claim t o form a

government with the help of the Congress(]) , the AIADMK, BSP,

Muslim League. J&K National Conference, Kerala Congress(M),

Shiromani Akaii L)al { P a n t h ~ c ) a n d a few independent members.

30

It was a small party governnient supported by a very large

group frorr; outslde. I t was also a n unstable and short-lived

coalition which lasted only a few months. The Congress

President R a ~ e e v Gandhi was dissatisfied with Chandra

Shekhar ' s Gulf policy, the Punjab initiatives and the deepening

economic zrisis. Ht. was annoyed with Chandra Shekhar

for not dropping the disqualified members from his cabinet .

On March 6, 1 9 9 1 the Congress Party withdrew its suppor t t o

the Chandra Shekhal- Government on the allegation tha t two

Haryana canstables were found keeping 'surveillance' over

Congress President Rajeev Gandhi ' s residence. The Congress

was probably more predisposed in electoral mobilisation than in

keeping t h e Chandra Shekhar Government going." Chandra

Shekhar presented h ~ s resignation letter on March 6, 1 9 9 1 a n d

advised the President tc dissolve the Lok Sabha .

6. Fifth Coalition Government at the Centre- By Narasimha Rao

of the Congress(1) (June 21, 1991-May 16, 1996)

The tenth Lok Satlha elections were held in 1 9 9 1 with the

country st111 mourning the rleath of Kajeev Gandhi . In the

elec:tions tile Congress(1) Party got 227 seats . Mr. P.V.

Narasimha Rao of the Oongress(l) became Prime Minister with

the outside support of All India Anna DMK, Indian Union

Muslim League, Kerala Congress(M), J a n a t a Dal (Gujarat ) , a n d

w ~ t h the support ot the

h ~ s cred~t>illty because

,.,A ~

, .1. . ,-. . . ' ? . . . . I--- .- .. / ..? ' ,

*p..-. .,,, YilM

Sikkim Sangram Prishad.

he obtained support from the Telungu

Desam Party and the Ja rkhand Mukti Morcha through bribing

its M.P.5. 'Yet h e managed t o survive for a fu l l five year term.

7. Sixth Coalition Government at the Centre by A.B. Vajpayee of

the BJP (May 16,1996-May 28,1996)

In the l l t h General Elections, held in 1 9 9 6 , no party got

absolute majority in the Lok S a b h a . It produced a fractured

mandate and a "hung" Parliament." Interestingly, the Congress

Party, once the dominant party in Indian Political system was

reduced to the secorid place for the first time a n d virtually

became a regional party with only 140 seats in a House of 543

mernbers. Gradually and particularly after 1989, its hold on the

people became precarious. The BJP a s an alternative force

gained the tirst position with 187 seats inclusive of its own 161

and its pr2-elect~on allies r.e. Shiv S e n a , S a m a t h a Party

and Hariana Vikas Party" constituting the rest. The President,

Dr. Sankar Dayal Sha rma , invited Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the

leader of the BJP parliamentary party t o form the Ministry.

Vajpayee Ministrbl took charge on May 16, 1996 . The BJP

leaders tried hard to iook far and wide to muster s o m e

additional support to strengthen their position in the

Parll!ament. However they did not succeed and finally Prime

32

M ~ ~ i s t e ~ Vajpayee had to go to the President a n d submit his

resignatlon on May 2 7 . 1996.20 The BJP Government did not

last more than 13 dayh.

8. Seventh Coalition Government at the Centre by H.D. Deve

Gowda of the United Front (June 1, 1996-April 20,1997)

After the tall ot the 13 day BJP Government, Shri . Deve

Gowda of the J ana t a Dal formed the United Front Government

at the Centre with an amalgam of national and regional parties.

There were 13 partip.% in the UF-coalition with a strength of

about 200 M.P.s backed by the Indian National Congress with

136 mei~tbcrs The .~ornbined strength of the Front a n d the

Congress constituted ~i solid absolute majority of nearly 336

members I!, the Hnus i 3t 536 rrienrbers.

