Emerging Issue on Coalition Politics in India in 21st Century

CASIRJ Volume 5 Issue 12 [Year - 2014] ISSN 2319 – 9202

International Research Journal of Commerce Arts and Science http://www.casirj.com Page 123

Emerging Issue on Coalition Politics in India in 21st Century

Mr. Vijay Pal Chaursiya

Shaheed Bhagat Singh College

University of Delhi

Email: vpchaursiya @gmail.com

Abstract

The coalition Politics is a basic need of Indian polity as it has become very impossible to

secure pure majority by a single party in legislature. There is heterogeneous society in India and

regional parties play an important role in making government. In 2014, BJP got absolute

majority on its own after 30 years. Thereafter, the political analysts started to conclude that

coalition era is over now. This study consists how regional parties are growing up rapidly with a

huge influence in the society. Despite of „Modi wave‟, the regional parties gained more seats in

general election 2014 than general election 2009. Hence, it is so early to say the coalition era is

over.

Keywords: Coalition Politics, United Progressive Alliance, National Democratic Alliance,

National Front, United Front, Heterogeneous Society

India is the largest and most culturally diverse country with linguistically distinct regions.

After independence, Indian government constituted a commission for re-organizing the state

based on linguistically in 1956. There is also social hierarchy with many regionally variations

with deeply politicized religious cleavages. As a result, a lot of small political parties are

growing up just like mushrooms based on ethnic or cultural values in Indian states and these

parties are playing a very crucial role in Indian polity.

India has heterogeneous society and it doesn‟t have proportional representation in the

decision-making process. There is multi-party system with a first-past-the-post electoral system

and it follows winner-take-all system. The small groups based on heterogeneity or ethnic values

don‟t have representation in the government. Hence, the small political parties growing up

rapidly because these parties put their interests or views in house and make laws through their

representatives in the government. The different parties have different interests and beliefs.



Indian political system is brimming over with coalition government. The coalition politics is not

a new phenomenon in India. The main cause behind this phenomenon is the formation of

regional parties with the influential role. The coalition politics started first in Kerala in 1967 and

more than 60 coalition governments have functioned in Indian polity since 1967.

Coalition Politics

In general, coalition means temporary combination of groups or individuals formed to

pursue specific objectives through joint action. The term coalition is usually used for

combination of political parties. A coalition consists of two or more parties which come together

due to shared mandate when a single party unable to achieve a majority of seats in legislature. In

other words, when no single party gets individually electoral majority as a result two or more

than two parties come together for forming a government compromising their ideologies and

government usually distributes political posts to representative of all allied parties. A coalition

government can occur in time of national difficulties and crisis to give a government the high

degree of perceived political legitimacy.

The coalition compromises their ideologies through common minimum programme with

proportional representation in the cabinet. The coalitions are made by two ways. First, a coalition

is made before election that is known as pre-poll alliance. Second is post-poll alliance that is

made after the poll when no single party gets individually majority in Parliament to form

government. The coalition politics can be a better and more stable government than minority.

The coalition government usually doesn‟t find in those countries in which the cabinet is

chosen by the executive rather than by a lower house as in the US or France. In these countries,

the Presidents appoint the cabinet and the prime minister. In brief, there is no chance of coalition

politics in presidential or semi-presidential system.

Pro-Coalition thinkers believe that due to having shared mandate, coalition leads to

broader representation and it has to compromise on their opposing ideologies in order to create

common minimum programme that result in legislation. The coalition politics is more

democratic because it represents a much broader spectrum of public opinion than government by

a single party alone. A majority of citizens vote for the parties which form a government, hence

their views and interest are represented in political decision-making. The coalition politics can

greatly diminish the choice of controversial or undemocratic laws being passed. It creates a more

honest and dynamic political system because it gives a clear choice to the voters and can be seen

as coalition of competing interest groups and ideologies. The greater numbers of political party

in coalition give the voter more honest choice and bring differences of opinion out into the open

for the debate. So, more people‟s representatives have a choice of a share in political power.

The coalition provides good government because all decisions are made in the interests of

a majority of the people. It consists a wide consensus of opinions. A single party government has



a limited consensus or ideologies. But the coalition works according to the common minimum

programme that represents ideologies of all allied. Thus, the coalition politics provide a good and

stable government representing all consensus of a majority of the people. It is a mean to avoid

the mid-term election when no single party gains majority in the legislature. The coalition

government provides continuity in the administration.

