INDIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM

India is a Sovereign, Secular, Democratic Republic with a Parliamentary form of

Government. The Constitution was adopted by the Constituent Assembly on 26th November
1949 and came into force on 26th November 1950. The Constitution advocated the trinity of
justice, liberty and equality for all the citizens. The Constitution was framed keeping in mind
the socioeconomic progress of the country. India follows a parliamentary form of democracy
and the government is federal in structure.
In Indian political system, the President is the constitutional head of the executive of the
Union of India. The real executive power is with the Prime Minister and the Council of
Ministers. According to the Article 74(1) of the constitution, the Council of Ministers under
the leadership of the Prime Minister is responsible to aid and assist the President in exercising
the Presidents function. The Council of ministers is responsible to the Lok Sabha, the House
of People. In states the Governor is the representative of the President, though the real
executive power is with the Chief Minister along with his Council of Ministers.
For a given state the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible for the elected legislative
assembly of the state. The Constitution administrates the sharing of legislative power between
Parliament and the State Legislatures. The Parliament has the power to amend the
Constitution.
President of India
The President of India is the constitutional head of India and is the supreme commander of
the nations armed forces. The President is elected by members of an Electoral College
consisting of elected members of both the Houses of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies
of the states, with suitable weightage given to each vote. His term of office is for five years.
Among other powers, the President can proclaim an emergency in the country if he is
satisfied that the security of the country or of any part of its territory is threatened by the
following situations. A war or external aggression, an armed rebellion within the country and
collapse of state machinery in terms of economic and political crisis. Hence when there is a
failure of the constitutional machinery in a state, the President can assume all or any of the
functions of the government of that state.
Vice-President
The Vice-President of India is elected by the members of an electoral college consisting of
members of both Houses of Parliament. The method of electing the Vice President is the
system of proportional representation by means of a single transferable vote. He like the
President holds office for five years. The Vice-President also happens to be Ex-officio
Chairman of the Rajya Sabha and presides over its proceedings.
Council of Ministers
The Council Of Ministers is the supreme governing body in the country and is selected from
the elected members of the Union Government. The Council of Ministers comprises of

Cabinet Ministers, Minister of States and Deputy Ministers. Prime Minister heads the Council
of Ministers and communicates all decisions of the Council of Ministers relating to
administration of affairs of the Union and proposals for legislation to the President.
Generally, each department has an officer designated as secretary to the Government of India
to advise the Ministers on policy matters and general administration. The Cabinet Secretariat
has an important harmonizing role in decision making at the highest level and operates under
the bearing of the Prime Minister.
Parliament
The Parliament is the legislative arm of the Union. It consists of the President, Rajya Sabha
or the Upper House and Lok Sabha or the Lower House. All bills to be made into law require
the consent of both the houses of parliament. However, in case of money bills, the Lok Sabha
is the supreme authority.
Rajya Sabha
The Rajya Sabha consists of not more than 250 members. Of these, 233 represent states and
union territories and 12 members are nominated by the President. Elections to the Rajya
Sabha are indirect. Members to the Rajya Sabha are elected by the elected members of
Legislative Assemblies of the concerned states. The members of the Upper House put forth
the interests of their respective state in the Parliament. The Rajya Sabha is not subject to
dissolution in contrast to the Lok Sabha and one third of its members retire every second
year.
Lok Sabha
The Lok Sabha is composed of representatives of the people chosen by direct election on the
basis of universal adult franchise. As of today, the Lok Sabha consists of 545 members with
two members nominated by the President to stand for the Anglo-Indian Community. Unless
dissolved under circumstances like failure of the leading party to prove clear majority or a
no-confidence motion, the term of the Lok Sabha is for five years.
State Governments
The system of government in states closely resembles that of the Union. In the states as well
there are two major governing bodies - the legislative assembly and the legislative council.
For the Legislative assembly direct elections are held and the political party receiving the
majority votes forms the Government in the state. There are 28 states and seven Union
territories in the country. Union Territories are administered by the President through a
Governor or administrator appointed by him. Till 1 February 1992, the Union Territory of
Delhi was governed by the Central government through an Administrator appointed by the
President of India. Through a Constitutional amendment in Parliament, the Union Territory of
Delhi is called the National Capital Territory of Delhi from 1 February 1992 onwards.
General elections to the Legislative assembly of the National Capital Territory were held in
November 1993. Since then after every five years the state underwent general elections
maintaining the democratic process in Delhi.