The I I F had no u!orking majority in the Lok S a b h a . The

choice betore the Congress was between forces of secularism

and communalisn-I. Opting the secular government of the

United Front, the Congress extended its support to the United

Front Government headed by Shri . Deve Gowda, w h o was

unanimously chosen as the leader of the UF in Parliament by its

constituents. Despite periodical threats to the stability a n d

survival of ttie UF Government. it sustained its stability. By the

political corr~pulsrons ::)t secular politics altogether a different

pattern of seculal govc2rnmcnt a t the Centre evolved supported

by CPI(M) and Congresz, from o u t s ~ d e . ' ~

T o anialgamate the pol i t~cal parties, a policy framework

was evolved in the name of Common Minimum Programme. T o

regulate 3nd oversee the pollcy formulations and

implementa t~on a " S t e e r ~ n g Committee" was constituted.

Even though there was no formal electoral understanding

among the 13 parties, which formed the coalition, they were

able to hammer out a common approach to major policy

matters and a minimurn programme. It encouraged cooperative

federalism. inter-state relationships was revived. The tax share

to the States was revived. The U F constituents achieved a n

attitudinal convergence in defence of federal polity. The

regional parties used their leverage in the U F to restore a

genuine federal balan~.:e in the polity. 22

The IJnited Front Coalition Government headed by H.D.

Deve Gc)u.da $.ifas iikt? a chariot being pulled a t times in

dif.ierent direct~cins t ~ j ! 13 horses.23 There were personality

clashes arilong tile \ . . I f ' leaders and because of this they lacked

coliesio~i. I t ~vc rked a: i f ildcioiogy had taken the back sea t and

ego clashes were reigliing supreme.

The Congress President, Sitaram Kesari's decision to

withdraw support to the Deve Gowda Government threw the

34

na t ion in to a fresh polit ical turmoil . Ever s i n c e Kesar i t o o k

o v e r a s t h e pa r ty chief in S e p t e m b e r , 1996, h e b e g a n nurs ing

se r ious d o u b t s a b o u t t h e wi sdom of con t inu ing t o s u p p o r t t h e

g o v e r n m e n t from ou t s ide . T h e C o n g r e s s P res iden t Kesar i w a s

s tung by t h e CBI t eam ques t ion ing him o n his a l legedly

d i sp ropor t iona te a s se t s a n d h e pul led t h e r u g of o u t s i d e s u p p o r t

t o the G o w d a G o v e r n m e n t . In t h e conf idence m o t i o n o n April

11, 1997 in t h e Lok S a b h a G o w d a G o v e r n m e n t fell with 190

a y e s aga ins t 338 n o e s

9. Eighth Coalition Government at the Centre by lnder Kurnar

Gujral of the United Front (April 21, 1997-March 19, 1998)

T o a v e r t t h e dissolut ion of t h e Lok S a b h a , t h e Congress (1)

l eade r sh ip 3 n c e agalrl dec ided to c o n t i n u e t h e ea r l i e r s u p p o r t

pa t i e rn unde r a n e k Pr ime Minister l n d e r Kumar Guj ra l .

Following t h e b i t te rness ove r t h e d e p a r t u r e of D e v e G o w d a in

April. 1997 both t h e C o n g r e s s ( [ ) a n d t h e IJnited F r o n t found

themselves s e t t l ~ r ~ g scc ' res with e a c h o the r . T h e C o n g r e s s

Pres ident i i tararr i Kesari had built a g o o d r a p p o r t with t h e

affable I ! ~ ~ ~ : t e d Ft!:,nt Prirne Minister l nde r Kumar Gu j ra l . Bu t

wi thin n i o i t h s i -~e , ; ~ a l t e d dictat ing t e rms t o Gu j ra l a n d

t h r e a t e n e d tc, O r ~ n g d o w n t h e U F G o v e r n m e n t if Gu j ra l