The coalition politics is also criticized by some political scholar. They opined that it is

actually less democratic because the balance of power is inevitably held by the small parties who

can barter their support for concession from the main groups within the coalition. A party with

little popular support is able to impose its policies upon the majority by a process of political

blackmail. For instance, Shiv Sena in Maharashtra blackmailed to BJP minority government in

December 2014 for demanding 12 posts in Cabinet of BJP-led government. Sometimes when

coalition government is on marginal majority, then small allied partiesput their demands

whatever they wants and the coalition government has to do so.

It is less transparent government because a single party is not able to form government

alone and under coalition, decisions are taken in a process of secretive backroom negotiation

from which the public excluded. A manifesto of a bigger party in a coalition politics become

irrelevant and accountability is absent when a coalition government falls.

The coalition governments are very unstable because there is a government always under

fear of support withdrawal by the allied party. The small parties always want to achieve bread

and butter from the government giving the threat of support withdrawal. An unstable government

cause growing up inflation. Thus, coalition provides a bad government. The government is not

able to take long-term decision. They are usually busy in solving the problems of small parties

and fulfilling the demands of theirs. The coalition lacks such a unifying philosophy. Every party

has to compromise with own ideologies and coalition government becomes more confused due

to lack of clarity in its ideologies.

The coalitions have a lot of advantages such as greater public scrutiny and broader levels

of representation with a huge problems of undemocratic and weakness of the government. It is

functioning in almost countries of the world. The human rights cause of growing coalitions in

the world as it consists right to speech and expression of views with giving liberty to make

association. In democratic country, every person has a right to participate in political affairs or

decision-making. That‟s why a lot of small parties growing up in the countries. These parties

represent opinion or consensus of a small group. Speedy growing up of these parties are making

impossible to gain majority by a single party in the Parliament.

Coalition Politics in India

The coalition politics in India has been functioning since 1967 but it had come in

existence in 1977 in Centre when all opposition came together under an umbrella to contest



election jointly against the Congress. It was pre-poll alliance so that the Congress might be kept

away from the political power. As a result, the coalition came in power. During the regime of

Janata Party in 1977, nomination of Morarji Desai as Prime Minister caused a feeling of

unhappiness among BabuJagjivan Ram and Chaudhary Charan Singh. The coalition divided in

1979 after sometimes and Congress supported from outside to Chaudhary Charan Singh-led Lok

Dal Government. This government also fell down shortly and mid-term poll was held in

1980.The Congress Party got absolute majority in the election.

After the assassination of then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on 31st October 1984, Mr

Rajiv Gandhi declared as next prime minister of India and Rajiv Gandhi-led Congress achieved a

historical victory with three-fourth majority held in 1984. In 1989, no single party could achieve

majority individually and smaller parties formed a third option to Indian voters challenging

Indian National Congress and Bhartiya Janata Party. The third option was known as the National

Front and led by the Janata Dal under the leadership of NT Ramarao as President and VP Singh

as Convener. The coalition‟s prime minister was VP Singh later succeeded by Chandra Shekhar.

The National Front was in minority andit was supported from outside by the Left Front and BJP.

Later Chandra Shekhar claimed to form the government and INC supported from outside to him

but shortly INC withdrew support again. It caused mid-term election in 1991.

During election campaign Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated on 21st May 1991 in

Sriperumbudur (Tamil Nadu) and INC couldn‟t get majority but gained a largest number of

parliamentary seats. The INC made the minority government under the leadership of PV

Narsimha Rao. The government initiated neo-liberal economic reforms in 1991 despite of

political instability and somehow the government completed its term. In General Election of

1996, all parties failed to achieve majority again asIndian voters gave a fractured mandate. The

BJP with 161 seats became largest party and it was invited to form government under the

leadership of Atal Bihari Vajpayee. But he failed to prove majority on the floor of the Lok

Sabha. So, the 13 parties formed a coalition that was known as the United Front. The coalition

formed two governments in India from 1996 to 1998. VP Singh and JyotiBasu denied for

becoming the Prime Minister. Thereafter, the first government was led by HD DeveGowda (June

1, 1996 - April 21, 1997), and then later succeeded by IK Gujral(April 21, 1997 – March 19,

1998). The Sita Ram Kesari-led INC supported to both government from outside. The INC

withdrew the support asking to drop the DMK from the United Front government as it was

linked by an investigative panel blamed for killing of Rajiv Gandhi.The fresh general elections

were called.

The outcome of the new general election was also fractured and no single party or any

alliance was able to create a strong majority. Even though the National Democratic Alliance

(NDA) regained the power in leadership of AB Vajpayee as the Prime Minister getting support

from 286 MPs from different parties but government collapsed after 13 months in April 1999

when AIADMK withdrew their support. On 17 April 1999,NDA failed to win confidence motion



in lower house short by one vote. Due to Kargil War, the next General Election were held in

September and October 1999 and it was the first time when any coalition managed to attain a

majority and completed its term.

The PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee of BJP-led NDA was the first in a long time to serve the

normal full five-year term. The coalition had started with nearly 25 different parties but ended up

with 18 only. At last, the prime minster called the general elections 2004. The BJP-led NDA

government was criticized for increasing unemployment, lower economic growth, distress of

farmers and farm laborers leading several suicides, weak national security due to low

expenditure, damaged social harmony, riots in Gujrat etc. The opposition called NDA communal

and fascist force while NDA gave the slogan „Shining India‟ in general election 2004.

The INC formed a pre-poll alliance on the basis of secularism to throw out NDA from the

power. The coalition named the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) that consisted of RJD, NCP,

DMK, MDMK, TRS, JMM, LNJSP and JKPDP. The NDA won 185 seats while INC-led UPA

garnered 217 out of 543. Due to winner-take-all system, the UPA came ahead but the coalition

was very far away from the majority. The coalition needed support of like-minded parties but

INC could not rest on its own party manifesto. It needed a common platform that would be

acceptable to all. So, the coalition prepared a Common Minimum Programme with six basic

principles. These were to promote and protect social harmony, to ensure annual economic

growth 7-8%, welfare of farmers and farm labourers, to empower women, to secure full equality

of opportunity to all disadvantaged person and unleash the energies of all professional and

productive forces.

The UPA coalition was in minority and it needed support of other like-minded parties.

There was a third alliance of leftparties like CPI, CPI (M), RSP and AIFB. It had sixty seats. The

Left alliance and UPA didn‟t have like-minded ideologies in both because the Left alliance was

against the New Economic Policy of UPA. But two wanted to keep NDA away from the power.

Hence, the Left alliance supported the UPA without being a part of it because if the Left alliance

didn‟t support to the UPA then the NDA might be returned in the power. Thus, the UPA came in

power with help of Left alliance in 2004 and proved the majority in the Parliament.

The differences between UPA and Left alliance were working as the hurdles in the way

of the UPA government because Left alliance is communist and their ideologies are against the

capitalism but the government was functioning according the New Economic Policy. There were

two main issues- first, Nuclear deal and second, Liberalization Privatization and Globalization

Policy (LPG Policy). After all, the Left alliance withdrew theirsupport in protest at the India-US

Civil Nuclear Agreement from the UPA government. The confidence motion was kept in the

house on 22 July 2008 and the UPA succeeded to pass the motion with 275 votes in favour and

256 votes in against. In this confidence motion, 6 criminal MPs who were behind the bars took



part in the voting by the order of the court to attend Parliament Session and to cast their votes.

The government survived and completed its term.

The UPA government called the general election and the Election Commission scheduled

the election in April–May 2009. The UPA secured 262 seats with 206 seats of INC

individually.The coalition was far away from majority again and needed support to prove

confidence in the House. But the SP and BSP were informal supporters of the UPA government

because either SP or BSP used to cast their votes in favour the government and one of them used

to walk out from the house. Thus, a minority government survived with help of either SP or BSP

as leader of these parties were under investigation of CBI. They were scared of misusing the

power of CBI. Hence, these parties were supported to UPA unconditionally.Somehow the

government completed its term called the general election which was decided to hold in April

and May 2014.

The performance of the UPA-II was very poor and it is known as „most corrupt

government‟ since independence. The small parties blackmailed the government and as a result,

they promoted corruption in the country. Many scams and scandals occurred in this regime like

2G Spectrum Scam, Coal Scam, CWG Scams etc. On 15 August 2012, then Prime Minister

Manmohan Singh accepted that lack of political consensus on many issues was impending rapid

economic growth forgetting that he had a largest responsibility to forge such political consensus.

The welfare programmes were not implemented effectively. There were some other reasons by

which the public had fed up with government like arrogant language of the Cabinet, price

inflation, poor women security etc. In 2014, NDA got a majority in the Parliament with securing

282seats individually by NarendraModi-led BJP.

Thus, pattern of coalition government are suggestive of at least three models of power

sharing: First, when all small parties make a coalition on the basis of equal share to all like the

National Front. Second is coalition of relatively smaller parties led by a major party e.g. NDA

and third is coalition of relatively smaller parties facilitated but not necessarily led by a prime

minister from the major party e.g. UPA. In the other words, there are three major muted hues

coalition governments in India- Middle-of-the road Centrist led by INC, Left-of-Centre formed

by Janata Dal and Right-of-Centre led by BJP. Secondly, except the one dominating party

coalition like UPA & NDA, on an average , the coalition based on equal power sharing lasted

for two years like the NF, UF and changed the prime ministerial candidate every year.