Political Parties In India

In India a recognized political party is categorized either as a National Party or a State Party.
If a political party is recognized in four or more states and is either the ruling party or is in the
opposition in these states, it is considered as a National Party. The Congress, Bharatiya Janata
Party, Janata Dal, Communist Party of India and Communist Party of India (Marxist) are the
prominent National Parties in the Country. Some of these parties have existed before the
independence of the country while few of these emerged after political dynamism flourished
in the country in post independent years.
Telugu Desam in Andhra Pradesh, Asom Gana Parishad in Assam, Jharkhand Mukti Morcha
in Bihar, Maharashtra Gomantak Party in Goa, National Conference in Jammu and Kashmir,
Muslim League in Kerala, Shiv Sena in Maharashtra, Akali Dal in Punjab, All-India Anna
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam in Tamil Nadu, Bahujan
Samaj Party and Samajwadi Party in Uttar Pradesh and All-India Forward Block in West
Bengal are the prominent state parties which are the major political players in their respective
states. In fact in most of the states where the regional parties have come to the fore
understanding the nuisance of their respective state better, there the scope of National parties
emerging victorious is barely present.
Political administration of India
India is a democracy. Before its independence its future leaders chose the liberal democratic
system as the administration system of India. On 26/01/1950, India declared itself as
Republic. On this day the Constitution of India came into force. Today India is a federation
of 28 states and 7 union territories and formally this federation is known as a Union.
Nominally the head of the country is the President in whom all executive powers are vested,
but the real administrator of the country is the Prime Minister. After the national elections are
held the President calls the most suitable candidate to form a government, known as the
central government. Normally this candidate is the head of the largest party in the parliament.
In case the government resigns because of any reason, the President can call the other
candidate to form the government. The President can also declare, according to government
advice, on new elections and if necessary an emergency state. The President has the right to
be updated about crucial government matters and other rights like giving amnesty to
prisoners etc. According to the Constitution, elections are to be held once in every five years,
unless the parliament dissolves earlier or on the other hand, emergency is declared and in
such a case parliament can continue another year.
The Indian Parliament consists of two houses. The Lower House called the Lok Sabha and
the Upper House called the Rajya Sabha. In the national elections candidates are chosen for
the Lower House. The candidates are elected in territorial constituencies. There are 543
territorial constituencies. Two members from the Anglo-Indian community are nominated to
the Lower House by the President. The law, which obliges Government office to reserve 15%
from the Scheduled Castes and 7% from the Scheduled Tribes, also exists in the Parliament.
At least 22% of the Indian Parliament members belong to these two communities (see Caste

system in modern India). In the past few years there is an attempt to oblige a law to allow
about 33% women as Parliament members.
The Upper House, Rajya Sabha, consists of up to 250 members. Of these members 230 are
elected by state legislatures and about 15 are nominated by the President. Unlike the Lower
House, the Upper House cannot be dissolved, but one third of its members resign every two
years.
Most of the parliamentary activities, passing laws, no-confidence votes, budget bills, take
place in the Lower House. The Upper House together with the Lower House amends the
Constitution. These two Houses together with the state legislatures also elect the President.
The states have their own legislatures. Some states have two Houses and some only one
House. The Lower House where most of the legislature activities happen is called the Vidhan
Sabha. The state elections are held every five years unless the state government is dissolved
earlier. In these elections members for the Lower House are elected.
Head of a state is called Chief Minister, who is member of the Lower House. Constitutionally
the figurehead of the state is the Governor, who is appointed by the President according to the
advice of the national government. After the state elections the governor calls for the suitable
candidate to form the government. In general the governor has more legislative rights at state
level than the President has at national level. The governor can call on early elections in the
state, or fire the government if he thinks that the government has failed or is unstable.
In the federal relations between the state and central government, the central government has
more authority on state matters than the state government. For example the central
government has the right to redistribute the state borders without consulting the state
governments on this matter. If the political conditions in any state are not stable, the national
government can call on the President to declare President's rule in that specific state. And so
the government in that state is dissolved, which means an emergency rule is declared and
sometimes if necessary the army is put to work in that state.
Even though the Constitution determinates the rights of the different authorities in the
administration process, there can be other pressures like strong lobbies or strong political
parties, which, sometimes determinate the real administration process. Sometimes the
authority implemented by the President is questioned by the government or by political
parties as deviation from his constitutional rights as the nominal head of the Union.
India's political structure, an impediment to local governance:
Human-rights activist and policy researcher, John Samuel argues that Indias system of
Panchayati Raj Institutions offers great opportunities for inclusive grassroots democracy but,
our political structure is the biggest impediment to the transfer of power and autonomy to
local self-governments.
The three-tier panchayati raj system of India is the largest experiment in grassroots
democratisation in the history of humanity. There are around 3 million elected representatives

