The document discusses the emergence of regional parties in India and their implications for the country's political landscape since independence. It outlines how various events, including the decline of Congress's dominance and the rise of coalitions, led to the formation of new political entities that cater to local aspirations. The evolution from a one-party system to a multi-party system has allowed for greater representation of diverse interests and greater accountability in governance.

1. Emergence of Regional Parties and its Implications
India as a country has undergone many changes since its attainment of independence 68 years
ago. Economic, social and political aspirations of the people have also undergone tremendous
changes. The various political parties, organizations, movements are the guiding force behind
these changes. Especially Politics, inter alia, plays an important role in shaping the people’s
perception of their country, of their development and well-being. The political party in power in
a particular region and its ideology vastly determines the conditions of the people of that region.
Hence the birth of any political party has direct connection with the well-being of its citizens.
The initial 20 years of the independence (Nehruvian Era) saw the consolidation of Congress
party which was seen by the people as “Party that brought independence to the nation”. This is
largely attributed to the fact that many national leaders were the members of the Congress Party
and people were happy to lead their lives under the safe haven of their beloved freedom fighters.
Even though there were communist and other factional parties before independence, they never
had the public support that Congress enjoyed. The likes of Gandhi, Nehru, Sardar Vallabhai
Patel, Morarji Desai, Rajagopalachari, Dr.Rajendra Prasad and others made it difficult for other
parties to establish themselves firmly.
The emergence of multi-party system can be explained by the three major events that shaped the
existing system of Governance:
1. Demise of Nehru
2. Emergency proclamation
3. Formation of Janata Party government
Demise of Nehru
Under Nehru the Congress leadership never deviated from the Gandhian values and the Congress
Party as a whole acted with great restraint before taking any major decisions that would affect
the unity of the people (e.g. Laws against Property, Privy Purses and others which had national
impact were debated before taking any hasty decisions).
The first decade after Independence resulted in political skirmishes , the difference in ideologies
and a mildly authoritarian stance of Nehru led to the departure of many nationalist leaders and
establishment of new political, parties. Shyam Prasad Mookherjee founded Bharatiya Jana
Sangh in 1951 after resigning from Congress over differences with Nehru on 1950 Delhi pact.
The Congress Party received a further jolt when C.Rajagopalachari resigned from Congress
over differences in Socialist agenda of Nehru and established Swatantra Party in 1959.They
advocated free enterprise and free trade, and opposing the licence-permit Raj. Bharatiya Jana
Sangh (later BJP) would later establish itself as a pro-Hindu party, the first electorate division on
communal lines has started. Swatantra Party succeeded in propagating the liberal policies while
condemning the socialist propaganda of the Nehru’s congress.

2. In spite of all these, the towering figure of Nehru, his charisma sustained in upholding the
populism. This was to change after Nehru’s death and the untimely demise of his successor Lal
Bahadur Shastri.
Suddenly Congress was seen itself fighting over who should succeed them and after a long
debate the syndicate members decided upon who Indira Gandhi, who they thought could be
easily controlled. Alas!! How wrong they were.
The election of Indira Gandhi as the Prime Minister of India can be considered as the cornerstone
in Indian history. In her first 10 years as PM, she left no stone unturned in destroying the
foundations of the democracy (the means through which she achieved it, is a story in itself).
Though the Nehruvian Era succeeded in maintaining the social harmony, Economic harmony
was always eluding. The country’s economic growth was abysmally low, staggering levels of
Literacy and poverty, difference between the rich and the poor was at its pinnacle. Nehru was
struck between “his idealism and pragmatism”. On the one hand his idealism made him bound
to the Constitution, on the other he was driven by the pragmatism which demanded to forego the
constitutionalism to achieve socialism for the benefit of people.
Emergency Proclamation (26th June 1976- 21st March 1978)
The next generation of leadership, headed by Indira Gandhi followed no restraint in achieving
what they believe would benefit the poor masses. In pursuing Socialism they went a little
overboard by trying to curb the independence of Judiciary, which it thought was intervening in
government’s endeavor to achieve social equality. Although it was evident from the Golak Nath
Case, Privy Purses case and Bank Nationalization case that Judiciary was intervening in
achieving Socialism, Indira Gandhi took this as an advantage to propagate Parliamentary
supremacy over judicial supremacy. Even at this juncture too, people were supporting her for her
genuine intention to bring social equality. Then came the Emergency proclamation.
With its draconian intention to save her Prime Ministership and the events aftermath laid
foundations in the people’s mind to look for an alternative to Indira and congress. This
alternative showed up in the form of Jayaprakash Narayan(Socialist Party) , Morarji Desai
(Congress(o) formed after the split in Congress in 1969 under the leadership of Syndicate
members consisting of Kamaraj ,S.K Patil, Desai himself), Charan Singh (Bharatiya Lok Dal),
Advani (Bharatiya Jana Sangh), Jagjivan Ram (Congress for Democracy)and few others.
The preventive detention of JP, Advani, Vajpayee, Madhu Dandavate and few other opposition
leaders under Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) further worsened Indira popularity
among masses. The Emergency although gained popularity initially soon saw itself rolling down
the ramp. The 38th, 39th, 41st and 42nd amendments became very unpopular among the people and
intellectuals.
Formation of Janata Government:

3. Indira Gandhi announced the elections on 18th January 1978 for reason beyond the
comprehension of even the political experts. The following day the political detenus were
released. Jayaprakash Narayan called upon all the parties to unite and fight against Indira
Gandhi. Everyone obliged and Janata Party was formed by the merger of Bharatiya Lok Dal,
Bharatiya Jana Sangh, Congress for Democracy, Congress (o).The elections that were held in
March resulted in the victory of Janata Government, the first non-congress government was thus
successfully elected. Though it lasted for just 16 months owning to internal skirmishes and lack
of proper leadership, it played a pivotal role in restoring the Constitution through 43rd and 44th
amendments. Janata Party soon disintegrated and its allies found themselves alone fighting the
mighty congress again. Split was due to the withdrawal of support by Charan Singh owing to the
temptation from Indira Gandhi to become the PM with INC(I) support, which it never got. The
Bharatiya Jana Sangh reinvented itself as Bharatiya Janata Party. Soon the disintegrated parties
found out that proper organizational structure and leadership hierarchy is required to consolidate
themselves.
These 3 events showed that Congress supremacy can be defeated and people began thinking that
Congress as an organization is not necessary for their upliftment. They realized that they need a
leader of good qualities to lead them rather than following an organization, they started voting
people who promised good future. This started the emergence of multiple local parties which
enchased people’s sentiments on the lines of language, ethnicity and religion. The effect of these
will be seen from 1989. The results General Elections of 1980 and 84 can be ignored since the
former was due to the inability of the Janata Party and the latter can largely be attributed to the
sympathy generated due to the assassination of Indira Gandhi.
The 1989 assembly elections and the subsequent elections resulted in the rise of regional parties
and their consolidation and the fall of INC (I). The 1984 elections was the last election in which
single party got the clear mandate to form a government at the centre and waited till 2014 to give
BJP under Modi a clear mandate . All the elections thereafter resulted in coalition governments,
which is the clear indication of the influence of regional politics.
By 1989 already few regional parties had established themselves as the alternative to the
Congress Party.
1. The DMK and AIADMK almost eliminated INC (I) from the electoral race in Tamil
Nadu since 1962 elections.
2. The Telugu Desam Party (TDP) of Andhra Pradesh ,which was formed on the sentiment
of preserving self-respect of Telugus proved itself a strong opponent from 1985 elections
and it has become one and only opponent to INC(I) since then.
3. The CPI (M) which is part of the Left Front in West Bengal won every election since
1977, when it first came to power, until the last general elections in 2009. The 2009
election was won by UPA (INC+TMC).
4. The Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) had already established itself firmly in punjab. It had
already emerged as the single largest party in 1969, 1972, 1977 and 1985. Shiromani
Akali Dal considers itself as representatives of Sikhs in Punjab who constitute 60% of the
population.

4. 5. The Jammu-Kashmir National Conference (JKN) founded by Sheikh-Abdullah and later
headed by his Farooq Abdullah won every election from 1977 till 2002.
The 1989 Lok-sabha elections once again proved that an alternative government at the centre can
be formed and it is the first coalition government of India. The Bofors Scandal proved decisive
in the outcome of the results. The National Front government was formed by the coalition of
Janata Dal, DMK, TDP, Asom Gana Parishad (formed in 1985 after Assam Accord) parties.
However the 1989 and 1990 general assembly elections are of importance to us because for the
first time since Independence, a party other than INC formed the government in many states.
1989 State assembly elections:
1. Uttar Pradesh: Janata Dal
2. Madhya Pradesh: BJP
1990 State assembly elections:
1. Bihar: JD
2. Orissa: JD
3. Rajasthan: BJP+JD
4. Gujarat: BJP+JD
These states in addition to Tamil Nadu (DMK), Punjab (SAD) and West Bengal (CPI(M)),
Assam (AGP) meant that non-congress governments were formed at 7 of the 10 most populous
states in India (3 exceptions were AP, Karnataka and Maharashtra).
Even this government could not last long since Chandra Shekar broke away from the Janata Dal
with 64 MPs and formed the Samajwadi Janata Party in 1990, and became 11th PM of India
with the outside support of Congress. He had to resign later since Congress again played a
spoilsport and withdrew its support alleging the government that it was spying on Rajiv Gandhi.
By this time almost all the major parties that are ruling in various states had established their
vote base among the vibrant voters. Some parties through religion (BJP), some on caste and
backward classes (Bahujan Samaj Party ), some on cultural and linguistic chauvinism ( Shiv
Sena, TDP, SAD, Jharkhand Mukti Morcha etc), some on minorities (AIMIN, Indian union
Muslim League) etc.
The parties that were formed after 1990 are either rebel groups of already established parties (
JD(s)) or the parties that are formed by the leaders of the existing parties parting their ways (
Samajwadi Party).
1. The Samata Party is a political party in India. Initially formed as an offshoot of the
Janata Dal in 1994 by Nitish Kumar and George Fernandes. The reason given was that
the Janata Dal had shifted to casteism.

