Political Science · Ch 15 — Recent Developments in Indian Politics
Era of Coalitions
Era of Coalitions
The 1989 Lok Sabha election was a turning point. It defeated the Congress party, but no other party won a clear majority. Congress was the single largest party but chose to sit in opposition rather than form a minority government. This created a vacuum that a new alliance, the National Front, filled.
The National Front was itself an alliance of the Janata Dal and several regional parties. It received support from two groups that were political opposites: the BJP and the Left Front. On the strength of this outside support, the National Front formed a coalition government. Neither the BJP nor the Left Front joined the government — they only supported it from outside.
The decline of Congress dominance
The defeat of Congress in 1989 marked the end of its dominance over the Indian party system. Earlier, in the late 1960s, Congress dominance had been challenged, but Indira Gandhi managed to re-establish its predominant position. The 1990s saw a second, more lasting challenge. This time, no single party emerged to replace Congress. Instead, the party system itself changed.
The beginning of multi-party coalitions
India always had many parties contesting elections, and Parliament always had multiple parties represented. What changed after 1989 was the pattern: no single party secured most of the votes or seats. From 1989 until 2014, no party won a clear majority in any Lok Sabha election. This forced the formation of coalition governments at the Centre, where regional parties became crucial for building ruling alliances.
This trend reversed in 2014 and 2019, when the BJP won a clear majority on its own.
Alliance politics and the rise of new social forces
The 1990s also saw the rise of powerful parties and movements representing Dalits and Other Backward Classes (OBCs). Many of these parties also represented strong regional assertion. They played a key role in the United Front government that came to power in 1996.
The United Front was similar to the National Front of 1989 — it included the Janata Dal and several regional parties. But the political equations had shifted:
- In 1989, both the Left and the BJP supported the National Front because they wanted to keep Congress out.
- In 1996, the Left continued to support the non-Congress government, but this time the Congress itself supported it. Both Congress and the Left wanted to keep the BJP out of power.
This shows how unstable and issue-based these alliances were.
The BJP's rise and the NDA
The BJP continued to consolidate its position in the 1991 and 1996 elections. In 1996, it emerged as the largest party and was invited to form a government, but most other parties opposed its policies, and it could not secure a majority. It finally came to power by leading a coalition government from May 1998 to June 1999, and was re-elected in October 1999. Atal Behari Vajpayee was Prime Minister during both these NDA governments, and the 1999 government completed its full term.
The pattern of coalition governments (1989–2014)
Since 1989, there have been eleven governments at the Centre. All of them were either coalition governments or minority governments supported by other parties that did not join the government. In this phase, any government could be formed only with the participation or support of many regional parties. This applied to:
- National Front (1989)
- United Front (1996 and 1997)
- BJP-led coalition (1998)
- NDA (1999)
- UPA (2004 and 2009)
This trend changed in 2014.
Why coalitions became the norm …
The cartoon shows a large, open book lying flat. On the left-hand page, a single, large, solid circle is drawn — this represents the old Congress system, where one party dominated everything. On the right-hand page, that same circle has shattered into many smaller, separate circles scattered across the page. Each small circle is labelled with the name of a different political party: Congress, BJP, Janata Dal, Left, and several regional parties. An arrow runs from the single circle on the left to the cluster of circles on the right, making the change over time clear.
The cartoonist, Ajit Ninan, is showing the shift from one-party dominance to a multi-party alliance system. The single circle on the left is the Congress party that once absorbed all interests and groups into itself — the "Congress system" described in earlier chapters. The broken pieces on the right are the many parties that emerged as various sections left the Congress fold and formed their own organisations. The arrow captures the historical movement: from the 1950s–1960s, when Congress ruled alone, to the post-1989 era, when no single party could win a majority and coalitions became the norm. …
The cartoon by Ajit Ninan, published in India Today, captures the shift from one-party dominance to a multi-party alliance system. It is a visual commentary on the transformation of Indian politics after 1989, when no single party could secure a clear majority in the Lok Sabha, and coalition governments became the norm.
The cartoon is divided into two panels, showing a before-and-after contrast. On the left, a single large, solid elephant stands alone — this represents the Congress party during its era of dominance, when it could form governments on its own. The elephant is a well-known symbol for the Congress, and its solitary presence conveys stability and strength. On the right, the same elephant is now broken into many small, separate pieces, each labelled with the name or symbol of a different political party. These fragments are scattered, suggesting fragmentation and the need to assemble a government from many parts. The pieces are not neatly arranged; they are jumbled, implying the messy, negotiated nature of coalition politics.
The overall message is clear: the unified, single-party system of the past has given way to a multi-party system where alliances are necessary. The cartoon does not judge this change as good or bad — it simply depicts the structural reality. The textbook uses this image to illustrate the "era of coalitions" that began in 1989 and continued until 2014, when the BJP won a clear majority on its own. The caption in the textbook — "A cartoonist’s depiction of the change from one-party dominance to a multi-party alliance system" — reinforces this interpretation. …
The figure is a political cartoon by Ajit Ninan, originally published in India Today. It visually captures the shift from the era of one-party dominance (the "Congress system") to the era of multi-party coalition politics in India.
The cartoon is divided into two panels, showing a "before" and "after" contrast.
Left panel (the past): This side shows a single, large, imposing building labelled "CENTRE" — representing the central government. The building is solid and stands alone, with no other structures around it. This symbolises the period when one party (the Congress) dominated the centre and could form a government on its own.
Right panel (the present/future at the time): This side shows the same "CENTRE" building, but it is now surrounded by many smaller, differently shaped structures — huts, small houses, and shops — all clustered tightly around it. These represent the many regional parties and smaller national parties that became essential partners in any ruling coalition. The central building is no longer isolated; it is hemmed in by these other political forces.
The connecting element: A large arrow runs from the left panel to the right panel, labelled "FROM ONE-PARTY DOMINANCE TO MULTI-PARTY ALLIANCE SYSTEM". This arrow makes the historical transition explicit.
The caption (the quote you provided): Below the cartoon is the text you cited. It is presented as a reflective question from a citizen or commentator, not as a statement by the cartoonist. It reads: "OK, coalitions are the logic of democratic politics in our kind of society. Does that mean that we will always have coalitions? Or can the national parties consolidate their positions again? I am not worried about whether it is a single party or coalition government. I am more worried about what they do. Does a coalition government involve more compromises? Can we not have bold and imaginative policies in a coalition?" …