COALITION POLITICS IN INDIA

SUBJECT: POLITICAL OBLIGATION

SUBMITTED TO: DR. NARENDRA NAROTTAM

SUBMITTED BY: DHARMESH SINGH CHAUHAN

ROLL NO. 268

SECTION-A

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF STUDY AND RESEARCH IN LAW, RANCHI

1|Page
 Table of Contents

Introduction...........................................................................................................................................3
Research Methodology......................................................................................................................6
Aim of the Research..........................................................................................................................6
Coalition Politics in India........................................................................................................................7
Political Change...................................................................................................................................10
Reasons for Change in Politics.................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Changing Position of the Congress Party.........................................................................................12
Growing Political Activism.................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.4
Alternatives to Congress....................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.5
Politics of Economic Growth in India...................................................................................................18
Politics of Economic Liberalization..................................................................................................19
Working of Tenth Coalition Government at the Union Level from 2009 Onwards..........................23
Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................26
References.......................................................................................................................................27

2|Page
 INTRODUCTION

The term coalition is derived from the Latin word coalition which is the verbal I substantive of
coalesce co-together and alesere to grow up which means to go or to grow together. According
to the oxford English dictionary the word coalition means an alliance for combined action of
distinct parties persons or state without permanent incorporation into one body. According to the
new universal encyclopaedia coalition refers to ministry composed of members of two or more
political parties men of different views joining together for some common purpose. In the strict
political sense the word coalition is used for an alliance or temporary union for joint action of
various powers or states and also of the union into a single government of distinct parties or
members of distinct parties. It is generally accepted that a coalition can take place only within
the contexts of mixed motive in which both conflict and common interest and simultaneously
present and must govern the course of action chosen.

When group of people come together with a common agenda/motive to achieve some end is
known as coalition. In terms of politics it signifies a parliamentary or political grouping of
different parties, interest groups, individual candidates formed for making or influencing policy
decisions or securing power. In words of William A. Gamson coalition is defines as, the joint use
of resources to determine the outcome of a decision. In a mixed motive situation involving more
than two units in the words of Ogg coalition as employed in political sense commonly denotes a
cooperative arrangement under which distinct political parties or at all events members of such
parties unite to form a government or ministry when no single party is able to form government.

Coalition politics is based on a system of governance by a group of political parties or by several

3|Page
single party is in a position to get a majority in the parliament and some parties form a coalition
group or an alliance and thus form a government. It is a collaborative or cooperative effort in
which several political parties or some political parties in association with some independent
representatives form a government.

Political parties play an indispensable role to any democratic system and one of the crucial roles
they play in the electoral process is in setting up candidates and conducting election campaigns.
In recent years, there is a trend of a succession of unstable governments both at central level as
well as at state level and the reason for such a recurring phenomenon is said to be the archaic and
chaotic functioning of political parties. Alliance and coalition are made, broken and changed at
whim and the balance of power seems to be held not by those at the union level but by minor
parties or in other words by regional parties on the fringes. It is always the minority or regional
parties who make changes. There is no doubt that Indian political parties have fragmented over
the years. One Major party splits, mergers, counter splits and have dramatically increased the
number of parties that now contest elections. In 1952, 74 parties contested elections whilst in
recent years this number has swollen to more than 177, and has been consistently increasing
since 1989. Can the instability at the union level or in the states be attributed solely? To the
growing number of political parties, the malaise with which the political system suffers today
lies in the functioning and the dynamics of the party system in India apart of course from the
other causes in the working of the political system as a whole.

Indian politics and the ideology of political parties have been greatly influenced by cultural
diversity, social ethnic, caste community and religious pluralism. The two major categories of
political parties in India which are recognized by the Election Commission of India are national
party and state party, on the basis of certain specified criteria. In present era, in general election
of 2014 there are six national parties, more than 50 (approx 54) state parties recognized as such
by the election commission of India. The national parties are Indian National Congress,
Bharatiya Janata Party, Communist party of India, Communist party of India (Marxist), Bahujan
Samaj Party and Nationalist congress party. Today coalition politics is in operation in India at the
national level as well as in some of the states of the Indian union.

4|Page
Features of coalition politics-

The following are the features of coalition politics in India particularly since 1986.

1. It has been quite evident that today no single national level party is in a position to get a
majority in elections and to form a government.

2. Coalitions with regional parties to form government is only option. It also appears that in
future pre poll alliance will be made after the election results only limited political changes will
be made in these.

3. Since a coalition government is formed on the basis of a mutually agreed common programme
or common agenda and it sustains itself through consensus decision making. The role of political
of consensus will gain strength in the Indian politics which avoid monopoly of single party.

4. When coalition government forms the leadership role will fall in the hands of the single largest
constituent of the coalition alliance.

5. In the present era three distinct alliance groups appears to be emerging in Indian politics
namely BJP led alliance (NDA), Congress led alliance (UPA) and Third front alliance.