Emerging Issue in Coalition Politics in Indian context

The General Election of 2014 has changed the complete scenario of Indian polity because

the BJP got emphatic victory first time after 30 years when Rajiv Gandhi-led INC gained three-

fourth majority. The consequences opened a question before the political analysts about the

coalition amongst various political parties in the country if it is end of the coalition era. The BJP



went into the polls with a clutch of pre-poll partners under the NDA umbrella and managed to

gain 282 seats on its own and 336 with its allies. The INC-led UPA was reduced to a historic low

of 61 in the election including with 44 seats of INC. The political analysts say that the election

results had thrown Indian politics into a flux but the two main alliances were likely to remain

intact for different reasons.

The BJP president Amit Shah believes that it‟s an end to the fragmentation of polity and

said that the era of coalitions had dawned because of the absence of an undisputed leader. It got

over. The table 3 shows the BJP managed to secure 190 seats out of 225 in the Hindi heartland

consisting of Uttar Pardesh, Bihar, Rajasthan, Madhya Pardesh, Chhatisgarh, Haryana, Delhi,

Jarkahnd, Himachal Pardesh and Uttrakhand. The BJP attained strong pan-India presence. The

facile victory led to the rout of not only the Congress but regional parties such as the SP, BSP,

JD (U) and RJD also.

R. Balashankar, National Convener of BJP Intellectual Cell, expressed that the BJP has

emerged as pan-India Party and scored an absolute majority on its own, the postulation has

become irrelevant. The present scenario of Indian polity is different brute majorities. The shared

mandate changed the Indian political scene by decimation of all those parties directly or

indirectly those got associated with the Congress. But in the general election 2014, voter has

rejected them because the Congress has failed to open its account in 10 states with three others

alliance the JKNC, DMK and BSP and could not got double digits in any states in the country as

table 3 shows. Hence, the Congress could not claim for the Leader of Opposition. Now, it has

been proved that the electorate has come out of secular vs communal issues.

Although the BJP has an absolute majority yet it expressed its desire to work with all

parties willing to cooperate with the NDA. It is a new era of cooperation based on development

and governance agenda. Indian electorates have become aspirational. The people want stability

and a single party majority is the best guarantee for a stable and efficient government at the

Centre. Now, the people have awareness about that coalition leads to unstable government.

Some political scholars and analysts opined that it‟s not an end of coalition era and it is a

result of a poor performance of the INC-led UPA because their associations with the coalition

which was seen as venal and corrupt. The UPA‟s alliance partners are not in strong position. The

regime of UPA-II was very crucial period for INC and its alliance partners. Anna Hazare started

a movement on national level „India Against Corruption‟ against various scams which occurred

during this regime like Coal Scam, CWG Scam, 2G Spectrum etc. The CAG also reported on the

regularities in auctioning 194 coal blocks. Despite of it, INC leaders challenged to civil society

and used arrogant language for them. In case of „Nirbhaya‟, government ordered to the Delhi

Police to take action of „lathi-charge‟ and used water canon on protestors at India Gate in last

week of December 2012. Thus, UPA-II was indeed the most corrupt regime post-independence.

The people were fed up of the incumbent government.



Rajesh Dixit, National Secretary of SP,argued that people should not arrive at the

conclusion that the era of coalition politics is over on the basis of one verdict. Those with short-

term memory need to be reminded of the massive verdict that the late Prime Minister Rajiv

Gandhi received in 1984. Even then a three-fourth majority to a single political party could not

ensure stability at the Centre and soon the nation witnessed the era of coalition politics.

Three tables are given below that shows the result state wise from General Election 2004

to till now:

Table 1

General Election 2004

S.

No.

