Revision summary
1989 ended the expectation of a Congress majority as the normal national result. The decade’s governments were minority or coalition: National Front, Congress minority, United Front, and NDA. The BJP rose as the second national pole; OBC and State parties became regular Union bargainers. Kothari’s Congress system gave way to a federalised multi-party system. The shift is epochal at the national level even though later majorities created a further phase.
Model answer
Introduction
From 1989 to 1999 the national party system moved away from Congress dominance toward a multi-party, coalition, and federalised pattern. The shift is epochal because no single party again formed a full-term majority government in that decade, and because regional parties entered the Union executive as a regular fact.
Body
End of the old Congress system
- Rajni Kothari’s Congress system — a dominant party with factions and a weak opposition — broke after 1989.
- The 1989 election produced a hung Lok Sabha. V. P. Singh’s National Front government depended on outside support, a new national format.
- Congress returned in 1991 as a minority under P. V. Narasimha Rao and completed a term by management, not by restoration of one-party dominance.
- The 1996–98 United Front and the 1998–99 National Democratic Alliance made coalition the normal path to the Union cabinet.
Major national trends
- Hung parliaments and coalition or minority governments at the Centre, instead of a single-party majority as the expected result.
- Rise of the Bharatiya Janata Party as the principal national alternative, from a small 1984 tally to leading the NDA by 1998–99, with the 1992 Ayodhya sequence as a polarising national cleavage.
- Mandalisation: OBC parties and the Janata family fragments became national veto and alliance players after 1990 reservation politics.
- Federalisation of the national party system: State parties (TDP, DMK, AIADMK, SAD, Shiv Sena, RJD, SP, and others) bargained over Union portfolios and policy.
- Decline of a neat two-party alternative; a bipolar tendency around Congress and BJP still had to pass through regional allies.
- Economic liberalisation after 1991 changed the policy space that parties contested, even when caste and temple remained the mass languages.
- Fragmentation of the Janata tradition and of the Left’s national reach, with the Left still decisive in 1996–97 support politics.
Why it is epochal
- Dahl’s contestation became multi-polar at the Union level, not only a Congress-versus-rest election.
- Centralising Union governments had to share the cabinet, which is a party-system limit on the federal tilt discussed in Q7(a).
- The 1999 NDA full term after the decade’s instability confirmed that the new format could also deliver a completed Lok Sabha, still as a coalition.
- The epoch is 1989–99 as the break. Later single-party majorities after 2014 are another phase, not a return of the 1952–64 Congress system.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD Y[1989] --> H[Hung Lok Sabha] H --> C[Coalitions and minority] C --> B[BJP as national pole] C --> R[Regional parties in Union] C --> M[Mandal OBC parties]
Conclusion
The major national trends of 1989–1999 were the end of Congress dominance, hung Houses, coalition federalism, the BJP’s rise, and Mandal’s party effects. Together they created a multi-party national system. That is the epochal shift.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Do you agree that over the years the Supreme Court has become a forum for policy evolution? Justify your answer
Next question in the 2023 paper (Q8). View answer →
-
Was 1977 not already the epochal shift?
1977 was the first non-Congress Union government, but 1980 restored Congress majority. 1989 began a decade in which majority restoration failed.
-
Did national parties disappear?
No. Congress and the BJP remained the two national poles. What changed is that they usually needed State parties to govern.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2022 · Q5(e) · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
High concentration of economic activities and consumption patterns in post-liberalisation period has led to the failure of environmental movements in India. Elucidate. -
2022 · Q6(a) · PSIR GS 1 · 20 marks
Electoral behaviour of voters is governed more by the social and economic factors than the political factors. Explain -
2022 · Q8(c) · PSIR GS 1 · 15 marks
How far is it correct that the regional parties have strengthened the Indian democracy and federal system? Substantiate your answer with suitable examples -
2021 · Q7(a) · PSIR GS 1 · 20 marks
"The Indian party system is shaped by a complex interaction of the country's federal structure, electoral system and social cleavages." Explain
More from this paper
Q1(a) · UPSC Mains 2023 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Normative approach in Political Science.
Political Theory
The normative approach asks what political life ought to be and argues about justice, liberty, and obligation. Plato, Aristotle, the contract theorists, Mill, and Rawls are central practitioners. Easton and Dahl supply empirical maps of systems and decisions that cannot replace the question of right. Communitarian critics warn that abstract persons can hide real communities. Indian Parts III and IV show that a constitution is itself a public set of ought-statements.
Q1(b) · UPSC Mains 2023 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Multicultural perspective on rights.
Political Theory
Multicultural theory treats culture as a condition of using liberty, not as a private hobby. Kymlicka, Taylor, Parekh, and Walzer argue for recognition and, in some cases, group rights. Indian Articles 25 to 30 and linguistic states are the constitutional form of that argument. Ambedkar’s Article 17 and sex-equality limits block a group veto over civil liberty. The perspective fails if it either ignores minorities or traps persons inside the group.
Q1(c) · UPSC Mains 2023 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
State of Nature as State of War (Hobbes).
Political Theory
Hobbes’s state of nature is a state of war: a condition of known readiness to fight where there is no common power. Competition, diffidence, and glory are the three causes of quarrel. Natural equality of vulnerability makes pre-emptive violence rational. The sovereign ends the war by monopolising judgment and force. Locke, Mill, and constitutional democracy keep a common power and then limit it, which Hobbes refused as a right against the sovereign.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.