Coalition politics has tended to make the working of the Indian political system in general more
complex, more problematic and even fluid. Coalition form of government strengthens the
demand for the incorporation of at least some features of the presidential system in the Indian
parliamentary system of governance. With all of the above mentioned features and emerging
trends we can say that the era of coalition politics has really open in the Indian political system.
After having worked through a one party dominant party system from many years the Indian
political system in the present era is working through a system of coalition politics under which
several political parties are simultaneously sharing power both at the center and state levels.

5|Page
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY-

The doctrinal method of research has been followed in the research of this project on Salwa
Judum. The research has been carried out through extensive research with the aid of various
methods and especially materials from the NUSRL Law Library, Ranchi. Accompanied with this
a limited list of personal materials has also been used to aid this research. Online resources and
legal databases have been used in the research for this case. Also the internet and web based
resources have helped in an extensive way towards the completion of this research on the
particular case. It is hereby assured that no part of this project has been plagiarised in any form
or from any source.

AIM OF THE RESEARCH-

My project will analyze the Coalition Politics in India, reasons for change in politics in India
which led from majority to minority rule, changing position of the Congress party, growing
political activism, alternatives to Congress. Subsequently I shall delve into the politics of
economic growth in India, politics of economic liberalization. Lastly, I have analyzed working of
the Tenth coalition government at the union level.

6|Page
 COALITION POLITICS IN INDIA

Contemporary India has today undergone a complex and tortuous political transition. The demise
of the one party dominance system has given birth to an era of coalition with the decline of the
congress and in the absence of a national alternative having a countrywide spread it was logical
for the people to repose faith in different parties and groups some confined to region. For the last
couple of decades the Indian political landscape has been dominated by coalition politics.

Unlike general perception coalition in politics is not a new concept for Indian politics
coalitionism as a form of government is common and widely practiced in Europe. Indian too has
accumulated not inconsiderable amount of experience in the form of governing arrangement.
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 collation consisting of Congress
and Muslim league in UP but Congress 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 a share in governance in other states like Punjab, Congress formed
coalitions with other regional parties.

In 1947, the interim government under the prime minister ship of Nehru was the first formal
coalition consisting the Congress, the Muslim league, the Hindu Mahasabah etc. the electoral
history of India and the records of union government since in dependence can be divided into
two phases first up to 1989 a period of eight elections resulting in electoral majority for one party
and relatively stable union governments except for a period of 1967-72 and the second the
decade since 1989 marked by fractured verdicts in 1989, 1991,19896,1998 and 1999 and 2004
resulting in the formation of minority or coalition government.

7|Page
Coalition politics in India for is very volatile and one again pre poll alliance is buzzing
everywhere with scrambling for seats and allies. Alliance is subjected to last minute changes any
time. However amidst these the prime ministerial candidates have been announced by the
existing coalition parties. In the 2014 General elections the prime minister candidates for NDA
led coalition is the present Chief Minister of Gujarat Shri Narendra Modi and UPA coalition
prime minister candidate is still not declared, Aam Aadmi party prime minister candidate is
Arvind Kejriwal, while the third front was seen scuttling for suitable person amongst them and
this party formed by teaming some regional parties aim to led alliance and BJP led coalition.

UPA is formed with constituent parties such as Indian National Congress party. Dravida
Munnetra Kazhagam, J&K National conference, Lok Janshakti party, Jharkhand Mukti Morcha,
Indian Union Muslim League, Republic party of India. Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra
Kazhagam, Sikkims Democratic Front and All India Majlis- E-Ittehadul Muslimeen. The
Rashtriya Janataldal, The Lok Jana-Shakti party and Samajwadi Party has formed an alliance in
UPA and Bihar, but still claim to be party of UPA.

The NDA party comprises of BJP, Janta Dal (united), Shiva Shena, Shirominal Akali Dal, Asom
Gana Parishad Rastriya, Lok Dal Indian National Lok and Mizo National front. The third front
alliance was in power 1996-98. Constituent parties are communist party of India. Telugo Desam
party, Biju Janatal Dal secular revolutionary party. However, in a political set up like the one we
have today it very difficult to predict which party will tie up with other party. Recently after the
dates for the 2014 general election were announced, all the major parties stated setting up fronts
to project themselves as the leading contender for the top job, irrespective of their earlier
rivalries.

This election was quite different from the earlier ones, this time it was a four way fight and not
the tradition two ways. The formation of the third front as well as the formation of one year old
party Aam Aadmi Party had led to sleepless nights for both the major parties also the unclear
picture about the voters favorite party has increased the risk. Despite the shortcoming of the
coalition governments there is a positive side about it. Greater participation of the regional
parties has put the regional issues on the central table which otherwise would not have got the
treatment they deserved. In his election the effort of the parent party is to focus on regional
issues through the regional allies to maximize their gain. So it would be wrong to say that the

8|Page
coalition era has been an all wrong political errs, it has been a mixed bag with some
compromises and some challenges the third front and AAP joining. The fray has made the fight
more interesting and forces the other parties to have a reality check on their previous work. In
order to have stable coalition it is necessary that political parties moderate their ideologies and
programmes. They should be more open to take others points of view as well. They must
accommodate each other’s interests and concerns. But this is not what happening in India. In
Indian parties do not always agree on the correct path for governmental policy, different parties
have different interests and beliefs and it is difficult to sustain a consensus on issues when
disagreements arise, they often fail to see eye to eye with the government on many public
policies. However this is not to say that we have never had successful coalitions. Governments in
Kerala and West Bengal and NDA and the UPA at the centre have been successful coalitions.
Other coalition should learn from these because it is a difficult to operate in an environment full
of disagreements. The fact of the matter is that India has had coalition government in the past
and it will continue to have in the future as well.