at all levels of the panchayat system and now 50% of them will be women. They represent
more than 240,000 gram panchayats, 6,500 intermediate tiers (block panchayats) and more
than 500 district panchayats. The fact that the Indian system of local governance -- the
panchayat system -- has its roots in the cultural and historical legacy of India makes it
different from many other initiatives of decentralisation of governance. he idea of panchayats
and sabhas has travelled a long way from institutions of traditional local governance to an
important cornerstone in the Constitution of India. The 73rd and 74th constitutional
amendments, arguably the most substantive amendments since the adoption of the
Constitution, envisage panchayats as institutions of local self-governance. The three-tier
system of local governance is also meant to build synergies between representative and direct
democracy and participatory governance, resulting in deepening of democracy at the
grassroots level. Though there is a huge gap between the promises of substantive local selfgovernance and the realisation of true political devolution of three-tier panchayat raj system
of local governance still offers the great possibility of transferring power to the people.
Substantive democratisation works when all people are empowered to participate in
governance, ask questions, take decisions, raise resources, prioritise the social and economic
agenda for local development and ensure social and political accountability. Such a vision of
democracy requires democratisation from below and a true devolution of power to the people.
The nurturing of local democratic culture and local self-government would be the most
important means to realise the promise of Indian democracy: an inclusive, capable,
participatory, accountable and effective direct democracy at the grassroots level.
Though the idea of local government was discussed and debated in the wake of the
movement for freedom in India, it took 45 years after independence to make it a
constitutional guarantee. While Gandhi argued for Gram Swaraj (village republics) and
strengthening of village panchayats to the greatest extent, Dr B R Ambedkar warned that such
local governments would be captured by local caste and feudal elites, perpetuating the
marginalisation and exclusion of dalits and other excluded sections of society.
The present three-tier panchayat raj system, with 50% representation for women and
provision of representation for dalit and tribal communities, provides a much-needed space
for inclusive democracy. In spite of the promises of grassroots democratisation, there are
structural and political impediments to realising the Gandhian proposal for real Gram Swaraj.
The idea of panchayati raj emerged through a series of policy proposals and processes after
independence. The Balwantrai Mehta Committee (1957) came out with the first
comprehensive policy proposals in the context of community development. Though the
committee recommended early establishment of elected local bodies and devolution to them
of necessary resources, power and authority, the primary thrust was on implementation of
community development projects rather than true devolution of political power.
Following the Balwantrai Mehta committee, four other committees in the next 30 years (K
Santhanam Committee,1963, Ashok Mehta Committee,1978, G K Rao Committee,1985, and
L M Singvi Committee 1986) made serious proposals to revitalise panchayat raj institutions
as per the Directive Principles of State Policy mentioned in Article 40 of the Constitution of

India: The State shall take steps to organise village panchayats and endow them with such
powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as unit of selfgovernment.
t took 45 years of political and policy process to move this from an aspiration of the Directive
Principles to a justiciable guarantee of the Cconstitution. Apart from the 73rd and 74th
amendments, the most important step towards grassroots democratisation is the Panchayat
Extension to the Scheduled Areas Act, 1996, which makes gram sabhas(peoples
committees/meetings at the grassroots level) a viable means of direct participatory
democracy.
One of the major hurdles in realising the true democratic and political potential of local selfgovernance is the structural and systemic resistance by the bureaucracy and political elites in
control of important state apparatuses. There is a tension between the instrumental value of
Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) in community development and project implementation,
and the intrinsic value of PRI as strong political institutions with regulatory and
administrative power, adequate funds and fiscal capacity. Following the Balwantrai Mehta
Committee recommendations, PRIs were expected to be the main vehicle for community
development projects. However, funding for community development projects had stagnated
by the mid-1960s and panchayats stagnated without adequate funds and authority.
Even after the crucial constitutional amendments, one of the major hurdles is that in spite of
various measures to devolve administrative and implementing mechanisms to panchayats,
there has not been adequate devolution of finance, functions and functionaries to the PRIs. A
few states such as Kerala, Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh have made important steps
towards this, though true devolution of political and financial power still remains far from
being realised even here. In a dissenting note to the Ashok Mehta Committee report (1978),
one of the members of the committee, EMS Namboodiripad, made a very pertinent remark:
Democracy at the central and state levels, but bureaucracy at all lower levels -- this is the
essence of the Indian polity as spelt out in the Constitution I am afraid that the ghost of the
earlier idea that panchayat raj institutions should be completely divorced from all regulatory
functions is haunting my colleagues. What is required is that while certain definite fields of
administration like defence, foreign affairs, currency, communication etc should rest with the
centre, all the rest should be transferred to the states and from there to the district and lower
level of local administrative bodies.
Even now, one of the key challenges is the transition of PRIs from mere local-level
implementing agencies to real local self-government institutions with political, financial,
administrative and regulatory powers in setting the agenda for local social and economic
development.
There have been some very bold initiatives, like the Peoples Planning Process in Kerala, that
point towards the potential of peoples participation in local self-governance and the
possibilities of panchayats. In spite of a few such innovative initiatives to strengthen PRIs
and peoples participation, there are still major structural challenges to make them the

vehicles for substantive democratisation at the grassroots level. Some of them are to do with
the very architecture of the governance process in India and some of them are to do with the
character and nature of political power in India.
Some key challenges and issues are:
The challenge of transforming PRIs as the location of countervailing power of people to
claim their rights and demand direct social accountability.
The potential for PRIs to become the key vehicles for social transformation by ensuring
the active agency and participation of women and marginalised sections of society. Such a
role for PRIs would help women and marginalised sections of society to assert their political
space and demands for an inclusive social and economic agenda.
There seems to be a strong link between a vibrant local democracy and human
development, as there would be more strategic allocation and effective expenditure of
resources to promote primary healthcare, education and sustainable environment. However,
PRIs play a lesser role in ensuring quality primary healthcare and education at the grassroots
level.
The success of PRIs is also influenced by the effective delivery of basic services to the
poor and marginalised sections. Hence, the macro-policy framework, that ensures the right to
livelihood, is critical to the success of PRIs as an important vehicle for poverty eradication.
Devolution of finance, particularly untied funds, is crucial to the success of PRIs as the
means for local governance.
Deliberate efforts to remove the administrative, legal and procedural anomalies would be
important to make PRIs effective.
PRIs offer the most effective means for social accountability and transparency. Hence,
devolving financial control to them would help reduce instances of large-scale and
entrenched corruption. The Eleventh Finance Commission, analysing the issue of centre-state
financial relations, highlighted the need to strengthen the finances of local bodies. Hence,
there is a need to have broader finance reform to ensure fiscal devolution through the national
and state finance commission.
The experience of Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh demonstrates that
the transfer of funds, functions and functionaries would be critical to effective
decentralisation. An effective policy framework for decentralisation from above needs to be
complemented with social mobilisation and democratisation from below. In Kerala, social
mobilisation through neighbourhood groups and womens groups such as Kudumbasree,
proved to be an effective means to strengthen the demand at the grassroots level and facilitate
the participation of women and marginalised groups in governance.
Democratization at the grassroots level requires space for the voices of the poor and
marginalised to be heard through networks of social mobilisation. Such a space for