G o v e r n m e n t d id not tollow his t e rms a n d cond i t ions s u c h as :

35

the government must respect the Congress(1) more a n d consult

it more often; a " rnechan~sm" must b e se t up for close

co-ordination between the Congress(1) a n d the government a n d

SO on.2"

T h e Jain Comnlission Report tabled in the Parl iament

alleged DMK a coa l i t~on partner of the UF Government , a n ally

in the assassination c'f the former Congress Prime Minister

Rajeev G a r ~ d h ~ . T h e Congress Party demanded the removal of

DMK from the Ministry or face with its withdrawal of suppor t .

But the United Front maintained its unity in the face of then

Congress(1) President Sitaram Kesari's ultimatum. T h e Congress

Party seemed to have thought that i f a general election was

held. the Congress could make a comeback a s in 1980 as the

people were fed up with the instability of the last o n e a n d a half

years.26 On November 28, 1997 the Congress Party informed

the President of lndia through a letter, its decision t o withdraw

its support to the U F Government . Following the Congress

Party's decision to wlthdraw suppor t , I.K. Gujral submitted his

resignatiori to the President or India, without recommending the

dissolution of t h e I..:-k Sabha. Thus, the fall of ano ther

coalition gilvernrr~enr led tly 1 .K . Gujral, second with in 18

months , cdused a wave of anxiety sweeping thorough ou t the

Country . - '

10. Ninth Coalition government at the Centre by A.B. Vajpayee of

the NDA (March 19, 1998)

In t h e 1 2 " Lok 5 a b h a e l e c t ~ o n s c o n d u c t e d in March 1998

t h e BJP u l r h 11s 24 ~ I I I C S k n o w n a s NDA e m e r g e d as t h e largest

vote get ter in t h e coun t ry . S r i . A.B. Va jpayee of t h e BJP w a s

invi ted by t h e President K.R. N a r a y a n a n t o form t h e

government a n d the coal i t ion Ministry of Sr i . A.B. V a j p a y e e

took office o n March 19, 1.998. Unfortunately e v e n af te r t h e

formation of t h e BJP led coal i t ion G o v e r n m e n t a t t h e C e n t r e ,

t h e infighting na tu re a m o n g its coal i t ion pa r tne r s c r e a t e d a n

impression sf instability

T h e BJP- led all iance m o v e d from crisis t o crisis

demonst ra t ing a p e r p e t ~ i a l s e n s e of instability. T h e G o v e r n m e n t

survived a debac le s ince t h e nat ional oppos i t ion h a s n o t

p r ~ p a r e d to force a c l a n g e . But the feeling of a n effective

government w a s not there . This inefficiency, however d i d not

h a v e a n y effect o n bureauc racy , t h e polit ical class, t h e

ar t iculate politicai op in ion , o r o n t h e p e o p l e . T h e e lec t ion

results of ? h e S t a t e s of Delhi. Madhya P r a d e s h , Ra jas t an a n d

m a n y o the r s only conf i rmed this p o s i t i ~ n , ~ ' for in all t h e s e

s t a t e s t h e BJP led a l l i a r~ce s w e p t t h e pol ls ,

Table 4 BJP-led C:oalition government: Party wise Representation

i r-- - ~- -- , ~- -

Akaii Dai 8

vp-~~ ~ -

, r . - . ~

Shiv Sena h ! 1 6 ---- . -~ - -

~ - , ~~- I PMK 4

Party Number o f MPs.