Therefore it is in best interest for all that parties develop a sense of understanding and do not
play games of power politics and bad politics, it is high time that the MPs realize how bad India
fares on other economic variable in the world and it is time they put their energy in improving
those than just catering to their selfish interests. If political parties feel that coalitions are too
much of a compromise and always lead to an unstable governments, then India can think of
alternative forms of government the presidential system can be one but it has its own cons. It is
very important for the political parties to moderate their ideas as there are no readymade
formulas or easy solutions to make coalition work in a smooth manner.

9|Page
 P OLITICAL CHANGE

Ninth general election of India held in 1989, and it failed to produce a majority government.
Although India’s major political party, the Congress(I), holds its position of largest part in the
parliament, its control of 197 of the 545 seats made it insufficient to form government. Instead,
the National-front is the second-largest group in parliament, formed India’s first minority
government in four decades. Led by V.P. Singh, a former Congress(I) leader, the new
government has fewer than 150 seats and rests on the tacit support of two ideologically distinct
groups, the avowedly secular but essentially communal and pro-Hindu BJP, which controlled 86
seats, and the Left Front, a group of allied communist and left-leaning parties that won more than
50 seats.

The national election of 1989 confirmed and finally brought to the surface two long-term trends
in Indian politics: the declining of the Congress party; the growing of various political groups. A
1989 development representing change rather than continuity was the emergence of a religious
party, BJP which is pro-Hindu party, as a significant political force.

The near future of Indian politics looks uncertain. Good democratic government requires that
activism of the citizenry be channeled through coherent institutions. Demands by India’s various
socio-economic groups are likely to increase, but it is far from certain that political institutions
will be able to accommodate them. In view of recent trends, it is likely that both government and
politics will be more unstable in the near future than in the past.

10 | P a g e
 REASONS FOR CHANGE IN POLITICS

The Changing Position Of The Congress Party

Although the Congress party has been India’s ruling party for most of the past years, electoral
victories since 1967 have not come easily. As the major nationalist party, the party that had led a
successful struggle against British colonialism, the Congress was India’s ‘natural’ ruling party in
the 1950’s. During the 1960’s, however, opposition to the Congress grew in various parts of
India. This opposition was quite diverse: it was led by a regional nationalist party in the southern
state of Tamil Nadu; by a religious party, the pro-sikh Akali Dal in the Punjab; by a various
communist parties in the West-Bengal and Kerala; and by parties resting on the support of rural
‘backward’ castes in the populous heartland state of Uttar Pradesh. (These castes are
predominantly composed of landowning family farmers situated between high castes, such as
Brahmins, and the lowest, or Scheduled Castes). The result was that the Congress party nearly
lost its majority in the national election of 1967.

Ever since that crucial election, the Congress has had difficulty maintaining a stable majority
coalition. Indira Gandhi, who inherited power from her father, Jawaharlal Nehru, won the 1971
election handsomely, but by then the political situation in India had changed quite sharply. The
old Congress partly had split in two, and the segment led by Indira Gandhi never developed the
hallmarks of an organized party: regular membership, internal party elections, or a second and
third tier of leaders with support from the grass-roots. Instead, Indira Gandhi adopted a populist
slogan, garibi hatao, and used her considerable leadership skills to establish direct links with the
majority of Indians, those living in poverty. Having risen to power in 1971 on a wave of
populism and socialism, she fought and won the 1972 state elections in the shadow of a regional
war that India had ‘won’ and that had led to the dismemberment of Pakistan and emergence of
Bangladesh.
11 | P a g e
The rise of populist Indira Gandhi had several major political consequences; especially important
was the organizational decline of Congress(I) party. The more Indira Gandhi’s power came to be
derived from a mass following, the more she bypassed established intermediate leaders and
sought to appoint new party officers herself. Over the short run, as long as Indira Gandhi’s
popularity was unchallenged, this strategy of top-down political appointments helped consolidate
her power. The strategy, however, had long-term costs. The system of top-down appointments
often put in powerful positions individuals who would not necessarily have been the choice of
the Congress by diminishing the legitimacy of its power-level leadership.