participation, demand for effective delivery of services, and demand for accountability, can
strengthen the process of socio-political empowerment and capabilities of the poor. A human
rights-based approach to governance is crucial for grassroots democratisation. Hence,
empowerment of gram sabhas is critical to the claiming of rights and asserting the voice of
the marginalised and poor. Unless the legal and administrative hurdles that often constrain the
effective role of the gram sabha are removed, the potential of the PRIs will not be realised. It
is important to recognise that there are entrenched pathologies of caste discrimination,
patriarchy and identity-based political dynamics at the grassroots level. It is thus very
important to have a safeguard mechanism to ensure transparency and accountability. There
can be systematic efforts for participatory governance assessment such as social audit and
peoples report card, to make sure that PRIs are not captured by the elite or by one political
party or group.
While PRIs are still a work in progress, there are many initiatives that undermine the role of
PRIs. For example, more than Rs 2,000 core is spent annually through the Local Area
Development Fund of MPs and MLAs. Most of these funds are spent independent of the
social and economic priorities of the PRIs. Such parallel systems of financing can undermine
the real governance role of PRIs, according more powers to the elites of a particular political
party and to bureaucratic elites at the district level.
There is also potential for PRIs to become the primary institutions for disaster mitigation,
sustainable development, and water conservation, facilitation of local economies and creation
of employment opportunity at the grassroots level through small and medium enterprises that
make use of the local natural and agricultural resources.
The 73rd and 74th amendments provide us a unique opportunity for democratisation, social
accountability, effective service delivery, poverty eradication and reduction of corruption and
a more participatory democracy. In spite of all the economic growth, there is still entrenched
poverty and social and economic inequality in India. When there are islands of prosperity,
surrounded by a sea of poverty and inequality, the real participation of everyone as equal
citizens would be more challenging than it is assumed. We may have to go miles before
realising Gandhis dream of Gram Swaraj:
Every village has to become a self-sufficient republic. This requires brave, corporate and
intelligent work...I have not pictured a poverty stricken India containing ignorant millions. I
have pictured an India continually progressing along the lines best suited to her genius. I do
not, however, picture it as a third class or even first class copy of the dying civilisation of the
west. If my dream is fulfilled everyone of the 7 lakh villages becomes a well-living republic
in which there is no illiteracy, in which no one is idle for want of work, in which everyone is
usefully occupied and has nourishing food and well-ventilated dwellings, and sufficient khadi
for covering the body and in which all villagers observe the laws of hygiene and sanitation.
Indian Politics: Is change finally here?
The origin of the Indian party system can be traced to the formation of the Indian National
Congress in 1885, under Allan Octavian Hume. Even after independence, the INC continued

to remain the dominant party for at least 2 decades, while its journey post 1967 saw many
changes, in terms of party splits, its loss in the 1977 elections and thumping victory in the
1980 elections. From independence to the present day, the Indian political scene has been
witness to several party formations, splits, conflicts and reconciliations.
However, I personally feel that the last 2-3 years have been the most dynamic period in
Indian politics, in the positive sense. Awareness of the people is pivotal to the efficient
working of a democracy. It has been 62 years since India emerged as a functioning
democracy and it has taken about 60 years for the population to realize its role in public life.
Even then it is a positive development. Today while on the one hand, caste is increasingly
becoming a dominant factor in politics, corruption and dereliction of duty have become
synonymous with politicians; we have on the other hand initiatives like Jaago Re!, which
spread awareness about the importance of casting ones vote. They even help people get their
voter id cards. The 2009 general elections saw a marked difference even in terms of the
people contesting them. We had an increased participation of educated and well-informed
candidates, like Shashi Tharoor (who represented the Congress), Mallika Sarabhai (who
stood as an independent candidate from Gandhinagar), Meera H Sanyal (she contested as an
independent candidate from the Mumbai South constituency and is currently the chairperson
and country executive for ABN AMRO Bank). Some of these new faces lost, some of them
won. But what emerged victorious was the spirit which propelled these people to enter
politics. They wanted a change in the way the country functions, so they decided to take the
road less traveled and be the change.
India has a population of more than one billion; therefore a change in the mindset of every
individual cannot come about over night. Even with all the awareness campaigns, a city like
Mumbai registered a voter turnout of 43.52%, not even 50% of the population felt the need to
cast their vote! This is disappointing and one can only hope that people wake up before the
next elections because even the 26/11 terrorist attack doesnt seem to have worked as an
effective alarm clock. It cant be doubted that we need more educated people in politics and
while education is important even more imperative is a commitment to serve the nation.
Being a huge and diverse country in terms of culture, geography, population, income levels
and literacy every area has its own problems. The new entrants into politics have a huge task
in front of them, they have to make themselves known in every part of the country and win
credibility in the eyes of every Indian, as presently their influence is restricted only to a few
urban centres. To all the politicians, old and new, I would like to say, borrowing a line from
the Spiderman movie With great power comes great responsibility, hope they carry it out
well.
Indian Politics: We Want it to Change
Politics in India or in any other nation has always been a prime issue, because the entire
society rests upon the government of the country. The peace and prosperity of a country is
directly proportional to the kind of government that rules it. A healthy government leads to
the formation of a healthy nation. India is a democratic country. Here, the people choose their
own leaders through the voting system. There are many political parties in India, major ones

