Annals of Multi-Disciplinary Research Lucknow, Vol.

IV, Issue 4, December 2014, ISSN:

2249 8893.

PANORAMA OF STATE POLITICS IN INDIA: ASPECTS OF NON-UNIFORMITY

*Dr. Dasarathi Bhuiyan
When we talk about the pattern of state politics, we are talking about prototype, models,
samples, examples of state politics in the provinces of Indian federation. It is a comparative study of
democracy across the states in India. In the post-independence period State politics developed as a
specialised field of politics in India. But it was only in the 1960s that the political scientists felt the
need to study state politics as a specialised subject. (Kothari 1970) An endeavour to place the state
politics in India in a perspective, two seminars were held in the USA in 1961 (University of
Chicago) and in 1964 (the Massachusetts Institute of Technology) with the initiative of Myron
Weiner. The scholars from seventeen states in India presented their papers in that seminar. The
report on the first seminar was published in Asian Survey of June 1961. The papers presented in the
seminar of 1964 were published in a book form entitled, State Politics in India (1968) edited by
Myron Weiner. After 8 years of its publication Iqbal Narain edited a book in the similar line entitled
as, State Politics in India (Iqbal Narain 1976) which was the first attempt to cover politics of all
states in India including Assam and Jammu and Kashmir. It is very important to remind here that his
predecessor Weiners book did not cover all the states of Indian federation. He made a powerful plea
for using the state level studies to develop a comparative perspective on state politics in India.
Nonetheless, his early work does underscore the need to adopt a comparative framework. After him
Atul Kohli, (Atul Kohli 1991) has contributed a lot in this field. Subsequently, many more
comparative studies of state politics have emerged. These studies include two or more states in a
comparative design. Different states of the Indian federation have a different pattern on these aspects
of democracy. The various patterns of state politics could be transformed in the Indian context into a
comparative study of the quality of democracy across Indian states.

Is state politics an autonomous domain in India?

Is state politics an autonomous domain? Yogendra Yadav and Suhas Palshikar (Yogendra

Yadav and Suhas Palshikar2008) in their Ten thesis on state politics in India while making a
convincing case for a comparative study of state politics open their essay with the proposition that
1

state politics in India has become an autonomous domain. State politics in the first two decades after
independence grew under the influence of centre, which focused on the pursuit of the nation-state
building in India. The central government occupied a dominant position in the Indian
political system where the state occupied the secondary place. The Congress party shared power at
the centre and in a large number of the states. However, the state politics which assumed the distinct
form by the end of the 1960s was a precursor to the defeat of the Congress in 1967 general elections
in several states and formation of non-Congress governments in 1969. There emerged regional
leaders and political parties with their strong social bases.[1] By the 1980s rise of the identities based
on caste, region, religion and ethnicity and that of the new generation of leaders, with their regional
bases and parties, agendas of the states got a prime place in politics of India. Coinciding with the
impact of globalisation and dilution in the role of the nation-state, states in India have come to
occupy a centre stage in Indian politics. Lawrence Saezs [2] argues that globalisation has enabled the
states in India to act as independent entities to pursue their agendas; they can now negotiate directly
with the international donors, and enter into agreement with different agencies. The states, the
regional political parties and leaders are playing decisive roles in the national politics. They do so as
members of coalitions or within the political space outside political institution. This was not possible
before the 1990s. Therefore, we can say that state politics has entered a new phase where states are
no longer the followers of the centre but are decisive participants in the national politics. (Yogendra
Yadav, Suhas Palshikar2003)

Peoples movements and struggles:

At the state level, peoples movements and popular struggles can be more effective,
especially if the state is smaller in size. Those states with more dense social and political
movements tend to experience a more vibrant democracy, both because these movements act as a
check, feedback and a resource for the political parties and also because civil society
organizations draw their vibrancy from these movements (Kerala, Tamil Nadu). There are, of
course, states that have witnessed social and political movements and yet await their turn to a
qualitatively better democratic environment (Caste Movements in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar) and
states that once boasted of a vibrant legacy of movements and civil society but have lately lost
the momentum (Maharashtra). (Yogendra Yadav 2000) When the principal channel of popular
protest is a violent movement, it often succeeds in shaking up the established consensus (though
not always, as in Punjab) and the political elite, but at a very high cost to the people, the
democratic norms and the character of state power, both at the local and national level. This is
2

borne out by examples of Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Nagaland, Manipur, (Terrorist activities)
Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Odisha, West Bengal, Mahararsta, Andhra Pradesh (Naxalite
Insurgency) and so on. In those places which have not witnessed any serious social and political
movement (such as Rajasthan, Haryana, much of UP and Himachal Pradesh), politics remains
insulated from societal concerns and is unable to receive societal feedback and inputs. Several
significant political, social and economic changes have occurred in India. These changes are
denoted by advancing globalisation, democratisation, decentralisation, emergence and assertion
of identities based on caste, religion and ethnicity, and new social movement. These factors are
used by scholars for making the pattern of state politics. [3]

Impact of legacy:

Another trend of state politics is the political legacy of movements and ideologies at the
state level has proved more enduring than that of institutions and organizations. The most
concern in this regard is the burden of history or the impact of political legacy, these aspects of
political legacy continue to have greater imprint on the state of affairs today? Most states began
their democratic political journey around 1950 and some even later. At the time of independence,
one of the major differences was between the areas under princely rule and areas under direct
British rule. Today boundaries between princely and British India in the map of democratic
politics is hardly found.
The laggards of today are not necessarily the states with poor quality of governance sixty
years back. Today we are used to distinguishing between states in the South and West on the one
hand and those in the North and the East on the other. This line dividing the advanced and the
backward states did not exist in 1947.
The political impact of movements and ideas appears to be more enduring. Areas that
came under the influence of communist or socialist movements in the thirties or forties still bear
the legacy of that influence, either as a dominant political force in Kerala, West Bengal, and
Tripura or as protest movements and forces that shape politics in Andhra Pradesh, Odisha,
Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Maharashtra. The social justice movements in Tamil Nadu, Kerala,
Maharashtra is different today from the politics of other areas; areas influenced by the
Ambedkarite movement in Maharashtra, Bihar and UP continue to throw up different patterns
from other areas. States that witnessed separatist or secessionist movements in Nort-Eastern
States, Jammu & Kshmir and Punjab still bear the legacy of those movements. The pattern of
3

political competition is vary from state to state and reflects the ideological contestations of the
past.

Political culture:

The distinct culture of democracy in each state affects the nature of political choice and the
quality of democracy. The spread of a distinctive culture of democracy has given a regional flavour
to political practice without ensuring a democratic culture, as emancipatory ideas confront
majoritarianism and the populist tendency faces pragmatism. States evolved their different cultures
of democracy depending on the presence of different parties and the nature of ideological
contestations in the public sphere. Region and regionalism also constitute the bases of political
culture and formative elements of public opinion. Populist culture is strongly associated with the
regional element. The rise of a majoritarian norm filtered through the regional element n some states.
In fact, the impact of equality, populism and majoritarianism is filtered by the regional element.
Similarly cultural expressions of many states are based on a strong sense of community-based
majoritarianism. Many states of the North East as also Jammu and Kashmir are examples of this
trend. In Jammu and Kashmir too, the regional and religious combine to give the state its sharp sense
of difference. The cultural expressions and features create a different public opinion in these states.
(Paul, R. Brass Paul, 1994)

Economic limits to politics:

One more concern is the political economy. As state politics gains greater autonomy

vis--vis national politics and the central government, its capacity to resist corporate and other
organized interests appears severely eroded, often producing regimes that act as the agents of
dominant classes. The democratic regime in India is not independent in dealing with organized
economic interests of few cooperators. (Atul Kohli 1987)
The rise in the autonomy of state politics in recent times has been accompanied by a
decline in their autonomy in the economic sphere. Though the states have gained power to
bargain with the centre still they are not free from the controls of the central government in
economic matter. The state governments get more power to negotiate directly with multilateral
and private actors, it appears that each of them is weaker in terms of collective bargaining and
more vulnerable to capital blackmail (competing offers to Tata for the Nano cars is an example).
The federal fiscal relations remain heavily loaded against the state and the Centre continues to
4

dictate many key economic policies irrespective of the political preferences of the state
government. [4]