5. 2. Samajwadi Party (literally, Socialist Party) based in the state of Uttar Pradesh founded
on October 4, 1992 was one of several parties that emerged when the Janata Dal
fragmented. It describes itself as a democratic socialist party and is mainly representing
the interests of a caste grouping called Other Backward Classes (OBCs).
3. The Janata Dal (United) was formed before the 1999 General Elections when a faction
led by then Karnataka Chief Minister J H Patel lent support to the National
Democratic Alliance led by BJP. This led to the split in the Janata Dal leading to the
formation of Janata Dal (Secular) under H. D. Deve Gowda, who wanted to remain equi-
distant from both national parties; and Janata Dal under Sharad Yadav. On October 30,
2003, the Samata Party led by George Fernandes and Nitish Kumar merged with the
Janata Dal (United). The merged entity was called Janata Dal (United) with the arrow
symbol of Janata Dal (United) and the green and white flag of the Samata Party.
4. The Biju Janata Dal (BJD) is a state political party of Orissa led by Naveen Patnaik, son
of former state chief minister Biju Patnaik. It was founded on 27 December 1997 due to
the split from Janata Dal over its failure to ally with the BJP.
5. The Trinamool Congress (TMC) was formed by the former Congress leader Mamata
Banerjee.
The Samajwadi Party formed the government in UP for the first time under Mulayam Singh
Yadav in 1993–1995 and later in 2003–2007 and presently his son Akhilesh Yadav leads the SP
government in UP.
The Bahujan Samaj Party though formed the government 4 times (3 Jun 1995-18 Oct 1995 , 21
Mar 1997-21 Sep 1997, 3 May 2002-29 Aug 2003, 13 May 2007-7 March 2012) under
Mayawati it was only once did she managed to complete the 5 year term successfully.
The combined might of both these local parties, one with minority support and the other with
backward-class vote base has made it difficult for the national parties like BJP and INC to win a
clear mandate in UP, the largest Indian state. The victory in UP is very decisive for forming the
government at the centre.
The Janata Dal (Secular) party succeeded in forming a coalition government with BJP in
Karnataka in 2004. It had a very good chance of winning the next election had they not resolved
to petty politics and let the BJP leader become CM after 2.5 years as agreed upon.
The Biju Janata Dal (BJD) is successfully forming the governments with the help of BJP under
the leadership of Naveen Patnaik since 2000 elections, the first it had ever contested.
The TMC overthrew the Communist rule in the West Bengal under the leadership of Mamata
Banerjee and formed the government with support from congress. The victory is attributed to the
Singur and Nandigram movement (both against illegal acquisition of land for development
activities).
The Asom Gana Parishad (AGP) party since its formation fighting against illegal infiltration of
foreigners from Bangladesh into Assam, led by All Assam Students Union in 1985, has