+ . - -. - - - ( Arunachal Congress

t 2

Number of Ministers

Independents .- - t ----- --

Total Number of i

Ministers r I 1 ! - _. --

Source: Dr B.L. Fadia, Indian Government and Politics (Agra: Sahitya Bhavan Publications: 2001) P. 735

Burdened with despera te allies and a fractured manda te ,

Atal Behat-! Vajpayee struggled to balance conflict with

consensus. His rnajo: objective was to impart a degree of

coherence kc, a coalition which was m a d e u p of parties with

~ndiv idua l agenda "

lndia then , appears to have entered a fairly long session

o f coalit~ori governmc?i~rs, fragile or enduring." Only the Jana ta

Party Governrnei-~t-a orie party majority coalition-lasted longer

than any other coa l~ t ion governments-two a n d a half years .

Formed i r ! i\.lart:t! 1975. the Jana tha Party prematurely fell in

Ju ly 1979 Others lasted for less than a year, the life of short

Lived Governments range trom two weeks to four months.

Barring the mlnority regimes of lndira Gandhi (1969-70) a n d

P.V. N a r a s ~ m h a Rao (1991-96) that survived either through

artful m a n ~ p u l a t ~ o n ot the political agenda or through

questionable techniques of floor-crossing, minority governments

led by Charan Singh, V . P . Singh, Chandra Shekhar , A.B.

Vajpayee, H.D. Deve Ciowda and I .K. Gujral went down in fiery

spectacles of backroon~ :infighting a n d betrayal.31

11. Coalition Scenario in lndia - At State Level

Both at the Centre and in all States (except Kerala) from

195% t o 1967, India witnessed one dominant party rule of the

Congress. with the non-Congress parties remaining in the

opposit ion. In some States the political picture in the

parliamentary form t h e government was s o unbalanced that in

these States the opposition parties were pushed almost t o the

fringe. This was the hangover of the political climate that

emerged frcm the freedom struggle, in which the Congress

Party hail occupieii a pivotal position a n d had retained its

broad [~c.~.itical ttppi,rl

T h ~ r e was however a gradual shift from the pattern of

one dorr~inani party rule The growing political, social,

e cz~nom~c and r r g ~ o ~ i a l tensions gave rise t o the emergence of

different parties w h ~ c h wielded influences in States. In course

of time an uneven political pattern was evolved. In those

States where non-Cot~gress parties mustered enough combined

strength to have the working majority in Sta te legislatures,

coalition governments were formed. Punjab, Bihar, Uttar

Pradesh. West Bengal. Kerala. Orissa a n d Madhya Pradesh a re

examples of coaiitiori governments. The year 1967 was the

watershed n Indian po1itic:j. Riding on the crest of mounting

non-Congressism, non..Congress coalitions in the form of

'Samyukta Vidhayak L)al' governments were formed in several

States. :Most a ? then1 had ideological heterogeneity. The

exceptions were the ~:oalition governments in West Bengal,

Tripura a n d Kerala. The coalition governments in West Bengal

and Tripura were an aili.ance of Left parties where a s in Kerala

i t was a coalition government of Left front a n d Democratic

Front.32

The S a m y u k t a Vidhayak Dal coalitions in Sta tes collapsed

in course ot t ~ m e , as a result of their inner contradictions,

on ideology and polltical o r~en ta t ions of the constituents.

40

Because of relative ideological, political and programmatic

homogeneity, the coalitions mainly of the left parties in West

Bengal and Tripura ansd of left a n d democratic forces in Kerala

had a greater degree of stability and a s such they could survive

anti revlve '"

Table 5 The Stability Pattern of Coalition Governments (At State Level Between 1967

and 1971) - - -- - -.-

Numbet 0 t

States governm ents

- , - - .

Haryana , 3

- ~ ~

I Average ; Period of , Governments I, Life ! ( I n months)

~~

4 .2

Number of spells of

President's Rule

Average period of Presidents

( I n months) PE.-L

/ Kerala 2 20.5 1 1 1 1.8 I -- t-- -

3

Pradesh

Uttar 4 7 1

Pradesh

West 3 8 9

I Bengal , 1 1 I - --.- ~ .. - - ~ ~ . -

i Orissa 1 45.9 I I

Source: Iqbal Narain, Twilight o r Dawn: Political Change in Indira, 1967-1971 ( A g r a l 9 7 2 1 p 150,

Table 5 shows t h a t the largest number of Cabinet changes

have been in Bihar with an average of 4.2 months

governmental life. One could thus hypothesize that one-par ty

dominant coalitions have longer lease of life a s in Kerala; a n d

infrastructure dominated coalitions a s in Bihar have a shorter

span of life.

