Q.“In the new era of coalition politics, political parties are not aligning or re-aligning on the basis of ideology.” What arguments would you put forward to support or oppose this statement?

The statement that coalition politics has moved beyond ideology is only partially true. On one hand, the era of a single dominant party is over, and parties with very different ideological positions—like the Left Front and the Congress in the United Progressive Alliance (UPA)—have formed governments purely to keep a common opponent out of power. This is often called a "coalition of convenience" rather than a "coalition of conviction."

On the other hand, ideology has not vanished. It still shapes the broad camps that parties choose to join. For example, parties that believe in secularism and social justice have tended to coalesce in one alliance, while parties that prioritise Hindutva and cultural nationalism have gathered in another. Even within a coalition, ideological differences create constant friction—over economic reforms, reservations, or foreign policy—which parties must negotiate. …

The statement captures a genuine shift in Indian politics since the 1990s. Before this period, the Congress party dominated single-party governments, and opposition parties often coalesced around clear ideological poles — socialism, secularism, or regional identity. The era of coalition politics, beginning in earnest after 1989, changed this landscape dramatically. Parties that once stood on opposite sides of the ideological fence began sharing power, leading many to conclude that ideology had become irrelevant.

To support the statement, one can point to several striking examples. The most famous is the alliance between the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the National Conference in Jammu and Kashmir in the late 1990s. The BJP’s core ideology of Hindutva and its demand for abrogating Article 370 stood in direct opposition to the National Conference’s regional and secular identity. Yet, they formed a coalition government. Similarly, the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government from 2004 to 2014 brought together the Congress party with left-wing parties like the Communist Party of India (Marxist) — parties that had historically opposed Congress’s economic liberalisation and foreign policy. These alliances were clearly driven by the arithmetic of seat-sharing and the desire to keep a common opponent out of power, not by shared ideological conviction.

Another argument in favour of the statement is the rise of “coalition dharma” — the unwritten rule that coalition partners must compromise on their core agendas to keep the government stable. This often means shelving contentious ideological issues. For instance, the Left parties in the UPA opposed the India-US nuclear deal but chose not to bring down the government immediately, prioritising political survival over ideological purity. Many regional parties, such as the Samajwadi Party or the Trinamool Congress, have shifted alliances between the Congress-led and BJP-led coalitions over the years, based on electoral convenience rather than any consistent ideological stance.

However, there are strong arguments to oppose the statement as well. Ideology has not vanished; it has simply become more layered and contextual. The broad contours of coalition politics in India still reflect two major ideological streams: the secular, social-justice-oriented camp (often led by Congress or regional parties) and the Hindu nationalist camp (led by the BJP). While individual parties may switch sides, the overall alignment of major coalitions — the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) and the UPA — has remained remarkably stable in terms of their core ideological orientation. The BJP has never allied with the Left or with parties that explicitly oppose its Hindutva agenda at the national level. Similarly, Congress has avoided formal alliances with parties that openly advocate for a Hindu majoritarian state.

Moreover, ideology often determines which parties can even sit together in a coalition. The Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) and the Samajwadi Party, despite sharing a similar social base in Uttar Pradesh, have found it difficult to form a lasting alliance because of deep ideological differences over caste politics and leadership. The Left parties have consistently refused to ally with the BJP or its ideological affiliates, even when such an alliance might have given them short-term electoral gains. This shows that ideology still acts as a boundary — a line that parties will not cross, even for power. …