There was a growing realization in India in the early 1980’s that Indira Gandhi might not come
back to power in 1985. Her attempts to alleviate poverty had not been very successful. As a
result, she had failed to consolidate her populist support into a stable coalition. She was thus
increasingly in the search of new strategies for securing electoral majorities. Since Hindus are by
far the majority in India, Indira Gandhi sought to mobilize support around the issue of Hindus
versus Indian minorities. For the first time since independence and partition in the late 1940s,
religious themes resurfaced in Indian politics at the national level. While complicated in origin,
the government’s failure to deal with demands of Sikhs in Punjab state for religious and political
autonomy, which resulted in political turmoil and terrorism, was in part rooted in Congress’s
political need to win the support of Hindu’s. Growing Hindu-Muslim problems, though quite
complex and variable in origin, can also be traced to the need to build political majorities around
religious appeals. What was significant about the 1989 election, therefore, was that it was
probably the first ‘usual’ election since 1967 in that it was not conducted in the shadow of mood-
generating euphorias or crises. The reason for a major decline in the Congress’s position is
because of simply by the return to political normality.

12 | P a g e
Growing Political Activism

The unquestioned dominance of the Congress party in the 1950s and the early 1960s rested in
part on the legitimacy it inherited from its role in India’s independence struggle and in part on a
patronage network that stretched from New Delhi to India’s numerous villages. The patronage
system worked because the relations between social ‘superiors’ and ‘inferiors’, especially in the
villages, were characterized in this period by the latter’s relative acquiesce. As a result, rural
elites were periodically able to sway the votes of the lower strata towards the Congress in
exchange for resources that Congress governments controlled.

The spread of democratic ideas and competitive politics has over time helped transform the
acquiescence of lower social groups into political activism in many parts of India. These changes
started in the 1960s, and their significance has grown ever since. The more active and demanding
various groups have become, the less successful has become the old Congress system of
patronage networks. If rural elites cannot readily sway the votes of the lower rural strata, what is
the political utility of challenging governmental largesse to them? These changing political
patterns in the villages have, in turn, contributed to important changes at the top of the political
pyramid.

The failure to implement anti-poverty programmes in the 1970s made it difficult for Indira
Gandhi to consolidate her position with her new supporters. The dissatisfied rural poor of India
thus become susceptible to new forms of political mobilization in the 1980s. Their dissatisfaction
has found diverse expressions, often varying from region-to-region. One disconcerting
nationwide trend, however, has been the attempt by leaders to create new electoral majorities
along religious lines. What is clearer is that the failure of the Congress’s populism has created a
fluid political situation that can be manipulated by demagogues for other purposes.

In addition to the poor, the somewhat better-off middle groups of rural India have become
politically active over the last two decades. Two movements of national significance are worthy
of note. First, there is a ‘reservation’ movement of the ‘backward’ castes, which demand that
government-controlled jobs and education opportunities be allocated-that is, reserved-according

13 | P a g e
to such ascriptive criteria as caste. Demands of this sort have generally had a top-down quality in
the sense that leaders, rather than social groups, have brought the issues to the fore in the hope of
gaining the electoral support of the numerically significant ‘backward’ castes. The more the
champions of these castes have succeeded, the more resistance has been put up by elite castes.
Some of the political turmoil of the 1980s in states like Gujarat and Bihar can be traced to this
type of conflict.

The other movement among the middle rural groups has demanded higher prices for agricultural
products and lower prices for such production inputs as fertilizer, electricity, and credit. Such
initiatives have often attracted the support of those peasants who have done rather well for
themselves by taking advantage of the government’s ‘green revolution’ policies. These groups
now seek to transform their newly acquired wealth into political clout, especially because they
feel that the rich have done much better than they. The present government is more
representative of both ‘backward’ castes and the better-off green-revolution farmers, especially
those of north-central India, than was Rajiv Gandhi’s Congress(I) government.

India’s urban middle-income groups are not politically well organized. Their political
significance however, is considerable, much greater that their numbers (about 10 percent of
India’s total population) would suggest. This is because men and women of letters generally
come from this stratum and trend to be society’s opinion makers. Rajiv Gandhi benefitted greatly
from the positive evaluation of these groups in 1985 and 1986, in part because of the pro-urban
consumer policies that he pursued and in part because of his initial image as an incorrupt ‘Mr.
Clean’. Between 1987 and 1989, however, many among India’s urban educated groups became
increasingly disturbed by revelations of corruption at the highest levels of government. The
theme of clean government, which India’s new Prime Minister V.P. Singh has also adopted, is
aimed primarily at these groups.

In a country as diverse as India, a discussion at the national level can hide more than it reveals.
The patterns of growing activism vary considerably from region to region. The example of such
type of association are-

Punjab state is mired in a violent and fratricidal ethnic conflict involving Sikh militants in a
confrontation with New Delhi as they seek greater political control. (Sikh are a religious

14 | P a g e
minority constituting nearly half of Punjab’s population.) While complex in origin, the ‘Sikh
crisis’ is rooted in such factors as the growing wealth of the area’s middle peasants, many of
whom are Sikhs, issues of ethnic nationalism, and competitive political mobilization by both
Akali Dal (the party of the Sikhs) and the Congress party.