being BJP and Congress. At present, the Indians politics is like a game of tug-of-war between
these two major parties. In the past, India has witnessed many examples of an efficient
government.
But in the past few years, various evils have crept into the system, bribery being the most
important one. During the election campaigning, the party people bribe the common man to
vote in their favour. They offer them gifts, money or anything else to convince them in this
regard, and even appeal to them on cast lines. Moreover, these parties get attractive
pamphlets published at the time of elections, which mention numerous social services. But
they are literally meant to be thrown into the dustbin after the elections, because even half of
these promises are not fulfilled once the party comes into power.
This cheating is rarely possible in the metro cities where the citizens are educated and smart
enough to judge who is better and who can actually promote their welfare. But at the very
base of our country, the villages face this problem every time the elections are conducted,
since most of them are illiterate and unaware of the pros and cons of the situation. As a result,
they can easily be persuaded and hence, their precious votes are misused.
The recent elections in America came out with such positive results, that the whole world had
to agree that nothing is impossible. For the first time, America got a black man as their
president- Barack Obama. But apart from this, what surprised me more was that the leader of
the opposition party- Mc Cain did accept his defeat in the end. He wished the new president
with equal warmth as the others. His statement that we will work together for the prosperity
of USA, was remarkably startling.
India ought to learn from the USA, that who wins is not important. What is more important is
the progress of the nation by any means. And this is exactly what is lacking in the Indian
political system. Not only before or at the time of elections, but even after the government
has come into power, the opposition accepts its faults. They are always is search of issues that
can cause the failure of the ruling party.
Even if there are no such issues, the opposition unnecessarily tries to create irrelevant issues
and thus hamper the working of the government. As India is a democratic country,, the
opposition party ha full right to claim the faults of the ruling party but to forget the ultimate
goal of improving the country and only search for ones own benefit is not justified.
It is said that the students are the future of the nation. But if the present leaders are like this,
what can be expected out of the future leaders? Its but obvious that they will also start
walking on the same illegal path. And this is exactly what is happening in the student
elections in the universities. From the college level itself, they learn the tactics of convincing
people for votes by any means, legal or illegal. They offer all the stuff that can persuade the
students for votes- parties, discos, free meals at restaurants and free movie tickets. So when
the entire basis of the Indian political system is threatened, how can anybody expect the
future of the country to be in the safe hands?

It is time that the entire Indian political system undergoes a revolution. That is the need and
demand of the time. More and more examples of efficient government are coming up from
across the world, especially in the USA. India must learn from them. Only then can we
expect to have better governments in the future and hope for the prosperity of the country.
Towards becoming a matured democracy
India is today the largest democracy in the world .But, we Indians should take some time off
to analyze this fact. The picture has not been as rosy as it seems. Democracy is five decades
old in India. But has it grown or is it moving in the right direction? India is undoubtedly the
largest democracy. But is it a successful one?
In India, democracy is a mere fight between innumerable political parties that mushroom with
every single issue. But, every time an election is held, Indians are a touch concerned about
one thing: hung parliament; a condition in which no single political party gets an absolute
majority. The only way out is the formation of a coalition government. With a coalition
government comes, anxiety, dirty political tricks, eventually holding the democracy at
ransom. Thus, it can be said that cause of many evils that afflicts our political system is
because of coalition governments and hung parliament. And the root cause of coalition
governments is the multiparty system followed in India.
Multiparty system allows innumerable political parties to thrive.. Coalition governments are
formed with a national party taking the lead and regional parties playing second fiddle. Such
arrangements formed usually only on the basis or greed for power, rather than political
philosophies or moral values has been the bane of Indian politics. In such coalitions, the first
casualty usually is national interest. When the regional parties who hold the national parties at
ransom for petty political gains, matters related with national importance takes a back seat.
Since the chances of regional parties withdrawing their support always exists, they end up
being the kingmakers. In case the regional parties withdraw support, an election becomes
imminent, thereby resulting in the wastage of taxpayers money. Under such an atmosphere
of doubt, how can a democracy in its true form exist? How can the government policies be
implemented effectively? When coalition formation becomes the paramount issue, parties
resort to horse trading thereby touching the nadir of political decency. This will involve
barons as well, who by contributing the money, will control the path of administration.
This brings us to the question about the means to get out of this situation. The most effective
solution is a conversion to bi-party system as done in UK and US. This can do way with the
ills of coalition politics, such as elimination of chances of a hung parliament or an unstable
government. A government can be sure about the allotted timeframe for administration. This
will help them in effective governing. But how able will this method be in India, is the multi
dollar question, as Indian situation is quite different from the US and the UK. Indias identity
itself is her diversity. With so many diverse cultures, the problems afflicting the masses are
entirely different; the threads that bind them are different. Under such circumstances, a part
rooted in the soil alone can understand and solve the problems.

