Assignment

Since independence India has multi-party system. There were several parties which
contested first Lok Sabha During first general elections like Indian National Congress,
Communist Party of India, Socialist Party, Kisan Mazdoor Praja Party, Peoples
Democratic Front, Scheduled Castes Federation, Jana Sangh, and several other. Even
after having several parties with distinct ideologies, different social base, different goals
and ideas, Congress managed to rule India for several decades. These developments till
1989 reflects that classification of party system by Giovanni Sartori suits better to the
party system of India. He suggested that party system should be classified by the number
of relevant parties and degree of fragmentation. In Indian context there was only one
relevant party which played a significant role in Indian politics since independence.
Therefore, according to his classification India had the ‘pre-dominant party system’
where a single party successively wins elections unlike one party system in which a
single political party has the right to form the government. Although time and again India
has witnessed transition in its party system, from one party dominance to multi-party
system and from multiparty to again one-party dominance. India’s experience with
political parties is one of the most successful party systems in operation and it is a system
that cuts across the usual stereotypes.

The freedom to form political parties and contest elections reflects that India’s party
system somewhere like the West, but there are differences as well. Western party system
provides a choice between alternatives and their model of party system reflects
alternation or replacement of political parties regularly whereas India’s party system
always has only one dominant party over several political parties. This one party
dominance can not be called hegemonic or one party system in India because of the free
working of the electoral process, the crystallization of the factional structure within the
party of consensus, the critical pressure exercised by the opposition, and the general
tendency of the leadership to preserve democratic forms, to respect rule of law and to
hold various elements together in some sort of a balance of interests.

Rajni Kothari describes India’s party system with the role of two major groups- ‘party of
consensus’ and ‘parties of pressure’ in Indian politics. Although these were the part of
Indian political system’ they played dissimilar roles. The former functioned inside the
margin which had consensus from people to rule the government, though it has many
factions inside. Later played a key role in pressurizing the party of consensus remaining
on the margin, but it was not alternative to the ruling party. These group consisted several
opposition groups and parties, and other interest groups and important individuals. Their
function was constantly pressurizing and criticizing party of consensus and influencing
opinion and interests of factions inside the margin. It also applied a latent threat that if the
ruling party ever failed to reflect public opinion in their policies and if the bond of
factions broke down, they would replace the ruling party.

In India, the role of party of consensus was played by Indian National Congress that is
why Rajni Kothari calls it ‘Congress System’. Congress, an organisation which played a
key role at the forefront in Indian Freedom Struggle became a political party after
independence in 1947. Although there were other political parties as well but Congress
being an eminent political party there was little competition between political parties
rather there was a competition between popular leaders of Indian Freedom Struggle like
JL Nehru, Sardar Patel, C. Rajagopalachari, Morarji Desai and others. It led to the
factionalism in Congress and rise of Nehruvian Consensus in India. Nehru became the
face of the party and a system of coordination developed between the various levels
through vertical faction chains. There developed two tiers of political organization, a
managerial class of influential Congress leaders who held important position at State and
District level and a class of link men between them to operate the organisation.
Sometimes state level leaders pose a threat to the ruling party, provided alternative
leadership, exercised controls, and pressures on it. They also replaced leaders sometimes
like in 1953 Chief Minister of Madras, C. Rajagopalachari was replaced by Kamaraj, the
president of State Congress was then. However such conflicts at state level was mediated
and resolved by Central leadership through the system of ‘observers’ appointed to
supervise the organizational elections in the States and general elections and selection of
party candidates for general elections also helped Congress to concern rivalries. After
Nehru, K. Kamaraj played similar role at Centre to choose successor of Nehru from Lal
Bahadur Shastri, Morarji Desai and Jagjivan Ram.

