India has had three party systems, not one. Each was produced by a different social coalition, and the decade 1989–99 is where the second gave way to the third.
This is chapter 31 of the PSIR Optional Notes, from the part on Indian Government and Politics in the Paper I syllabus. The complete book is a free download.
UPSC syllabus
Party System: National and regional political parties, ideological and social bases of parties; patterns of coalition politics; Pressure groups, trends in electoral behaviour; changing socio-economic profile of legislators.
In one page
- Rajni Kothari‘s Congress system describes the first party system: a dominant party of consensus containing its own factions, with opposition parties functioning as parties of pressure rather than of alternation.
- The first party system (1952–67) was Congress dominance; the second (1967–89) its erosion and the rise of state-level challengers; the third (1989–2014) was coalition and regionalisation. A fourth, single-party-dominant phase begins in 2014.
- The decade 1989–99 is the pivot: Mandal, the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, economic liberalisation, and six general elections in eleven years produced a fragmented, coalition polity.
- Party classification under the Election Commission turns on performance thresholds: national, state and registered unrecognised parties, with recognition bringing a reserved symbol and broadcast time.
- Coalition patterns have moved from unstable minority governments (1977–80, 1989–91, 1996–98) to stable pre-poll alliances with a common minimum programme (NDA and UPA from 1998 and 2004).
- Pressure groups in India are institutional (bureaucratic and military associations), associational (business, labour, professional), non-associational (caste and kinship) and anomic (spontaneous agitation).
- Electoral behaviour has shifted from the vote bank of the first system to candidate-, caste- and leader-centred voting, with rising volatility and the decline of the party as membership organisation.
- The socio-economic profile of legislators has changed markedly: more OBC and less upper-caste representation, fewer lawyers and more businesspeople, sharply rising declared assets, and a persistent share with criminal cases.
The three party systems
The Congress system, 1952–67
Kothari‘s account: Congress was not merely the largest party but a system. It occupied the centre, contained within itself the ideological range from conservatives to socialists, and settled disputes internally through factional bargaining. Opposition parties lacked the strength to displace it but could influence it by working on its internal factions, so they functioned as parties of pressure. Consensus, not alternation, was the mechanism of representation, and the system was democratic because the bargaining inside Congress reproduced what competition between parties does elsewhere.
Its social basis was the coalition Congress had inherited from the national movement: upper castes, Dalits, Muslims and, in most states, the dominant landholding castes, held together by patronage and by the movement’s prestige.
Erosion, 1967–89
The 1967 elections ended Congress governments in eight states and cut its Lok Sabha majority sharply. Lohia’s non-Congressism, from Chapter 18, gave the opposition a strategy; the Samyukta Vidhayak Dal governments were its product, and defection became the currency of state politics until the Tenth Schedule in 1985.
The Congress split of 1969 and Indira Gandhi’s reconstruction of the party changed its character from a federal, factional organisation to a centralised, leader-focused one, with state units appointed rather than elected. The Emergency (1975–77) and the Janata experiment (1977–79) demonstrated both that Congress could be defeated and that its opponents could not yet govern.
The third party system, 1989–2014
The 2023 paper asked about the decade 1989–99 as an epochal shift, and the answer needs the four simultaneous causes.
- Mandal. Implementation in 1990 nationalised OBC politics and gave the Samajwadi Party, RJD and others a durable social base, breaking the Congress coalition from below.
- Mandir. The Ram Janmabhoomi movement and the events of December 1992 consolidated a counter-mobilisation and took the BJP from two seats in 1984 to government in 1996 and 1998.
- Market. Liberalisation from 1991 removed economic policy from the arena of party competition and shifted competition toward identity and delivery.
- Regionalisation. State parties became indispensable to national government: TDP, DMK and AIADMK, Trinamool, BJD, JD(U), Shiv Sena, Akali Dal and others. No party won a Lok Sabha majority between 1989 and 2014.
The resulting features: coalition as the norm; the state, not the nation, as the effective unit of electoral competition; the Prime Minister’s dependence on allies; and, institutionally, greater weight for federal bargaining, which Chapter 28 traces.