The pattern of conflict in the state of Gujarat is different. Throughout the 1980s, elite and
‘backward’ castes of the area fought, often violently, for control of state power and over issues of
affirmative action for the ‘backward’ castes. This caste conflict is quickly being transformed into
Hindu-Muslim conflict as parties like the BJP succeed in mobilizing support across caste, but
along religious, lines.

In general, the levels of political activity in India are much higher today than they were in the
past. This growing activism reflects, in part, the changing socio-economic conditions that
development necessarily produces, but more important, it indicates the spread of democratic
values and competitive politics. Egalitarian ideas have eroded the subservient relationships of
social ‘inferiors’ to ‘superiors’. Political elites have, in turn, sought to mobilize the hitherto
‘inferiors’ for their own political purposes. The Indian government controls a great many
resources in a very poor society. As the realization has spread that this government, or parts of it,
can be controlled by the mobilization of support among new groups, such efforts have spread.
High levels of mobilization among diverse groups have made it difficult for governmental
consensus to emerge.

Alternatives to Congress-

The organizational and electoral decline of the Congress party and the growing activism of
various political groups have been important political trends. If well-organized alternatives to the
Congress had successfully accommodated the newly mobilized groups, India might well have
had a more effective democratic government than it has in recent years. Unfortunately, the
political record of the opposition to the Congress at the national level-certainly up until 1989-
has been fairly poor.

15 | P a g e
The major problem of the centrist political parties opposing the Congress has been their inability
to act in unity. In India’s electoral system, the candidate who wins the most votes in a
constituency wins a seat in the lower house of the national parliament, the Lok Sabha. If more
than one candidate opposes the Congress candidate, the typical outcome is that the opposition
candidate split the vote and the Congress candidate wins, usually with under 50 per cent of the
total vote. In spite of this situation, in which it would be highly rational for those opposing the
Congress to run a single candidate, it has repeatedly proven difficult for the opposition to unify.

A number of factors have inhibited the ability of the centrist opposition parties to unify, the most
important of which is probably the ambitions of leaders competing for senior positions. Leaders
have often pursued their short-term interests, at the expense of their larger goal of defeating the
Congress. This has been true in nearly all of the elections in India except two: the 1977 election
after the Emergency created at intense, though temporary, horror of an authoritarian regime led
by Indira Gandhi, thereby uniting the opposition parties under the umbrella of the Janta Party.
This temporary unity, however, lasted for no more than two years before conflicting leadership
ambitions led to the dissolution of the fragile coalition government.

What is true for the centrist opposition is not so true for opposition parties on the Left and the
Right, whose ideology and superior organization have enabled them to tame leadership
factionalism and act in relative unity. Both the BJP and the CPI(M) reflect these tendencies.
These parties, however, have until recently enjoyed only a limited power base. The CPI(M) has
been confined to certain regions of India, and the BJP, to certain segments of the urban
population, especially trading groups, in western and central India. The electoral position of the
BJP, however, has changed quite sharply over the last two or three years.

Many of the non-Congress parties, whether centrist or ideological, have had some experience of
being in power during the last decade, and some political learning has occurred in the parties
over this time period. For example, the CPI(M)’s continuing stint in power in the state of West
Bengal definitely transformed it from revolutionary party in the 1970s into a reformist and a
pragmatic party in the 1980s. While the BJP has not had an equivalent prolonged experience in
running a state government, some of its prominent leaders, such as Atal Bihari Vajpayee, did
serve as senior ministers during the Janta government (1977-79). Some of these leaders are also
considered pragmatic, not deeply communal, in their management of everyday politics.

16 | P a g e
Other non-Congress leaders, for example, Ramakrishna Hegde, Devil Lal, and N.T. Rama Rao,
also ran state governments (Karnataka, Haryana, and Andhra Pradesh, respectively) during the
1980s. Among their experiences, a particularly valuable one was the attempt to collectively
bargain with New Delhi for more state resources and greater political control. The non-Congress
chief ministers met periodically to chart out their political strategies and this provided them with
experience in working together.

Despite this shared political experience, one should not overstate the capacity if India’s non-
Congress parties and leaders to generate a unified opposition to the Congress(I) party. While
many leaders are pragmatic, there remain policy differences among them. More important, there
is the ever-present danger of competing leadership ambitions. Leaders like Haryana’s Devi Lal
are especially troublesome because they come from a tradition of mercurial politics in which
‘power first’ is the main goal. Moreover, the attempts to carve out a unified electoral force
during much of the period leading up to the 1989 election were tortuous. Given the history of
Janata rule and of numerous failed attempts to create a non-Congress political force, one cannot
be too optimistic about the prospects of a unified non-Congress government in India.