This means that changes should be made at the elementary level, where a discipline and
professionalism should be introduced in our political system. Qualification should be made
mandatory for politicians. The parties should be selective in giving tickets to the candidates,
and those having a criminal background should be permanently barred from contesting
elections. Moreover, the attitude should change. The parties should have a nation-first
approach. The parties, ruling and the oppositions should work as a team, instead of indulging
in head-locks with each other. A more solid anti-defection rule should be implemented, not
allowing the politicians to change loyalties between parties.
Though these may appear too utopian a policy, these are the only things that can bring about a
change in the way our political system works. Lets hope that steps taken in this direction
materialize, thereby making India a matured democracy.
Evolution of the complex Indian political system
The worlds largest democracy is busy electing its representatives to the parliament
as Elections 2009 in India is on its way. The Indian political system has evolved from few to
many parties with each of them having some controlling stake in the democratic system. In
last 20 years (8 general elections) the country has seen state-level political parties grow from
27 to 265 a 10 fold growth. The number of national parties have however stayed around 7
throughout this period.

Contesting political parties - trend in last 20 years

Interestingly, the number of parties that had at least 10% of the votes polled in seats they
contested has grown from 25 to 44 a 76% growth in 20 years. The number of parties which
one at least one seat has grown from 17 to 37 a growth of 117.6%. Therefore, while the
number of contesting state parties has grown abnormally, the actual competition (reflected by
a minimum of 10% vote-share) may not have grown in same proportions. The growth
however is high enough to change the power equations of government formation.

Vote share and wins in Indian General Elections

There are a few things to observe about this trend:
1. The growth of politically competent state parties have been consistent and gradual over last
two and a half decades. This has been driven by disintegrating national parties, skewed
national growth (see image below) and increasing disparity in inter-state level of living
(leading to unemployment and migration of population between states), and
communalization/regionalization of the electorate (The Sikh movement in 1980s, The Babri
Masjid demolition and Hindu-Muslim riots in 1992, rise of the armed struggle in north-east
India in late 1980s, and steep growth in the Naxal movement since late 1990s).

India - Sectoral Growth (source: India Development Report 2008)

2. A government at the center will be a coalition of several political parties with a national
party as its focal point. This will be extremely demanding and require greater political
leadership. For a prime minister it will be distracting to manage this political horde and it is
probably a good idea to have a dedicated manager of the coalition. I personally appreciate the
division of responsibilities between the Prime Minister and the Coalition chair-person of the
existing UPA Government.
3. National parties need to consolidate strategies for inclusive growth and get the
macroeconomic development agenda back on track. Sectors like infrastructure and
agriculture need a focus for improving the economy as well as the political equations.

4. Grass-root politics is there to stay. National political parties need to focus on local policies
to survive and grow better.
The political pundits have already predicted an even more fractured verdict in the 2009
General Elections. I hope this changes over time and the country gets good solid governance
free from bickering political partners.
CURRENT CHALLENGES
Corruption
1. No background check for leaders
2. No specific qualification required for minister
3. Political or Central Government influence on:
o CID/CBI
o Police
o Law courts in country
o Government Offices etc.
o Income tax departments etc.

Outdates methods of communication and verification e.g. Paper format verification

takes many days and is hard to detect their validity best e.g. P.J.Thomas tax
(Ex.CVC of India)

Ground level implementation of policies made for common man

Poorly managed Real Estate sector:
a. Price
b. Land allocation
c. Land Mania (Delhi-Gurgaon-Noida)
IRDA improvement not effective as expected

Hearings from developed nations.

USA
Social security database & allocating SSN (Social Security Number: Indian copy AADHAR
(not powerful)
Credit reports maintained by three agencies:
a. Equifax
b. Experian
c. Transunion

Advanced Credit reports includes

a. Personal details
b. Health details (Medical database)
c. Financial details
Along with estimates of current financial state

Comparison with respect to India

Aadhar new experiment includes only personal details

Credit reports maintained by CIBIL & CRYSC includes mostly credit details

 Still credit reference check is done major for loan purpose.