Table 6 Fall of ministries in the states, 1967-1971 ~. ~ . --r Period in Office Mlliistry h e a d ~ i i by

~~

1 Bihar i

1 1 Maharrrdya Prctsatl ' ~ ~ n h a f' : 1 Mar 1 9 6 7 - 2 5 J a n , 1968 I

2 . S P Siirgt~ 2 8 J a n . , 1 9 6 8 - 3 1 J a n . , 1 9 6 8 I !

I 3. B . P Marrdal S h o s i l ~ t Dal-

Collgress s u p ~ ~ o r t e i l l

:31 J a n . - 1 8 Mar . , 1 9 6 8

4 . Bhola F'aswan S h a s i r ~ (Second

U.F. M~nis t ry ]

1 6 Bhola F'aswarr S h d s t r ~ (SLrDi 2 2 J u n e - 1 J u n e . 1969

2 2 Mar.-25 J u n e , 1 9 6 8

I 5. Sa rda r Har ihar Singkt (Congress

led coali t ion; i

7. Daroga Prasad Ral :Gong-R led 16 F e b - 1 8 Dec . , 1 9 7 0

s ix -pa r t y coal i t io t~ 1 I I

2 6 Feb . -19 J u n e , 1 9 6 9

1 8 KarrJoiJrl Thakur 1 22 Dec . , 1 9 7 0 - 1 J u n e , 1 9 7 1 / ! 1 9 . Bhola F'aswan Sastitri ,June 1971-27 Dec . , 1971 L ~~

-- - ~ ~ ~

F u j a r a t I j 1 0 . H i t e~ r~ i r a Desai (( :snyressC)) Mar., 1967-31 Mar., 1971 I Haryana F 1 11

Bhagwat Dayal Si,sima Congress ) ( 10-22 Mar., 1967 I

/ Madhya Pradesh

1 2 Rao B~rendra Singh

I

Mar. 1967- 24 Oct., 1969 I

24 Mar. , 2 1 Nov., 1967

1 Nov. , 1969- 1 Aug., 1970

8 Mar. 30-July, 1967 I 30 J u l y . 1967- 19 Mar. ,

1968

1 3 Mar: 19 mar. , 1969

I Mysore 1

1 I I I

18 Veerer~tira Patil (Congress-0) I29 May, 1968-27 Mar.,

I Punjab I

I lg71 I

S . Gurnarn Singh i i ; .F . j

(Congress-supportetl Janata Party)

G u r n a r ~ ~ Singh (Akali-Jarla Sangh

U F I -~ ~ ~~ ~- ~ ~ ~- ~

8 Mar.-22 Nov., 1967

25 Nov., 1967- 23 Aug.,

1968

1 7 Feb . , 1969- 26 Mar.,

1970 -

- -- ~~

- ~~ -- - ~-~ 1 Uttar Pradesh i 122 C B Rupta i(lonqress)

( 23 Charnn S ~ n g h (SVLI)

1 1 4 M a r . 1 Apr.. 1967 I 3 Apr., 1967- 1 7 Feb. ,

1968

1 6 Feb . , 1969- 1 0 Feb.,

1970

125 Charall Slngt~ (SVD) 1 7 F o b - 2 9 Sept . , 1 9 7 0 I 18 Oct., 1970- 3 0 mar.,

1971

27 Ajoy Mtlkher~ee (Ilriiled C)e~nocrat~c 2 Mar.- 2 1 Nov., 1967

Front) i I 29 A j o ~ MI k h i i r r i ~ o (I I 25 Feb 1969- 16 M a r ,

1 9 7 0

I

I

130 A J O ~ M l ~ k h e r ) ~ i ~ (I' t I 2 Apr - 2 8 J a n . , 1971

i 28 P C tihush ;Cor>yress supported I I Miiii jr i t! , M i n i s t r y )