Congress rule was based on historical consensus of national movement which began to
over with time. But Congress remained a dominant party due to its features. Firstly,
Congress had several factions which made it more representative party than other,
provided flexibility, and sustained internal competition. Secondly, it was prepared to
absorb other social groups and movements from outside the party which reflected present
consensus of the party and thus, parties of pressure were unable to provide alternative of
Congress. Moreover, it gave considerable importance to opposition leaders which
prevented frustration and bitterness in opposition. For instance, Ambedkar had Ministry
of Law and Shyama Prasad Mukherjee had Ministry of Industries and Supplies in first
Nehru Ministry. Besides this, opposition was ineffective due to other reasons as well.
Opposition at Centre was an alliance of State parties which were heterogenous in nature
which always had problem of discipline from above. It was deeply fragmented and
greatly divided. They were able to form government at state like CPI in Kerala level but
remained parties of pressure at Centre for a long time. Whereas Congress beside
historical importance was a party of well-knit movement across the nation having its root
at both state and national level. It had features like tolerance to opposition, democratic
and secular ideology, non-violent nationalism, and intellectual pacifism. Obviously,
Congress was an unparalleled movement for independence, and this significantly
contributed to the that place of Congress in India.

Following the death of Nehru, an intense conflict arose at Centre between top leaders of
Congress. Gradually the system of mediation, arbitration and inter-level coordination of
Congress deteriorated. Along with this, party failed to accommodate interests and newly
emergent groups in its margin of consensus. This led to gradual splits in Congress and
parties of pressure began to gain strength. In places where Congress weakened and lost
consensus, short lived opposition alliances replaced it and formed the government.
Historical defeat of Congress in Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Bihar, Rajasthan, and West
Bengal in 1967 election was such a moment in Indian politics which marked the end of
an of the unchallenged supremacy of Congress. Although it was not the end of one-party
dominance, Congress continued to play significant role at Centre and in 1971 it again
gained the power. At the time of independence quite few social divisions were available
because the institutional arrangements and nationalist movement made it necessary to
mobilize people on macro level like caste blocs, regional divisions, and communal
divisions. Since the beginning of seventies, Indira Gandhi sought to mobilize people on
class and poverty lines in such a manner that other social cleavages became neutral. Thus,
Indira Gandhi managed to defeat her intra-party and outside party opponents and revived
the Congress even after a national wide opposition of National Emergency from 1975-77.
However, Congress lost Lok Sabha Election of 1977, but it was for a short period, a big
alliance of several opposition parties, Janata Party came to power.
As described by Yogendra Yadav and Suhas Palshikar, second life of Congress came to
an abrupt end. Rajiv Gandhi’s regime reflected that rather than an accommodative party,
Congress became a closed party not reflecting the concerns of interest groups and it
became a closed one-party system. The result of 1989 Lok Sabha election seemed to be
the repetition of 1977 elections i.e. opposition unity, a huge wave against Congress rule
in North India and formation of minority government by Chandrasekhar. It was expected
that Congress would return to power soon. But it was the demise of one-party dominance
in India and as happens in a multi-party system, alliance governments were formed in
India.

With the change in political leaders and ruling party, the issues involved in political
competition also changed. The demise of Congress became an opportunity for opposition.
Indian politics reflected a remarkable change in the rules of political game with the
arrival of three ‘Ms’ in political arena: Mandir, Mandal and Market. The controversy of
Ramjanmbhoomi became a political agenda of Bhartiya Janata Party and it became a
significant opponent of Congress at Centre. BJP came to the center stage the events of
1989-91. It came to power in the most crucial state, Uttar Pradesh and won 120 seats in
1991 Lok Sabha election. Besides this, this also witnessed the rise of backward class and
Dalit politics in North India, in South it started around sixties. Although Congress was an
umbrella party. It would symbolically incorporate various social sections, but party’s
upper-class upper-caste leadership should be recognized as legitimate and as
representative of masses. Under the cloak of consensus, a distance was always
maintained between the supporters and the beneficiaries of congress system. This led to
the recognition of Mandal issue by other parties and reservation for OBCs and Dalits and
share in political power became national issues. India’s party system witnessed multi-
party system only after 1989. As Duverger argued first past the post system in a long run
always leads to bipolarity what we call Duverger’s Law, likewise, seems to happen in
India. Since 1999, there only two political alliances at the center of Indian national
politics- BPJ led NDA and Congress led UPA.

Submitted by: Rachit Kumar

Roll No.: 21928 (CIC)