6. succeeded in giving stiff opposition to INC. These are the only two parties that have formed
governments in Assam.
The provenance of these local and regional parties has changed the dynamics of Indian politics
and resulted in the transformation of One-Party system(Congress- for all the practical purposes)
to multi-party system. As it goes with every act or event, this transformation has both advantages
and well as disadvantages. Careful analysis of these pros and cons is necessary for the
understanding of dynamism of Indian political system vis-à-vis its diversity.
Advantages:
1. Emergence of local/regional politics has succeeded in the greater representation of local
peoples aspirations at the national level. India is a very diversified country and it is
almost impossible for any government to uphold the aspirations, emotions and beliefs of
all its people.
2. Though Federal Structure of the Constitution ensures that every state and its people are
properly represented, more often than not, the overwhelming popularity of one party with
strong Central leadership remains insensitive to the local leadership’s demands. The local
parties overcome these problems and help in establishing true Federal structure.
3. Multi-Party system protects the Constitution and the democracy by preventing the
authoritarian intentions of the single party dominance. The constitutional amendments
need the ratification of at least half the states, hence multi-party systems prevents the
central government from exploiting the powers conferred to them.
4. The coalition government which is most of the times inevitable due to Multi-party
system, helps those states in which the ally parties head the government to get more funds
for their state and hence their development.
5. The allies of coalition government help to overcome the lethargy of the government and
always keep the government on its toes. It also keeps in check, any irresponsible acts of
governance. The fights between the ally parties by the way of threatening each other to
bring down the government sometimes help in upholding the democratic principles.
6. In the instances of disputes between the central and the state governments, the provision
of Union, State and Concurrent lists will be of little use if the State leadership is impotent
to challenge the Central authority against the interests of its people. The regional parties
on the contrary will oppose any move by the central government which they believe is
against the interests of its people, sometimes even though they are part of the coalition
government.
7. The regional parties which are formed in most cases on the basis of upholding their
people dignity, culture, beliefs, language etc are more sensitive to these issues than a
national party and they help in preserving and promoting the Culture and traditions of
their land.
Disadvantages:
1. The local parties which are part of the coalition government at the centre use their power
to stall the development activities of the Centre that are genuinely intended for the growth
of the country. E.g. TMC opposition to FDI in retail, aviation and insurance sector.

7. 2. The local parties for their political benefits divide the people of different states on the
lines of language, culture, traditions etc. This affects the overall unity and integrity of the
country.E.g. DMK, AIADMK, Shiv Sena, Shiromani Akali Dal, Jharkhand Mukti
Morcha etc.
3. Sometimes serious issues like “India’s foreign policy” will be influenced and
compromised by the “coalition dharma”.This will affect India’s credibility in the global
front and portray India as unreliable in terms of sticking to its long-held policies.
E.g. By voting against Sri Lanka in UN resolution on war crimes against Tamils owing
to pressure from DMK, India broke away from a long held tradition of not voting for
country-specific resolutions.This has significantly affected Indo-Srilanka relations.
4. The local parties that are part of the ruling coalition government will influence the
government to divert more annual budget funds to their states at the expense of other
states that are ruled by the Opposition parties.
5. The local parties in the small states like in North-Eastern India will not get much support
from the Centre in terms of development and security of its people even if they are part of
the coalition, since they send only a handful of members to the parliament. The fact that
they doesn’t affect the national politics as much as the larger states result in such states
getting smaller aid in terms of funds and other development activities.
6. Disputes between the states that are ruled by the local parties becomes difficult to settle
since they raise the dispute from administrative and governance level to political and
personal level by exploiting the sentiments of the people of the individual states. This
often culminates in violence through strikes, bandh and in the worst case, attack on the
other state people. E.g. Cauvery dispute between Karnataka and Tamil
Nadu,Maharashtra political groups intolerance towards people from other states.
7. The state governments that get more funds can use these funds for subsidising more and
more basic necessities thereby making the people lethargic and killing the motivation to
work hard. Subsidising the scant resources in particular state can impact the prices in
other states.
Conclusion
By weighing the advantages and disadvantages, we can clearly say that multi-party system does
more good than harm.
Though the multi-party system has some problems of its own, most of them can be avoided by
non-partisan and responsible Central government. Some disadvantages like transfer of more
funds to a particular state are actually advantages in disguise since it results in the rapid
development of those states. Regarding the unfair treatment of the other states, either the
powerful government in the state should demand the Central government for fair treatment even
if it’s not part of the coalition government or one just have to hope that it will get its turn.
The major concern emerging from the multi-party system is its inherent threat to the unity and
security of the country. This can be curbed only through banning of those parties and other
extremist outfits which incite communal and regional hatred or propagate the secession
ideals.But the authority to ban a particular party or an organisation should be vested in Supreme
Court and even SC should carry out the process meticulously by consulting the major political

8. parties, Election Commission and President. This banning of Political Parties is not new in India,
CPI and RSS were banned in the past.
People are the masters in Democracy, they decide how they want to be governed. The Congress
monolpoly for first 30years after independence proves that as long as the party had good
intentions they supported it, it was only after Emergency that they seriously contemplated for an
alternative party. Emergency proved that over popularity of single party will place wide powers
in narrow minded people who will exploit the power for personal deeds.
Every system will have the loopholes, it’s the number and the pluggability of loopholes that
distinguish each system from the other in terms of efficiency. Surely, the multi-party system
fares well in both the requirements compared to single-party system.