1 Manipur I I

21 Nov. 1967- 20 Feb. 1988

1 3 3 . Koireng Singh iCoogros i ] 1 Jan . 24- Sept . . 1969 I

I

1 31. Koirenq Sing)) iCollqr,?ss)

I 32 . Lor~yja~i ) Thamban 5111gh (I! F i

Pondicherry i I

Mar. 4-Oct., 1967

13 -25 Oct. , 1967

134. Venkatasubba Reddisr (Congress) 1 19 Mar., 1967 I 1 35 M 0 H Farrui Marl. d r (Congressl 1 6 Mar., 1967 I 36. 'Ventakasubba Reddiar

- _ -- ... -

1 9 7 4 pp 11-12 Source : Subhash C Kashyap, The Politics of Power (New Delhi,

Table 7 Coalition Types: sub-variables

l i pre-election or post-

I i elet tion ,

i ! !

1 ( By bme gquence of

1 coal~tlon lormatioli

I I !

1 2. By rnumal strength :,f idi

I i coalitiolr parbien

' i

10)

By strength of coalition partners vs-

a-vls leglslativu strength

Electoml alliance

turned coalition

Che-par@

dornu~arlt coalition

~b Malor party dorni-

1 rlant coalition I 1

(dl Majonty govem-

menhl coabbon

(bl Minonty govem-

mental coal~tion

(a) Kemla coalition after 1967

general elections and 1970

mid-term poll; Orissa coalition a k r 1967

elections, Punjab coalition

after mid-term poll (Feb.

1969); West Bengal

coalition after mid-term poll

(Feb. 1969)

The coalition in U.P., B i a r

and Madhya Pmdesh after

1967 elections.

Tamil Nadu (DMK secured

138 out of 234 seats)

where the DMK decided to

form the government and

other parhers of the

electoml alliance continued

to support it in the

Legislature

Congress (R)-BKD coalition

in U.P.; SwatantraJana

Congress coalition in

Orissa.

Coalition in West Bengal, Madhya Pmdesh and U.P.

Gill Minktry in Punjab; P.C. Ghosh Minisby in West

Bengal, Achutha Menon

Min- in Kemla.

--. -

By ideologcal

onenlabon of coal~t~ori partnen

~~- - ~ -

~ a ) . Ideologically homogeneous

coalition govemment

; t l ) Ideologically hetero-

i geneous coalition

govemment.

I a ) j Many party govem- I ! mental coalition

I J ' Two party govern-

' mental coalition

1 Few party govern- mental coalit~on

ib) i Secular coalition I i 1 1.~ - -/- -

Source- Iqbal Nara in , T ~ ~ i l i g h i o r Dawn:

Swatantm-Jana Congress

coalition in Onssa.

SVD Govemments in U.P., M.P. and Bihar

SVD Govemments in U.P. and Bihar

Congress (R)-BUD coalition in U.P.; SwantantmJana

Congress coalition in

Orissa; AkaliJana Sangh coalition in Punjab

Gumam Singh Ministry after 1967 in Punjab

Coalitions in B i a r and W - J a n a Sangh coalition

in Punjab

United Front governments in Kemla and West BengaJ.

ca l C h a n g e in Ind ia ,

T h e F o u r t h G e n e r a l E l e c t i o n s s a w t h e c o l l a p s e of t h e

C o n g r e s s s y s t e m w h e n n o n - C o n g r e s s c o a l i t i o n g o v e r n m e n t s

w e r e f o r m e d in e i g h t S t a t e s b y b r e a k a w a y C o n g r e s s g r o u p s .