State/UT INC BJP CPI(M) CPI BSP NCP Regional

Party

Total

1 Andhra Pardesh 29 - 1 1 - - AIMIM-1

TDP-5

TRS-5

42

2 Arunachal Pardesh - 2 - - - - - 2

3 Assam 9 2 - - - - AGP-2

IND-1

14

4 Bihar 3 5 - - - - JD(U)-6

LJNSP-4

RJD-22

40

5 Chhatisgarh 1 10 - - - - - 11

6 Goa 1 1 - - - - - 2

7 Gujrat 12 14 - - - - - 26

8 Haryana 9 1 - - - - - 10

9 Himachal Pardesh 3 1 - - - - - 4

10 Jammu & Kashmir 2 - - - - - JKNC-2

JKPDP-1

IND-1

6

11 Jharkhand 6 1 - 1 - - JMM-4

RJD-2

14

12 Karnataka 8 18 - - - - JD(S)-2 28



13 Kerala - - 12 3 - - IFDP-1

IND-1

MUL-1

JD(S)-1

KC-1

20

14 Madhya Pardesh 4 25 - - - - - 29

15 Maharashtra 13 13 - - - 9 SS-12

RPI-1

48

16 Manipur 1 - - - - - IND-1 2

17 Meghalaya 1 - - - - - AITC-1 2

18 Mizoram - - - - - - MNF-1 1

19 Nagaland - - - - - - NPF-1 1

20 Orissa 2 7 - - - - BJD-11

JMM-1

21

21 Punjab 2 3 - - - - SAD-8 13

22 Rajasthan 4 21 - - - - - 25

23 Sikkim - - - - - - SDF-1 1

24 Tamil Nadu 10 - 2 2 - - PMK-5

MDMK-4

DMK-16

39

25 Telangana

26 Tripura - - 2 - -- - - 2

27 Uttar Pardesh 9 10 - - 19 - JD(U)-1

RLD-3

IND-1

SP-35

NLP-1

SJP(R)-1

80

28 Uttranchal 1 3 - - - - SP-1 5

29 West Bengal 6 - 26 3 - - AIFB-3 42



AITC-1

RSP-3

30 Andaman & Nicobar 1 - - - - - - 1

31 Chandigarh 1 - - - - - - 1

32 Dadar& Nagar Haveli - - - - - - BNP-1 1

33 Daman & Diu 1 - - - - - - 1

34 Lakshadweep - - - - - - JD(U)-1 1

35 Pondicherry - - - - - - PMK-1 1

36 Delhi 6 1 - - - - - 7

Total 145 138 43 10 19 9 179 543

Source: http://www.elections.in/parliamentary-constituencie/2004-election-result.html& Based on Statistical Report on general election, 2004

Table 2


S.

No.

State/UT INC BJP CPI(M) CPI BSP NCP Regional

Party

Total

1 Andhra Pardesh 33 - -- - - - AIMIM-1

TDP-6

TRS-2

42

2 Arunachal Pardesh 2 - - - - - - 2

3 Assam 7 4 - - - - AGP-1

AUDF-1

BOPF-1

14

4 Bihar 2 12 - - - - JD(U)-20

IND-2

RJD-4

40

5 Chhatisgarh 1 10 - - - - - 11

6 Goa 1 1 - - - - - 2

7 Gujrat 11 15 - - - - - 26

8 Haryana 9 - - - - - HJC-1 10



9 Himachal Pardesh 1 3 - - - - - 4

10 Jammu & Kashmir 2 - - - - - JKNC-3

IND-1

6

11 Jharkhand 1 8 - - - - JMM-2

IND-2

JVM-1

14

12 Karnataka 6 19 - - - - JD(S)-3 28

13 Kerala 13 - 4 - - - MUL-2

KC-1

20

14 Madhya Pardesh 12 16 - - 1 - - 29

15 Maharashtra 17 9 - - - 8 SS-11

BVA-1

SWP-1

IND-1

48

16 Manipur 2 - - - - - - 2

17 Meghalaya 1 - - - - 1 - 2

18 Mizoram 1 - - - - - - 1

19 Nagaland - - - - - - NPF-1 1

20 Orissa 6 - - 1 - - BJD-14 21

21 Punjab 8 1 - - - - SAD-4 13

22 Rajasthan 20 4 - - - - IND-1 25

23 Sikkim - - - - - - SDF-1 1

24 Tamil Nadu 8 - 1 1 - - AIADMK-9

DMK-18

MDMK-1

VCK-1

39

25 Telangana

26 Tripura - - 2 - - - - 2

27 Uttar Pardesh 21 10 - - 20 - RLD-5

IND-1

80



SP-23

28 Uttranchal 5 - - - - - 5

29 West Bengal 6 1 9 2 - - AIFB-2

AITC-19

RSP-2

IND-1

42

30 Andaman & Nicobar - 1 - - - - - 1

31 Chandigarh 1 - - - - - - 1

32 Dadar& Nagar Haveli - 1 - - - - - 1

33 Daman & Diu - 1 - - - - - 1

34 Lakshadweep 1 - - - - - - 1

35 Pondicherry 1 - - - - - - 1

36 Delhi 7 - - - - - - 7

Total 206 116 16 4 21 9 171 543

Source: http://www.elections.in/parliamentary-constituencie/2009-election-result.html& Based on Statistical Report on general election, 2009

Table 3


S.