U.K.
Credit reports maintained by Experian & other agencies
Advanced communication methods used e.g.
Almost all transaction & communication are done on the internet for which company records
print screen or IVR or recorded telephone conversation & well transaction notes maintained.
Technological advancement
Crime/Insurance/Law databases are shared with different agencies like (her majesty
secret service) MI6/MID/OLVA
Strong communication network
Strong cyber crime laws
Comparison with respect to India
Credit reports are not dynamic
Best example of communication is Government offices
No or hardly any Central databases are maintained
Lack of server data sharing with respect to Indian Law/Crimes/Insurances/RTO
Ways to improve political
1. A predefined criteria of education for ministers
2. People having criminal records are allegation of crime should be disqualified from
entering in political system
3. CAG committee should be given more powers & authority
4. CBI & CID & police should be given independent status
5. Create a strong lokpal & lokayuktas in central and state Government
6. The credit reports maintain by CIBIL/ICRA/CRISIL etc. should be made more
advanced like including personal, medical health & financial details which is different
from current credit report which has only credit details & credit scores
7. Aadhar should be made more powerful giving it the power to connect to credit report.
8. Depending upon criminal or crime records, credit records credit sources and crime
making should be allotted to each aadhar card which connects to credit report best
example USA
9. Credit and crime checks should be made compulsory for all entrance exam including
IAS, IPS etc.
10. Central database for insurance, crimes should be created and each police station, CBI,
CID & law courts to be connected to that data
Forecasting the results of implementing new ways:
1. Advanced credit report cum crime report is one piece of information which can solve
problem of corruption, background check for leaders and their eligibility to qualify for
being ministers.
2. Independent status of CBI, CID, Police, Law courts will remove these institution from
political influence of Government
3. More powers & authority given to CAG, lokpal & lokayuktas will improve the way
the current political system works. As its like concurrent audit inspecting the
Government work.
4. Creating central database & improving communication modes electronically or
through servers will improve and fasten the process of data sharing, verification &
validations.

What is social policy all about?

In essence, social policy . or rather, the complex web of related policies, schemes and
institutions that are concerned with the social conditions of economic activity . reflects the
broad social contract between capital and labour. In developing economies this refers to the
social contract between capital and labour specifically for the management of the
development project. The latter in turn has been defined for much of the past half century, as
the project of increasing material welfare for most of the citizenry through economic
development, using the agency of the nation state. For many developing countries, including
India, this project remains partially or largely unfulfilled . although this state of incompletion
still has not prevented it from being very nearly abandoned in several instances.
It is increasingly evident that social policy has a significance that goes beyond even the valid
concerns about basic equity and minimal living standards, which form part of the social and
economic rights of citizens. In fact, it can play a major role in the capitalist development
project, at several levels. At the most basic level, social policies of different types are crucial
to the state.s capacity to .manage. modernisation, and along with it the huge economic and
social shocks that are necessarily generated. Thus, for example, social policies of affirmative
action in parts of Southeast Asia (as in Malaysia) have been essential to maintaining ethnic
harmony over periods when existing income inequalities and social imbalances across groups
within the aggregate population would be otherwise accentuated by economic growth
patterns. Similarly, when overenthusiastic and possibly insensitive developmental projects
overturn existing local.
Communities or destroy material cultures without satisfactory replacement, social
policy can become the basic instrument for rehabilitation and renewed social integration. The
massive human shifts (geographic, economic, social) that most development projects entail
are potentially sources of much conflict, and often social policy is the most effective means
of containing such conflict or at least keeping it within levels that do not destabilise society or
derail the development project itself.
The second important, and related, role of social policy is of course that of
legitimisation. Not only of the state, but of the development project itself. This need for
legitimisation arises both for the long run process and in terms of short run crisis
management. Thus, over the long run, or planning horizon, it is especially important in
growth trajectories that rely on high investment and savings rates, thereby suppressing
current consumption in favour of high growth for larger future consumption, and which
therefore imply sacrifices typically made by workers and peasants. In such a scenario, social
policy that is directed towards providing basic needs and social services to those who are
otherwise deprived of the gains from economic growth in terms of increased current
consumption would be not just important but even necessary to ensuring social stability and
continuity of the process itself.
In so far as the growth process also generates or entails cyclical volatility in growth or
incomes, or has a tendency towards periodic crises of whatever sort, social policy can also
serve as a cushion for dampening the worst social effects of crisis, which in turn can
contribute to the feasibility and sustainability of the entire process. For example, sudden and