H o ~ ~ e v e r . tzu ot t h e s e c o a l ~ t ~ o n s - c o b b l e d t o g e t h e r by i g n o r i n g

ideo log ica i d i i t e r e n c e s - s u r v i v e d l o n g . States l ike K e r a l a , W e s t

B e n g a i . P ~ i r i j a b a n d O : ~ j s a w e r e e x c e p t i o n s b e c a u s e of i d e o l o g y

a n d s u b - c u i t u r a l r a t u I ,?

Agili~l out of rrle 138 State Governments since March

1967 to M a r c t ~ 1996. the s ~ n g l e party majority governments

lasted. o n iin average 4 1 months, w h ~ l e the average life of the

40 coalit~ori governments was only 26 months. The 40 minority

governments, propped up by outside support , could hardly run

for a yea1 T h ~ s does strengthen the view that the coalition

governments have a precarious existence. But the fact that 8

pre-elect~on coalitions-mostly in West Bengal, Kerala a n d

Tripura-have marlaged to last longer than even single party

majority governments put a big question mark over this

hypo thes~s "

Note:s and References

-- I Giovani Sartroi, Parties and Par@ Systems (London: Cambridge

University Press 1976) 27

Parties and Party Systems 27

3 "Political parties," Er~cyclopaedia o f SocialSciences, Vol. X I , (New York:

The Mac Miilarl Company. 194'3) 590

" Rajarji Kotharl. Party Sysrerr7s and Election Studies (Bombay: Allied

Publishers. 19641 2

Part: Sysre~rls an(: !Yectio~i St~idies 3

Roiwt t 1 4 Blank F'ol~tical Partles An lntrod~~ct~on i England Prent~ce

Hall 1980 7 i

Dr :>undar Kan, Preface to Coalitic~n Politics in India-A Search for

Sfabjiiiy, ed. Dr. Sundar Ran) [New Delhi: National Publishing House, 2001) IX.

%n elected coalition is defined as a front formed prior to the election that

undertakes joint campaign f i Legislative coalition is defined as a front between

two sets of parties, one forming the govemment (by one or more parties) and the

other extending legislative support to it without joining the cabinet. An executive

coalition IS, ot course, the group of parties in govemment. A federal coalition is

defined as paflies in coalition governments simultaneously at National and State

Levels.

Madtlu Dandavate. 'Coalition Politics in India." Politics in India

(September, 1997 48

lo Fadia B.L. Indian Government and Politics (Agra: Sahitya Bhavan

Publications, 2301 1 728.

I I liidiaii Gover:rimri~~r 2nd Plditics 728.

l2 Indian Government and Politics 729

l3 India11 Government and Politics 729.

l4 Mandal Commission: On 7'" August, 1990 Sri. V.P. Singh announced in

the Parliament his Government's momentous decision of social justice on the

Report of the Mandal Comrniz,sion. The Report which was submitted some ten

years earlier in 1980 had inter-alia recommended 27% reservations for socially

and educationally backward classes in services under government and public

undertakings V P Singh s announcement, it was alleged, was politically

motivated to rieutralise the effect of Devi Lal's 'ffissan Rally.' Reservations on the

basis of caste buss likely to disintegtate the country. It sparked off a protest

- ~.~ A

mcwement arnong college tildents all over northern India. Rajeev Goswami, a

B.A.. final ye?r student oi ilesh Bandu College, Delhi made immolation bid

agalnst the ,+nnoiinc+mei1t of the ~mplementat~on of the Mandal Commission

recornmei~ddt~ons att~acted ,he attc>nt~on ot lndlan People

1 , . C)t: ';rpternc:,er 25 1990. i. K. Advani, the then President of the BJP,

began his 111.1)00 1( M Sonianarith-Ayodhya Rat Yatra In U.P. to render Kar

Seva and thereby to ~constrilct a Karn Temple by demolishing the then existing

Babri Masjid But the National Front Government's decision to stop the 'Rath

Yatra' led to the withdrawal of support to the V.P. Singh's coalition government

by the WP on 23 October. 1990 morning. Within hours after the arrest of L.K.