No.

State/UT INC BJP CPI(M) CPI BSP NCP Regional Party Total

1 Andhra Pardesh - 2 - - - - TDP-15

YSRC-8

25

2 Arunachal Pardesh 1 1 - - - - - 2

3 Assam 3 7 - - - - AUDF-3

IND-1

14

4 Bihar 2 22 - - - 1 JD(U)-2

RLSP-3

RJD-4

LJP-6

40

5 Chhatisgarh 1 10 - - - - - 11

6 Goa - 2 - - - - - 2



7 Gujrat - 26 - - - - - 26

8 Haryana 1 7 - - - - INLD-2 10

9 Himachal Pardesh - 4 - - - - - 4

10 Jammu & Kashmir - 3 - - - - JKPDP-3 6

11 Jharkhand - 12 - - - - JMM-2 14

12 Karnataka 9 17 - - - - JD(S)-2 28

13 Kerala 8 - 5 1 - - IUML-2

KC-1

RSP-1

IND-2

20

14 Madhya Pardesh 2 27 - - - - - 29

15 Maharashtra 2 23 - - - 4 SS-18

SWP-1

48

16 Manipur 2 - - - - - - 2

17 Meghalaya 1 - - - - - NPP-1 2

18 Mizoram 1 - - - - - - 1

19 Nagaland - - - - - - NPF-1 1

20 Orissa - 1 - - - - BJD-20 21

21 Punjab 3 2 - - - - SAD-4

AAP-4

13

22 Rajasthan - 25 - - - - - 25

23 Sikkim - - - - - SDF-1 1

24 Tamil Nadu - 1 - - - - AIADMK-37

PMK-1

39

25 Telangana 2 1 - - - - TRS-11

TDP-1

YRSC-1

AIMIM-1

17

26 Tripura - - 2 - - - - 2

27 Uttar Pardesh 2 71 - - - - SP-5 80



AD-2

28 Uttranchal - 5 - - - - - 5

29 West Bengal 4 2 2 - - - AITC-34 42

30 Andaman & Nicobar - 1 - - - - - 1

31 Chandigarh - 1 - - - - - 1

32 Dadar& Nagar Haveli - 1 - - - - - 1

33 Daman & Diu - 1 - - - - - 1

34 Lakshadweep - - - - - 1 - 1

35 Pondicherry - - - - - - AINRC-1 1

36 Delhi - 7 - - - - 7

Total 44 282 9 1 0 6 201 543

Source: http://www.elections.in/parliamentary-constituencies/2014-election-results.html& Based on Statistical Report on general election, 2014

In general election of 2014, AITC won 34 seats out of 42 in West Bengal, TRS and other

regional parties won 14 seats out of 17 in new built state Telangana, TDP and YSR Congress

won 23 seats out of 25 in Andhra Pradesh, BJD won 20 seats out of 21 in Odisha, SAD and AAP

won 8 seats out of 13 in Punjab and AIADMK & PMK won 38 seats out of 39 in Tamil Nadu

(see Table 3). Thus, regional parties gained 138 seats out of 157 in these six states and national

parties got only 19 seats out of 157. As per above three tables (Table 1,2 and 3), it has also been

found that last three general elections of 2004, 2009 and 2014, the regional parties achieved 179,

171 and 201 respectively out of 543. Hence,the regional parties have own influence in their

states because they represents particular groups. These parties have not perished in this election

while they increased their number of seats in the general election of 2014 despite of „Modi

wave‟. The coalition era can‟t be perished until the regional parties are more effective and

influential in their states or regions.

Table 4

Performance of National Parties via-a-visOthers

S. No. Year of General

Election

Seats of National

Parties

Seats of State

parties

Seats of Registered

(Un Recognised)

Parties With

Independent

1 1998 387 101 55



2 1999 369 158 16

3 2004 364 159 20

4 2009 372 146 25

5 2014 342 176 25

Source: Table compiled from Election Commission data, see http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/

According to table 4, it has been found that number of seats of national parties decreasing

regularly day by day except the general election of 2009 whereas seats of the state parties

growing up consistently. In 1998, seats of national parties were 387 and it is now 342 although

Modi-led BJP has secured an absolute majority in the Parliament. Meanwhile state parties have

also secured more seats from the general election 2009. In general election 1998 and 2009, state

parties got 101 and 146 seats respectively. Despite of „Modi wave‟ in general election of 2014;

it secured 176 seats which are 30 seats more than the last elections. Thus, the statistics shows

that upcoming time is of coalitions as state parties are becoming more effectively and influential

day by day in future. Secondly, Balveer Arora, Professor in JNU, expressed his views that the

biggest challenge for the BJP is that their big numbers in the Lok Sabha are not matched with

their numbers in Rajya Sabha. So, the BJP has just 48 seats in the Rajya Sabha while the NDA

has 60 seats only. Thus, the NDA is in minority in this house and it needs support of the

AIADMK, BJD and AITC to build consensus in the house. The alliance with other parties

becomes important to enable the BJP to implement their reform agenda and push forward their

economic policies.