severe economic contractions causing sharp peaks of unemployment may be socially easier to
tolerate if some forms of unemployment compensation or benefit are provided. Even when
the shocks stem from natural rather than economic causes (such as earthquakes or cyclones)
social policies in the form of say, public insurance schemes or micro credit schemes can
cushion the worst effect of such shocks, in addition to direct relief. Such strategies have
macroeconomic consequences as well: thus, it is now accepted that economies with a large
public sector presence (in terms of share of GDP or employment) have more muted business
cycles or tend to suffer less extreme recessions.
The fourth crucial role of social policy is in terms of affecting the conditions of labour such
that there is an increase in the aggregate social productivity of labour, rather than simply
increases in labour productivity in particular sectors which reflect different technological
choices. It is now widely recognised that the universal provision of good education and basic
health services is an important condition for raising aggregate labour productivity levels. But
even other aspects of social policy, such as working conditions, access to other public
services, etc., play important roles in this regard. It is even being accepted that the latter can
in turn influence technological choices themselves, and nudge growth trajectories towards
.high road. Paths rather than. Low road. Strategies which are chiefly dependent upon cheap
labour.
In capitalist economies which are quite closely integrated with international markets
or rely on export markets as an engine of growth, social policy has played a very important
but largely unsung role in terms of underwriting a significant part of labour costs for private
capital and therefore providing employers greater flexibility and contributing to their external
competitive strength. For example (but not exclusively) in some countries of East Asia, the
publicly assisted provision of cheap food to the urban population, along with basic housing,
cheap and adequate public transport, basic public health and education services, and so on,
effectively meant that substantial portions of the wage basket were at least partly provided by
the state. This in turn meant that wages paid by private employers could be correspondingly
lower, since basic needs were already to a significant extent taken care of, and this gave such
employers a major competitive edge in export markets.
In addition to being an integral part of the economic growth process, social policy
also evolves with this process, and changes depending upon how the development process
impacts upon different classes and groups. In other words, both the economic policy and the
social policy patterns, even when they appear to be unchanging in a statutory sense, are
actually quite dynamic and intertwined with the political economy configurations, which also
1
constantly evolve. In case this sounds excessively complicated, consider this example:
Certain types of industrialisation strategy generate particular types of employment, for
example a small scale engineering industry may grow based on supply and demand linkages
emanating from a large publicly funded railway expansion programme. Such increases in
employment in turn generate demands for certain types of social policy such as provision of
housing, health and education facilities for workers. families, and so on. This in turn can
create not just greater political voice for such groups but also more productive workforces
which in turn encourage the demand for certain types of technological change in products and
processes, which in turn leads to pressure for certain types of public investment which could
incorporate such technological innovation.
In contrast to such a positive dynamic process, consider a different pattern of
industrialisation in which relatively few new jobs are generated, but the profits from such
economic activity are quite high. The shift in income distribution will not only shift demand
in favour of certain types of non-mass consumption goods, but also increase the political and

lobbying power of capital in various ways. This in turn can influence state policy to
encourage fiscal patterns (whether in the form of taxation, direct spending, or subsidies),
which further accentuate the income and employment inequalities, and so on. Or they can
involve the expansion of certain types of employment, effectively creating or enlarging
certain classes such as the urban middle classes, which then can become important in terms of
political voice and the ability to influence economic policy decisions as well as to demand
certain social policy measures which largely benefit these groups only.
It thus emerges that while social policy is both a desirable and a necessary
concomitant of the development process, its existence and form in each social context cannot
be taken for granted, but rather depends upon political economy configurations which
influence both its extent and its evolution. This is clearly evident from the Indian experience,
which shows both the clear need for effective social policy and the relative inadequacy of
what has been provided by the state in terms of meeting the basic objectives of the nationalist
developmental project. It is argued in this paper that the relative inadequacy of social policy
in India over the post-independence period is one important reason why the development
project itself has remained incomplete and unsatisfactory in terms of fulfilling the basic
requirements of the majority of citizens. These issues are discussed in more detail below.
Social policy in the Indian development process
Political theorists may be tempted to draw insights from the rather haphazard pattern
of social policy implementation in India, finding in its very lack of direction and vision some
association with the chaotic democratic polity within which it occurred, and the variegated
demands which were sought to be fulfilled at different points of time. Most social policy
provisioning has not been universal in terms of actual effects, even when it has been declared
as such. Rather, it has been directed to specific (and restricted) target groups. And almost
always, these groups included those with sufficient political voice, such as urban organised
workers, or increasingly in the 1990s, particular caste groupings. There have also been much
trumpeted attempts to include (in however limited a fashion) a small proportion of those who
naturally appear to be .deserving., such as households under the poverty line, women from
lower income groups, and so on. However, because such provisioning, whether in terms of
protective legislation or in terms of actual resource transfers, has been extremely limited
relative to the scale of requirement, it has meant that social policy has not been a basic
instrument of development strategy in the manner outlined in the previous section. Rather, it
has emerged essentially in the form of ad hoc responses to particular demands emanating
from groups that (at least temporarily) have acquired some degree of political voice.
Nevertheless, it is also true that the overall development strategy, however flawed it
was in terms of low social development and lack of fulfilment of basic needs, did at least
meet some of the functions of social policy mentioned above. Thus, in very broad terms, the
management of at least some of the social effects of modernisation was achieved in that the
most destabilising effects were avoided. Similarly, the legitimisation of and indeed the social
acceptance of the suppression of current consumption on the part of workers and peasants,
was also achieved; however, as pointed out above, the same was not true of the capitalist
class and the elites who were unwilling to accept the economic discipline necessary for a
sustained path of aggregate development. It is also true that the growing size of the public
sector served as a cushion against very sharp fluctuations in aggregate economic activity.
However, in a longer term sense the economic regime and associated social policy failed
miserably in raising aggregate social labour productivity and reducing the employment slack
in the system, or in underwriting labour costs for employers, including exporters.

The more significant forms of social policy in the Indian context have included: agrarian
reform; food procurement and distribution; education; employment creation through public
works; affirmative action in the form of reservation for public services employment and
educational institutions; antipoverty programmes directed towards small asset creation or
micro credit; changes in forms and structures of governance through decentralisation and
some devolution of resources.
Some of these are considered in some more detail below. It should be remembered that other
aspects of social policy that have been significant elsewhere have been missing. Thus, the
substantial public provision of basic housing and of basic health services, that were
cornerstones of social policy in East Asia , has been absent in the Indian case in almost all the
states. Similarly, there has been very little in the form of social insurance programmes.