After 2014
A single party regained a Lok Sabha majority in 2014 and 2019, and led a coalition after 2024. The analytical question is whether this constitutes a fourth party system with a new dominant party, or a phase within the third. The evidence for the former is nationalisation of the vote share, the weakening of several regional parties, and the reassertion of a centralised campaign; the evidence against is the continued strength of state parties in Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Kerala, Telangana and Odisha, and the return of coalition arithmetic in 2024.
Party classification and organisation
Recognition by the Election Commission under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 turns on performance: broadly, a party is national if it is recognised in at least four states, or wins a specified share of votes and seats in Lok Sabha elections across several states; state recognition follows from a threshold of votes and seats in that state. Recognition brings a reserved symbol, free broadcast time, and greater access to electoral rolls; loss of recognition is now periodically reviewed, and several parties have lost national status in recent cycles.
Two organisational features are examinable. Internal democracy is largely absent: organisational elections are frequently notional, and candidate selection is centralised, which the Law Commission’s 255th Report (2015) addressed. And dynasty is pervasive across almost all parties, which is itself a consequence of weak internal democracy rather than a separate defect.
Coalition politics
| Phase | Form | Why it failed or held |
|---|---|---|
| 1977–80 Janata | Post-poll merger of dissimilar parties | Held together only by opposition to Congress; collapsed on the dual-membership question |
| 1989–91 National Front | Minority government with outside support from both BJP and the Left | Support withdrawn from both ends; two governments in two years |
| 1996–98 United Front | Thirteen-party coalition with Congress support from outside | Two Prime Ministers; Congress withdrew support twice |
| 1998–2004 NDA | Pre-poll alliance with a National Agenda for Governance; contentious items set aside | Completed a full term, the first non-Congress government to do so |
| 2004–14 UPA | Pre-poll alliance plus a Common Minimum Programme, with Left support from outside until 2008 | Two full terms; the CMP institutionalised the bargaining |
The lessons drawn in the literature: coalitions are stable when formed before the election, when a written common programme sets contentious issues aside, when a coordination committee exists, and when the leading party is much larger than its partners. Their federal consequence is significant: regional parties in national government pulled policy toward state interests, and the period after 1989 saw the sharpest fall in the use of Article 356.
Pressure groups
Almond and Powell’s fourfold classification is the standard frame and travels well to India.
- Institutional: groups within the state itself, such as the IAS and IPS associations, and formerly the veterans’ lobby on one rank one pension.
- Associational: organised, specialised and voluntary. Business (FICCI, CII, ASSOCHAM), labour (INTUC, AITUC, BMS, CITU), farmers (Bharatiya Kisan Union, Shetkari Sanghatana, and the Samyukt Kisan Morcha in 2020–21), professionals (IMA, Bar associations), and student organisations.
- Non-associational: caste, kinship, religious and linguistic groupings acting politically without formal organisation. Caste associations are the Indian specialty and Chapter 30 covers them.
- Anomic: spontaneous, often unorganised eruptions, from riots to sudden agitations.
The 2024 question asked for a critical assessment of their role in government decision-making.
Contributions. They aggregate and transmit specialised information government does not otherwise have; they represent interests between elections, which a five-year mandate cannot; they provide expertise in law-making and implementation; and they are a check, since organised opposition raises the political cost of a bad decision. The repeal of the three farm laws in November 2021 after a year of agitation is the clearest recent demonstration.
Criticisms. Access is unequal: organised business and professional groups have continuous access, while the unorganised sector, which is most of the workforce, has almost none, and Olson’s logic of collective action from Chapter 2 explains why. Methods are frequently disruptive rather than deliberative. Regulation is weak: India has no lobbying disclosure regime, so influence is exercised without a record, and electoral bonds removed even donor transparency until the scheme was struck down in Association for Democratic Reforms (2024). And many groups are extensions of political parties, which makes them channels of party competition rather than independent interest articulation.
Electoral behaviour and the profile of legislators
Electoral behaviour has moved through recognisable stages: the vote bank of the first system, where a dominant patron delivered a bloc; the identity voting of the Mandal period; and increasing volatility, split-ticket voting between state and national elections, and a rising premium on the leader and on perceived delivery. Turnout has risen over time and, unusually among democracies, is higher among the poor and among Scheduled Castes and Tribes than among the prosperous, which Yogendra Yadav’s work established.