17 | P a g e
 POLITICS OF ECONOMIC GROWTH IN INDIA
The recent acceleration of economic growth in India was more a functional of the pro-business
tilt of the Indian state and less a result of the post-1991 economic liberalization. Three types of
evidence are: first, growth acceleration around 1980 coincided with the striking but the les
noticed shift in the state’s economic role initiated by Indira Gandhi; second, the aggregate
economic performance since liberalization, especially industrial growth, has not improved over
the 1980s; and finally, the inter-state variation in economic growth in the 1990s also seems to
follow the same pattern, with pro-business state governments succeeding handsomely in
attracting private investment and thus growing rapidly.

We are now living in a world in which democracy and capitalism have emerged as the most
desirable modes for organizing national political economies. The real debate about national
choices is thus increasingly about ‘varities of capitalism’. With advanced industrial economies
providing mainly three alternatives- the neo-liberal model of Anglo-America, the social
democratic model of Scandinavia, and the statist model of Japan and South Korea-the debate for
developing countries increasingly is, which model is best to emulate.

If India’s recent economic growth was really a result of pro-market policies, then in principle,
there ought to be very few costs, only widespread benefits: after all, decentralized markets
support democracy; competition creates a level-playing field; efficient use of factors of
production ought to create labour-intensive industrialization and thus rapid employment growth;
terms of trade ought to shift towards the countryside, benefitting the rural poor; and since capital
moves to capital moves to capital-scarce areas in search of high returns, regional inequalities
ought to shift towards the countryside, benefitting the rural poor. Unfortunately, many of the
trends noted above do not fit these expectations. India’s growth acceleration is instead is instead
being accompanied by growing inequalities, growing capital intensity of the economy, growing
concentration of ownership of private industry, and nearly stagnant growth in employment in

18 | P a g e
manufacturing industries. This evidence is more consistent with the view that the development
model that rests on a fairly narrow ruling alliance of the political and the economic elite.

Rapid economic growth is essential for poor India. It is also the case that India’s development
strategy from the Nehru period was much in need of change. However, none of this implies, or
ought not to imply, that any new growth strategy that produces these outcomes is beyond critical
scrutiny. India’s success at growth acceleration is to be admired. However, the current growth
experiment has to be kept in proper perspective. India’s economic growth has not accelerated
dramatically.

Politics of Economic liberalization-

An analysis of political politics of economic liberalization in India. The forces that have pushed
and/or opposed governmental initiatives, as well as how this political tug-of-war has influenced
the policy process have been discussed. It is now time to briefly summarize the argument and to
draw out some of its implications.

Over the last decade, leaders of India have sought to liberalize that country’s relatively
controlled and closed economy. Whereas such actions are probably necessary for boosting
India’s relatively slow economic growth, the focus of analysis above has been on the political
roots and consequences of economic policy change.

In her last four years, Indira Gandhi quietly initiated some important liberalizing economic
initiatives. The interesting issue these developments raise concerns the minimal political
opposition that such actions of a socialist leader evoked. There was minimal political opposition
because the changes were on the margin and because they were undertaken piecemeal and
without political fanfare. Moreover, Indira Gandhi was perceived as a well-established socialist
leader. Her attempts to initiate liberalization, unlike her son’s did not evoke a sense that
cherished nationalist values of national sovereignty and a concern for the poor were about to be
thrown out, only to be replaced by an open embrace of the rich-both Indian and foreign.

Rajiv Gandhi has attempted to push liberalization further and in a shorter time. Major policy
initiatives were taken in this direction. The pace of change, however, has now slowed. After

19 | P a g e
some initial successes, there have been important setbacks and the reforms have generated
considerable political opposition.

The reforms have been pushed by a technocratic leadership that appears to firmly believe in the
economic merits of liberalization. Major support, at least for domestic, as distinct from
international liberalization has come from industrial and commercial groups. The motley urban
middle class have also appreciated the tax reforms and the availability of consumer goods in the
market.

The extent to which the reforms have succeeded is thus best explained with reference to the
ideology of the new rulers. These rulers emerged as rulers for reasons that had little to do with
their positions on economic policy. Over the short run, these new leaders utilized their
considerable autonomous power to push through a few reforms. It is also important to recognize
that these reforms were not opposed, but rather were supported, by powerful and vocal urban
groups. Those specific reforms like the attempts to liberalize the automobile manufacturing
policy that met resistance from powerful business groups were postponed. Additionally, the
reforms that were successful implemented tended to exhibit two characteristics: their negative
impact was limited to a small and specific group (for example textile industry); and they were
pushed through as technical changes without political fanfare. A temporary condition of state
autonomy, the ideology of rulers, support of powerful socio-economic groups, and the capacity
to de-politicize some of the economic issues thus appear to be the main factors that help explain
a partial success in liberalizing India’s economy.