Table 5

Performance of National Parties

S. No. Year of General

Election

No. of National

Parties

National Parties Lost Recognition as

National Parties

1 1998 7 BJP, BSP, CPI, CPI(M),

INC, JD, SAP

JD*, SAP


INC, JD (S), JD(U)

JD (S), JD(U)


INC, NCP

-


INC, NCP, RJD

RJD




INC, NCP

BSP, CPI , NCP

Source: Table compiled from Election Commission data, see http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/

JD* -JD split in JD(U) and JD(S)

The table 5 shows that status of national parties is dynamic. In 1998, there were 7

national parties in India and anyone of them has to lost their recognition each and every general

election. After the general election 2014, the Election Commission of India issued a notice to

NCP, CPI and BSP asking an explanation which has been submitted in time on 27 June 2014.

They will be given a chance to explain their defeat in general election 2014 at the hearing, after

which the commission will come up with their decision as three parties lost 2014‟s polls with

extremely less vote failing to meet at least two or three criteria for recognition as national party.

Thus, three national parties may lost their recognition of national partiesand to be converted in

state parties. After the outcome of Maharashtra and Haryana elections-2014,NCP, CPI and BSP

have failed to achieve the national party status due to regular poor performance in Assembly and

General elections. Now, only three political parties will enjoy the status of national party e.g.

INC, BJP and CPI (M). Since independence, this isthe lowest number.

Although the BJP has got the simple majority by securing 282 seats in Lok Sabha yet it

can‟t be said that the BJP got a majority on its own because the NDA itself is an alliance of more

than 25 political parties. The BJP has allied with the small parties in each and every state. The

vote bank of the small parties has also helped in securing majority. Therefore, it is too early to

say that the coalition is over. Some analysts say the arrogance of majority party is not good for

democracy and people should not forget that arrogance of majority had delivered mortal blow to

the Rajiv Gandhi-led Congress government in 1984, which became weak in just three years‟

time.

Conclusion

India has had coalition governments since last two decades and it will continue to have in

future. It would be so early to say an obituary of coalition era. The coalition leads to unstable

government. It is very important for the political parties to moderate their ideas as there are no

ready formulas or easy solutions to make coalitions work in smooth manner.

The small parties have different interests and beliefs because it has various cultures,

regions and political disputes and every state has unique political aspirations that reflect

formation of a local political group. Thus, it is extremely beneficial to form a coalition

government.



It was a mandate for political stability, economic development, social welfare

programmes, empowerment and prosperity of community and against of unrestricted loot of

nation. The single party majority was a result of charismatic leadership of NarendraModi and he

alone would be responsible and accountable for all government decisions and deeds. Modi

Maxim was „minimum Government and maximum governance‟ and „Congress Mukt Bharat‟.

The electorate left behinds the cast and communal politics in the general election of 2014. Thus,

the verdict was a vote against the Congress-led UPA government. This opportunity was not

created by Modi, it was given by the Congress itself due to misgovernance, unabated price rise,

and corruption at high levels.

BidyutChakrabarty said, “the BJP has got elected as part of or as the big brother in the

NDA. I would not say the coalition era has ended or disappeared or that the NDA is defunct.”

The Congress has miserably failed to read the changing mindset of the young Indian voters and

Modi‟s package of development and infrastructural growth appears to have swayed them in his

favour. Modi succeeded to sell dream of development among the voters in which the UPA

messed up everything showing perhaps its policy bankruptcy.

In the present scenario, it is very difficult to predict on future of coalition having seen a

majority after 30 years. The people should not forget the result of general election 1984 when

Rajiv Gandhi-led Congress got three-fourth majority in the Parliament but thereafter no single

party got a majority individually in the next general election in 1989. The future of coalition will

depend on the performance of Modi-led NDA government. So, next upcoming five years can

explain whether India canindeed return to the days of the coalition era. Other thanit, coalition era

will last when two national parties contest the general election with each other rather than

regional parties. The contest should not be between national parties vs regional. The regional

parties should be limited upto assembly election.