Advani at Sanistipur In Bihax, a BJP delegation led by A.B. Vajpayee, called on

the President R. Venkitaraman at Rashtrapathi Bhavan. A letter intimating the

withdrawal ot support to the National Front Government along with the BJP

resolution dated 17 Octobe~ 1990 to thls effect was handed over.

l6 Venkltararnan R . M y Presidential Years (New Delhi: 1994) 427

l7 Mahendra Prasad S~ngh, "Minority Governments in India: An Analysis."

Coalition Politi~s m India-Search for Political Stabit@, ed. Dr. Sundar Ram (New

Delhi: National Publish~ng House, 2001) 112.

'"30 C ; R 'The General Elections to Lok Sabha-Context, Verdict and

Message." Poi~tjcs India, Voi !. No.1 (July 1996): 35-38.

l9 Dr. Sundar Ram. .-Coalition Politics in India: In Search for Political

Stability." Coalition Politics iri India-Search for Political Stability, ed. Dr. Sundar

Ram (New Delh~: National Publishing House, 2001) 273.

20 Jangarn P T and Patagundi. S.S., "The United Front Coalition: A

perception anti Refiection ' Coalition Politiu' in India-Search for Political

Stability, ed. Dr Sundar Ran1 \blew Delhi: National Publishing House, 2001) 46.

Madhu Dandavadc,. "CoaMion Politics in India." Coalition Politics in

India-Search for Political Si'abilit/, ed. Dr. Sundar Ram (New Delhi: National

Publishing tlouse. 2C1011 4t).

" Dl Sundar Rarn "Introduction-Coalition Governance in India; A

Salvation 01 Syndrurne?. '' Coalition Polit~cs in India-Search for Political Stability,

ed. Dr. Suri<idr Rarri ;Ne i~ Delhi: National Publish~ng House, 2001) 23.

' - ,Agarala Esware iReddi. Coalition Government," Politics lndia (April

1997): 27

24 F'aci~a B L . Indiar~ Government and Politics (Agra: Sahitya Bhavan

Publications. 2001; 731

25 Harish Khare and Muralikhar Reddy, "Coalition and Controversies,"

The Hindu (30 November 1990): 1 C

26 Gadkar~ S S , "Un~ted Front Coalition Government in India: Experiences

and Prospects " Coalition Politics in India-Search for Political Stability, ed.

Dr. Sundar Ram (New Delhi: National Publishing House, 2001) 90-91.

'' Dr Sundar Ram. "Coalition Experiments in India: In Search for Political

Stability, " Coalition Polittcs in India-Search for Political Stabiliw, ed. Dr. Sundar

Ram (New Delhi: National Publishing House, 2001) 278.

'' Karnala Prasad "BJP and the Nation's Governance." Mainstream

(19 December, 19981 16

" Fadia B L , Indian Government and Politics (Agra: Sahiiya Bhavan

Publications 2001 1 735.

3@/ndia Todaq: March 1998: 13

31 Fadia B . L . Indian Government and Politics (Agra: Sahitya Bhavan

Publications 2001 1 735.

~-.

Madhu Dantavate. "Coalition Politics in India," CoaMon Politia in

lrld~a Sear& for k'o/lt~cai Stabri~~ ed Dr Sundar Ram (New Delhi National

Publishing tdouse. 2001 I

\l.xlhir [lanta\'<~tt! "Coalition Politics In India," Coalition Politics in

d a - t o Rjl;tic.~~ .!;tabi/i&. -2d. Dr. Sundar Ram (New Delhi: National

Publishing House. 2001) 43

3 V a d i a BL ... lndian Government and Polilcs (Agra: Sahitya Bhavan

Publicatlon5 2001 ; 739