Conversely, what looms larger than these partial successes is the rapidity with which the
constraints on governmental initiatives came into play. Many political and socio groups have
come to react negatively to the government’s attempts at economic reforms. Their opposition is
not based on economic issues alone, nor is it always expressed in a coherent and direct fashion.
For some, like the Congress rank and file, the opposition is probably mainly opportunities but is
also in part based on ideology and in part due to the fear of electoral implications of new
policies. The left intelligentsia seems to genuinely believe that the new policies will have
disastrous consequences; economic policies, but national sovereignty and a redistributive
orientation may also be sacrificed. Labour groups in the public sector fear corrosion of
employment security. The political reaction of rural groups is less direct. Even they, however

20 | P a g e
rightly or wrongly, in their own diffuse and haphazard way, seem to be communicating to the
government that its pro-rich and pro-urban image is suspect.

Rajiv Gandhi’s declining popularity has clearly not entirely been a product of his economic
approach. But just as clearly, it would be foolish to assume that his attempts to liberalize the
economy have been politically neutral. Some groups, generally the better-off urban groups, have
supported their initiatives. The opposition has come mainly from the groups in the popular sector
which are peasants, workers, rural poor, left intelligentsia and file of the ruling party that has
daily contacts with some of these groups. As these groups have reached negatively, the fear of
losing electoral support has forced the Rajiv government to slow the pace of economic change.
The society has struck back; the state has lost its temporary autonomy.

It is only with some exaggeration, therefore, that one is led to conclude that attempts within India
to implement what leaders consider to be economically rational have come into conflict with the
rationality of democracy. All other things remaining equal, both Rajiv Gandhi and his
government will not push the liberalization agenda too far, or the pursuit of these policies will
continue to cost the ruling groups popular support. Since, an internal demand-led, redistributive
growth model is even less politically feasible in contemporary India, chances are that the
government has few options for stimulating growth but to liberalize the economy. The analysis
here suggests that such a policy trajectory will continue to cost the Indian government popular
political support.

Indian materials suggest that it is indeed difficult for a democratic regime to undertake a major
shift in development strategy. It has been evident throughout the discussion above that some
economic reforms were possible all along. It would thus be absurd to deny that powerful leaders
like Indira Gandhi or Rajiv Gandhi can initiate and implement some policy changes that they and
their advisors deem necessary. There are, however, fairly sharp limits on how far and how fast a
liberalization programme can be implemented in a democracy.

The counter-argument that non-democratic countries have also faced obstacles in liberalizing
their economies is simply no argument. All that tells us is that liberalization measures can evoke
opposition in numerous settings, and that many non-democratic regimes are also not capable or
willing to run roughshod over such opposition. An analysis of a democratic case at least enables

21 | P a g e
one to specify the nature and the mechanics of political opposition. In social settings where
cultures of efficiency are not well established, calls for efficiency and competitiveness do not
buy broad political support. This creates real problem for Third World democratic states that are
not product of capitalism, but instead seek to promote efficient capitalist development. The need
to build broad coalitions pulls these fragile democratic governments in policy directions other
than those that may best promote an efficient and competitive economy. These issues of political
rationality ought to complement those of economic rationality when analysing, judging or
advising what developing country governments should or should not do.

22 | P a g e
WORKING OF THE TENTH COALITION GOVERNMENT AT
THE UNION LEVEL FROM 2009 ONWARDS

India held general election to the 15th Lok Sabha in five phases between 16 April 2009 and 13
May 2009. With an electorate of 714 million lager than European union and united states
combined, it was the largest democratic election in the world to date. By constitutional
requirement, election to the Lok Sabha lower house of the parliament of India must be held every
five years, or whenever parliament is dissolved by the president of India. The previous election
to the 14th Lok Sabha was conducted in May 2004 and its term would have naturally expired on
1 Jun 2009. Election or organized by the election commission of India (ECI) and are normally
held in multiple phases better handle the large electoral base and its security concerns. The 2009
election were held in five phases. In February 2009, Rs. 1,120 Cores (E176 million) was
budgeted for election expenses by the Indian parliament.

Dr. Manmohan Singh (Indian National Congress) the united progressive alliance was formed
after the 2004 general election to bring together parties that either allied with the congress in
various states, or were willing to support a congress- national government. Though the UPA
never enjoyed a clearly majority on its own in the 14th lok sahba, it managed to complete its five
years term from 2004 to 2009 by securing outside support from the left front Samajwadi party
and Bahujan Samaj Party a different times during this tenure. Following the August 2008
confidence vote victory for the current government, a statement by congress president Sonia
Gandhi caused speculation that the UPA would project Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh as
the Prime Minster candidate in the next election. While Dravida Munnetra Kazhajam (DMK)
leader M. Karunanidhi supported Manmohan Singh as the Prime Minster Candidate, nationalist
congress party (NCP) chief Sharad Pawar tried to project himself as possible prime minister
candidate as well. On 24 January 2009 Dr. Manmohan Singh underwent a cardiac bypass surgery
at the all Indian institution Medical Science New Delhi. Following the surgery, speculation of

23 | P a g e
alternate prime minister candidate arose both within the congress and amongst coalition partners.
In an quell such speculations, Sonia Gnadhi 06 February 2009, confirmed that Dr. Manmohan
Singh would be the UPA PM Candidate by writing so in the congress party in the magazine
Sandesh. This was the first time in the history of Indian election that the congress party had
declared its PM candidate prior to the elections.

