Q.Explain the political context of the 1990s that brought the era of Congress dominance to an end and opened the era of coalitions.

Defection, the act of a legislator abandoning their political party to join another or to become independent, has played a profound and often disruptive role in Indian politics. While seemingly a matter of individual choice, its widespread practice has deeply influenced government formation, stability, and the very nature of democratic representation. This phenomenon became particularly pronounced after the era of single-party dominance began to wane, revealing the vulnerabilities of coalition politics and the pursuit of power.

The motivations behind defection are multifaceted, though often rooted in personal ambition and the pursuit of political office. Legislators might defect for a ministerial berth, a more powerful position, or simply to be part of the ruling dispensation. While ideological differences are sometimes cited, they frequently serve as a convenient justification for what are essentially opportunistic moves. Financial incentives, though harder to prove, are also widely believed to play a role in encouraging such shifts.

The immediate consequence of defection is often political instability. When a significant number of legislators switch parties, it can lead to the collapse of state governments or even threaten the stability of the central government. This constant threat of defections makes it difficult for ruling parties to maintain a stable majority, forcing them into precarious alliances and often diverting their focus from governance to managing internal dissent and external threats from opposition parties.

Historically, the period following the 1967 general elections marked a significant turning point for defection in India. The Congress party, for the first time, lost power in several states, leading to the formation of various coalition governments. This era saw an unprecedented rise in defections, famously encapsulated by the phrase "Aaya Ram Gaya Ram" (Ram came, Ram went). This idiom originated from the case of Gaya Lal, a Haryana MLA who changed his party three times within a single day in 1967, highlighting the rampant and often farcical nature of political opportunism. This period underscored the urgent need for legislative measures to curb such practices, as they undermined the mandate given by the electorate and made a mockery of political principles.

To address this growing menace, the Parliament enacted the Anti-Defection Law through the 52nd Amendment to the Constitution in 1985. This landmark legislation aimed to prevent legislators from switching parties for personal gain and to strengthen party discipline. The law stipulated that a Member of Parliament or a State Legislature would be disqualified if they:

• Voluntarily gave up membership of their political party.
• Voted or abstained from voting in the House contrary to any direction issued by their political party, without obtaining prior permission.

The Speaker or the Chairman of the respective House was designated as the final authority to decide on disqualification cases. While the law initially allowed for splits (one-third of members breaking away) and mergers (two-thirds of members merging with another party) without disqualification, these provisions were later reviewed.

Despite the 1985 law, defections continued, often exploiting loopholes. For instance, mass defections under the merger clause were sometimes orchestrated. To further strengthen the law and plug these gaps, the 91st Amendment Act was passed in 2003. This amendment made two significant changes:

• It removed the provision that allowed for a split in a political party without disqualification, meaning that even a group of legislators breaking away would face disqualification.
• It mandated that a defector, even if not disqualified, would be barred from holding any remunerative political post (like a ministerial position) until the expiry of their term or until they were re-elected.

In contemporary Indian politics, defection continues to be a challenge, albeit in modified forms. While outright party switching has been curtailed, legislators sometimes resign from their seats, forcing by-elections, only to contest again on a ticket from a new party. This strategy allows them to circumvent the anti-defection law while still achieving a party switch. The role of the Speaker in deciding defection cases has also been a subject of debate, with concerns sometimes raised about political impartiality. Ultimately, defection remains a potent tool for political maneuvering, capable of altering electoral outcomes and government compositions, particularly in states where majorities are slim.

In India's multi-party democratic system, it is common for political parties to form alliances, especially when no single party is expected to win a clear majority in general elections. These alliances, often formed before elections, allow parties with similar ideologies or shared interests to contest together, pool their votes, and collectively aim to form a government. The period leading up to 2014 had largely been an era of coalition governments at the Centre, where alliances were crucial for political stability and governance.

The general elections held in April-May 2014 marked a significant shift in Indian politics. Several political parties came together to form a pre-election alliance, which then contested the elections. This alliance was known as the National Democratic Alliance (NDA).

The dominant party within the National Democratic Alliance in 2014 was the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The alliance projected a clear leader as its prime ministerial candidate during the election campaign. Following the decisive victory of the National Democratic Alliance in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, the leader who was chosen to head the government as the Prime Minister of India was Narendra Modi.