The socio-economic profile of legislators has changed in ways an answer should state with care. Upper-caste representation in the Lok Sabha has fallen substantially from the first decades while remaining above population share; OBC representation has risen, particularly after 1989; occupational composition has shifted from lawyers and freedom-movement veterans toward businesspeople and full-time politicians; average declared assets have risen very sharply; and the share of members with declared criminal cases has risen across successive Lok Sabhas. Women’s representation has risen slowly and remains low, which the Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment) Act 2023 addresses by reserving one-third of seats, its implementation contingent on a census and delimitation.
Where answers lose marks
- Calling the first system a one-party system. Kothari’s point is that it was a competitive system in which the competition happened inside Congress.
- Giving 1989–99 as a single cause. Mandal, mandir, market and regionalisation operated together, and the interaction is the answer.
- Confusing party recognition with registration. Registration under Section 29A of the RPA is easy; recognition depends on performance thresholds and brings a reserved symbol.
- Treating all coalitions as unstable. Pre-poll alliances with a written common programme completed full terms from 1998; the distinction from post-poll arrangements is the point.
- Presenting pressure groups as uniformly beneficial. The access asymmetry between organised business and the unorganised workforce is the critical point.
- Asserting criminalisation figures without care. Use the direction of change, which is well established, rather than precise numbers.
Asked before
- The decade 1989–1999 has created an epochal shift in the Indian party system at the national level. (2023, Paper I, 20 marks)
- Critically assess the role of pressure groups in the decision-making process of the government. (2024, Paper I, 15 marks)
- Illustrate with examples how political parties in India have played a crucial role in drawing the historically disadvantaged groups into the mainstream political system. (2025, Paper I, 15 marks)
Answer skeleton
The decade 1989–1999 has created an epochal shift in the Indian party system at the national level. (20 marks, 350 words)
Frame. Accept the claim and specify what shifted: from a dominant-party system with competition inside one party, to a fragmented, coalition system with competition between many.
The baseline. Kothari’s Congress system: party of consensus, internal factional bargaining, opposition as parties of pressure. Eroded from 1967 but not replaced.
Cause one, Mandal. Implementation in 1990 nationalised OBC politics, produced SP and RJD as durable formations, and detached a large part of Congress’s social base.
Cause two, mandir. The Ram Janmabhoomi movement and December 1992 produced a counter-mobilisation that took the BJP from two seats in 1984 to government in 1996 and 1998.
Cause three, market. Liberalisation from 1991 removed economic direction from party competition, shifting contestation to identity and delivery.
Cause four, regionalisation. State parties became necessary to any national majority; no party won a Lok Sabha majority between 1989 and 2014.
The consequences. Coalition as norm; pre-poll alliances with common minimum programmes from 1998; the state as the effective unit of competition; more federal bargaining and a collapse in Article 356’s use after Bommai (1994); and greater social representativeness in legislatures.
Qualify. The shift was durable but not permanent: single-party majorities returned in 2014 and 2019, though regional parties remain dominant in several large states. So the decade produced a structural change in the basis of competition even where the arithmetic later changed.
Last-mile revision
- Kothari’s Congress system: party of consensus, internal factions, parties of pressure.
- 1967 elections and SVD governments; Congress split 1969; Emergency 1975–77; Janata 1977–79; Tenth Schedule 1985.
- 1989–99: Mandal 1990, mandir and December 1992, liberalisation 1991, regionalisation; no Lok Sabha majority 1989–2014.
- Recognition under the Election Symbols Order 1968; registration under Section 29A of the RPA.
- Coalitions: Janata 1977, National Front 1989, United Front 1996, NDA 1998 with the National Agenda for Governance, UPA 2004 with the Common Minimum Programme.
- Pressure groups: institutional, associational, non-associational, anomic; farm laws repealed November 2021; no lobbying disclosure regime; electoral bonds struck down in 2024.
- Behaviour: vote bank, identity voting, volatility, split-ticket voting; turnout higher among the poor and among SC and ST voters.
- Legislators: falling upper-caste and rising OBC share, more businesspeople, rising assets and criminal cases; 106th Amendment 2023 on women’s reservation, contingent on census and delimitation.
Read the rest. This chapter is one of 58 in the complete PSIR Optional Notes, covering Paper I and Paper II in full — free to download.
Tell Google you want more of this.
Add Anantam IAS as a preferred sourceOne tap, and this site shows up more often in your own Top Stories, AI Overviews and AI Mode. Remove it any time.