The congress party brought the rights for the Oscar wining sound track, Jai Ho from the movie
Slumdog Millionaire, which was used as the official campaign tune by the party. The song title
Jai Ho translates to (let there be victory) and the congress hoped their popular song would
galvanize the masses during the almost one month long elections session. On 24 March 2009,
congress president Sonia Gandhi released the party manifesto for the 2009 election. The
manifesto highlighted all the achievements of UPA government over the last five years in power
and identified improving various policies to favor more rural and under privileged section of
Indian society. The congress campaign ran into trouble when the election commission took
exception to full page advertisement on the 2012 common wealth games taken out in major
Delhi newspaper.

The 2009 general election saw three main national pre-poll alliances. Given the volatile nature of
coalition politics in Indian, many party changes before during and after the elections the two
largest coalition s UPA and NDA , had clearly indicated their prime ministerial candidate during
campaigning for the election. The third front announced repeatedly through the campaigning
period that their prime ministerial candidate would only be decides after the election result came
out. In Indian parliamentary system, the announcement of PM candidate prior to elections is not
required. This election defined the predictions made by pre -poll predictions and exit polls and
gave a clear mandate to the incumbent congress government. According to many analysts after
the election, many factors can be attributed for a landslide. According to the national election
study2009, published in the Hindu newspaper after the election the victory to the UPA
Government is attributed to saturation of caste based identity politics the focus on good
governance and BJPs limitations gave congress the edge. Another factor is the vote splitting by
the third front, especially the BSP and MNS in Maharastra which resulted in the Indian national
congress gaining many of its seats without getting a majority in the corresponding constituency.

24 | P a g e
Many also attributed the victory to the campaigning of Rahul Gandhi which many feel has
contributed significantly of energizing the base especially the younger voters.

Overall the high rural turnout and satisfaction of the incumbent congress government attributed
to the mandate given to the UPA government to be in power for another 05 years. United
progress alliance one 262 seats, the outside support by Samajwadi party 23 seats, Bhajan
Samajwadi party 21 seats, Rashtra Janta Dal 04 seats, Janta Dal secular 3 seats, independent and
other parties 03 seats, total 322 seats . The president Pratibha Patil dissolved the 14 the Lok
Sabha with immediate effect. Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh submitted the resignation of
his council of ministers to the president for him to be reelected as the prime Minister as well as
for a new council of Ministers to be elected. On 19th May Dr. Manmohan Singh and Sonia
Gandhi were reelected as party leader and chairperson respectively of the congress parliamentary
party. This effectively makes him the prime minster elect of the new government. Finally the
president invited Dr. Singh to form the new government on 20 MAY. The new government was
sworn in on 22 May 2009.

25 | P a g e
 CONCLUSION

The above analysis of coalition governments at the centre clearly reflects that the hung
parliaments became the norm of the India because of fragmentation in political parties political
parties have demonstrated a shocking lack of ability to create enduring coalitions. Coalition
politics clearly had shown the decline of one single party rule. After the formation of coalition
government the major problem is in conflict of interests between parties as different parties have
different manifestos. Most recent example of this problem was seen in in Delhi after 2014 state
election when Arvind Kejriwal (Ex-Chief Minister of Delhi) resigned because there was a
conflict of interest between coalition government of Congress party and Aam Aadmi Party. The
major problems of coalition government in India are different coalition parties have different
manifesto, which ultimately hamper the policy of government formed after coalition; different
parties have their different ideologies; small parties try to capture more power without
considering the rhythm of national development; Parties try to get better portfolios for their
candidates without considering qualification, character and criminal records; coalition politics is
unstable in nature. Indian democratic politics so far has been lacking in the talent and culture of
coalition making and coalition maintaining however, NDA and UPA experience in coalition
governance with two major national parties BJP and Congress leading it alternatively has
gradually helped in building up a coalition culture. However coalitions have still a long way to
go in as far as India is concerned. Since there is a coalition pattern at all India level and state
level increasing role of regional parties and social groups gave birth to coalition governments in
India. The general election of 2014 is interested in another way because this time voters have
option for newly formed Aam Aadmi Party(AAP).

26 | P a g e
REFERENCES-

Atul Kohli, “Democracy and Development in India”, Oxford India Paperbacks, New Delhi, 2010

Niraja Gopal Jayal, “Democracy in India”, Oxford India Paperbacks, New Delhi, 2010

M.N. Karna, “Democracy, Pluralism and Conflict” Rawat Publication, New Delhi, 2006

Articles-
Sudesh Kumar and Mudasir Ahmad Lone, “COALITION POLITICS IN INDIA: CONCEPTUAL
ANALYSIS, EMERGENCE, COURSE OF ACTION AND AFTERMATH FOR SOCIETY”

K.C.Suri, “Parties Under Pressure: Political Parties in India since Independence”

27 | P a g e