There was a time when an concept or an ideology was a powerful bond that brought with each other individuals from various states, speaking various languages, professing various faiths, born in various castes and belonging to various financial classes of society. Political parties had been founded on the basis of an concept or an ideology. The foremost instance in India is the Indian National Congress began in 1885.
The primary aim of the founding fathers of the Congress was ‘to obtain a greater share in government for educated Indians and to create a platform for dialogue between them and the British’. There was no believed about securing independence. That came substantially later, involving 1919 and 1929.
The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), even though it protests that it is not a political party, is yet another instance. The concept that binds its members is Hindu Rashtra. Whatever it could have meant in the initial years, it is now an atavistic and xenophobic ideology that targets Muslims, Christians, Dalits, immigrants and, in a subtle way, disparages females, non-Hindi speaking individuals and Other Backward Classes.
There are numerous examples at the state level. The DMK was founded on regional pride, really like of Tamil, self-respect, anti-superstition and anti-caste. Its splinter, the AIADMK, was ostensibly born out of a crusade against corruption.
Evolving Ideologies
No ideology remained unchanged. The Congress, more than the years, vowed to win independence, accommodated conservatives and progressives, moved to the Left, adopted secularism and socialism, shifted to the Centre, espoused a industry economy, embraced welfarism, and now is attempting to define its financial and social policies that will distinguish it from the BJP. The BJP has turn into unabashedly more Hindu nationalist and more capitalist. The Communist parties have accepted multi-party democracy. Regional parties have also moderated their policies and positions. For instance, the AIADMK that broke away from the DMK was, from the word go, a theistic party and the DMK, in current years, has categorically shed atheism.
I have reflected on these parties and the altering ideologies. Every ideology appears to contain the believers but also appears to exclude the non-believers whose votes and assistance are as vital as these of the believers. Hence, the need to have for continuous transform and accommodation. The non-believers who identified themselves excluded formed political parties that reflected their sympathies or antipathies. Thus, peculiar antipathies led to the formation of the Congress (O) and Congress (R), Janata Dal, SP, NCP, BJD and Telugu Desam. Desire for a separate state or more autonomy inspired the formation of the TRS and AGP.
Exclusionary Politics
Yet, substantial sections of the individuals had been left out or felt they had been left out — and nonetheless really feel so — by the a lot of political parties of India. Among them are Muslims and Dalits. These sections can not be condemned as communal or casteist. As lengthy as they are excluded from mainstream politics, these sections will, justifiably, commence their personal political parties. That exclusion, either de jure or de facto, is in my view, central to understanding Indian politics and the wish for coalitions.
I could recall that the BJP did not field any Muslim candidate in Gujarat (2017, 182 seats, Muslim population 9.65 per cent) or in Uttar Pradesh (2017, 402 seats, Muslim population 19.3 per cent). What really should the Muslims in the two states do? Other parties certainly adopted a various method, fielded Muslim candidates, but more typically than not it was tokenism. In the case of Dalits, all parties relegated them to ‘reserved’ constituencies. The net outcome is more political exclusion than political inclusion. In course of time, Muslims, Dalits and other excluded sections realised the need to have to kind separate parties to defend and advance their interests.
The All India Muslim League was founded in 1906. In independent India, there are numerous Muslim-founded parties: the IUML, AIUDF, AIMIM and other smaller sized parties. Likewise, Dalits founded the BSP, LJP (in Bihar) and VCK (in Tamil Nadu). The RSS and BJP bash the Muslim-founded parties but ally with Dalit-founded parties practically nothing can be more cynical. (The BJP reportedly allied with the AIUDF in a zilla parishad election in Assam.)
Better for Governance
Given a quantity of exclusive parties, coalitions have shown the way for more inclusive politics. In the existing elections, Muslim- and Dalit-founded parties have identified space for themselves in coalitions in Assam, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal. I assume that is superior. If these parties contested alone, they would discover it tough to enter legislative bodies and be forced to stay by-standers and agitators. It is superior that they enter Parliament and state Legislatures and participate in the governance of the nation and the states.
Every party tries to place with each other a coalition. It is feasible that in some elections in some states a political party could be capable to win a majority on its personal but, even in such circumstances, the party would choose to aggregate the votes of a couple of more parties and consolidate its majority. Most elections have now turn into contests involving coalitions. In the existing state elections, two broad coalitions are ranged against each and every other in Assam, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Puducherry UT. In West Bengal, there are 3 coalitions but not of equal strength. My expertise has been that a coalition government is more accountable and more responsive.
Vajpayee’s and Dr Manmohan Singh’s governments had been coalitions. Therefore, let’s not damn electoral alliances or coalition governments. Such governments are superior than single party autocratic regimes and provide superior outcomes.