Bibliography

1. Diwakar. Era of coalition may be coming to an end: Shah. TOI Interview. The Times of India, October 21, 2014.

2. http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/archiveofge2014/20%20-%20Performance%20of%20National%20Parties.pdf

3. http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/archiveofge2014/21%20-

%20Performance%20of%20State%20Parties.pdf

4. http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/archiveofge2009/Stats/VOLI/12_PerformanceOfNationalParties.pdf

5. http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/archiveofge2009/Stats/VOLI/13_PerformanceOfStateParty.pdf

6. http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/SR_KeyHighLights/LS_2004/Vol_I_LS_2004.pdf

7. http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/Statisticalreports/LS_1999/Vol_I_LS_99.pdf

8. http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/Statisticalreports/LS_1998/Vol_I_LS_98.pdf

9. http://business-standard.com/article/elections-2014/ narendra-moditsunami-destroys-

coalition-era-myth-wins-india-1140511600766_1.html

10. http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnists/coffee-break/tsunami-flattens-congress-end-era-

of-coalition-politics.html

11. http://www.elections.in/parliamentary-constituencies/2004-election-result.html

12. http://www.elections.in/parliamentary-constituencies/2009-election-result.html

13. http://www.deccanchronicle.com/140522/commentary-op-ed/article/dc-debate-

bjp%E2%80%99s-clear-mandate-coalition-era-India-over

14. http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-is-ot-the-end-of-coalition-era-1989115

15. www.livemint.com/Politics/ZxtBFDu25XrPAvOvREz1nN/Its-not-end-of-the-coalition-

era-yet.html

16. http://www.merinews.com/article/coalition-form-of-government-is-beneficicial-for-

indian-politics/15843570.shtml#sthash.y27FqLmg.dpuf

17. Pandey, A.K. Coalition Politics in India: Prospects and Problems. International Research

Journal, Vol. I. Issues 12. September 2010.

18. Swamy, Arun. Sources of “Sandwich Coalitions”: Distributive Strategies and Democratic

Politics in India, Thailand, and the Philippines. Asia-Pacific Social Science Review 13:1

(2013), pp.50-56.

19. Tummala, Krishna K. Coalition Politics in India: 2004-2009. Asian Journal of Political

Science. Vol. 17, No. 3, December 2009, pp. 323-348.

Appendix I: Political Parties in India (Listed by Acronyms)



AAP AamAadmi Party

AD Apna Dal

AGP AsomGanaParishad

AIADMK All India Anna DravidaMunnetraKazhagam

AIFB All India Forward Bloc

AIMIM All India Majlis-ItehadulMuslimeen

AINRC All India N.R. Congress

AITC All India TrinamoolCongress

AUDF Asom United Democratic Front

BJD Biju Janata Dal

BJP Bhartiya Janata Party

BNP BhartiyaNavshakti Party

BOPF Bodoland Peoples Front

BSP BahujanSamaj Party

BVA BahujanVikasAaghadi

CPI Communist Party of India

CPI(M) Communist Party of India (Marxist)\

DMK DravidaMunnetraKazhagam

HJC Haryana Janhit Congress

IFDP Indian Fedral Democratic Party

INC Indian National Congress

IND Independent

INLD Indian National Lok Dal

IUML Indian Union Muslin League

JD(S) Janata Dal (Secular)

JD(U) Janata Dal (United)

JKNC Jammu & Kashmir National Conference

JKPDP Jammu & Kashmir People‟s Democratic Party

JMM Jharkhand MuktiMorcha

JVM Jharkhand VikasMorcha

KC Kerala Congress

LJNSP Lok Jan Shakti Party

LJP LokJanasakti Party

MDMK MarumalarchiDravidaMunnetraKazhagam

MNF Mizo National Front

MUL Muslim League Kerala State Committee

NCP National Congress Party

NLP National Loktantrik Party

NPF Nagaland Peoples Front



NPP National Peoples Party

PMK PattaliMakkalKatchi

RJD Rashtriya Janata Dal

RLD RashtriyaLok Dal

RLSP RashtriyaLokSamata Party

RSP Revolutionary Socialist Party

SAD ShiromaniAKali Dal

SDF Sikkim Democratic Front

SJP(R) Samajwadi Janata Party (Rashtriya)

SP Samajwadi Party

SS Shiv Sena

SWP SwabhimaniPaksha

RPI Republican Party of India

TDP Telugu Desham Party

TRS TelanganaRashtraSmithi

VCK ViduthalaiChirutaigalKatchi

YSRC YSR Congress

Emerging Issue on Coalition Politics in India in 21st Century

Documents