Political participation, movements, protests are more immense at State level

Political participation at the state level is higher than the national level. Therefore political

protest and movements in a bigger way are played in states rather than that of national level. The
extent of participation varies from state to state. On the whole, smaller states seem to have higher
participation. For example in communist party dominated and religious/ethnic based regions there is
more participation, because

the party machine is employed there to mobilize the people. Though

the higher level of political participation in the states has widened the base of democracy, but it has
failed to enhance the quality of democratic outcomes.

Social basis of political power:

Political regimes at the state level acquire their base from the rise of dominant castes to

power. The dominant middle castes become both the harbingers of democracy and the bottlenecks in
the progress of democracy. This is a stumbling block for as halts the transferring power to lower
social orders. Expect in few states no dalit caste people have appointed as the chief minister of the
states. The process of democratic transition of power from the forward upper castes to the lower
and backward castes has been under-way for quite some time. In Gujarat, Maharashtra, Andhra
Pradesh, Karnataka, Haryana and Punjab represent this development there is the rise of peasant
castes. This middle caste is the main claimants of power in the democratic set up. In West Bengal,
Odisha, MP, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Himachal and Uttarakhand, the dominance of traditional upper
castes has been continuing still today. (Virendra Grover 1997)

At the State level voters make their choice for central government:
While the legislature-cum-parliamentary executive is no more guilty of failing in discharge

of its functions, it certainly has greater responsibility in resolving the crisis for two important
reasons. 2014 elections to Lok Sabha were more or less like a presidential election of USA where
one to one fight between two persons was the determinants for political choice. States have emerged
as the effective arena of political choice. When the people are voting in state assembly elections it
seems that they are choosing the prime minister of India. Similarly when they are voting in the
5

parliamentary elections to elect an M.P the regional issues come first in their mind. Though it is an
election for choosing the Prime Minister of India they are voting in the state line. In their eyes an
individual constituency is too small and the country too big; it is at the level of the state that the
voters make their choice. (Dr. Jayaprakash Narayan 2010),

Political integration:
In the pre and post independence a number of princely and native states (Jammu & Kashmir,

Goa, Hyderabad, and Pondicherry) integrated with the Indian Union, integration within the state and
its distinctiveness from other states. During 1956 more states were created by the state
reorganization policy on linguistic basis. The struggles for a linguistic state sharpened this process in
states like AP, Maharashtra and Punjab, while regional identity found expression through other
movements in Tamil Nadu (Dravid movement), Assam (anti-foreigners movement), Mizoram
(insurgency) and West Bengal (Communist movement). No doubt there are differences in the level
of identity consciousness. But these states as a political community are very conscious of their
identity and existence. Myron Weiner (Myron Weiner, 1968) is of the opinion that most of the states,
especially those in the Hindi heartland, had not emerged as a political community.

This

consciousness is weaker in Hindi heartland states like Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, Bihar,
Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand, Rajasthan, Haryana that lack a distinctive language or
political culture. [5]
This regional consciousness combines with other identities in different ways: caste, class
and religion both compete with region as also strengthen the region as the basis of political
competition. In Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab, Maharashtra, Assam, Nagaland,
Manipur, Tripura caste and/or religion play a crucial role in shaping the regional identity. From this
political community consciousness the political choices of the people are made and intelligible
contestations among these political communities emerge; as it was evidenced during the internal
emergency period and in the 1977 elections. Thus the southern political culture of India is different
from the northern political culture. In course of time every state has become more conscious of its
regional identity and its existence as a self-contained political community. Despite this political
community consciousness it has not weakened the ties of the states with the Indian Union.

Political choice vary from state to state:

6

The nature of political choice varies from state to state. In the Lok Sabha elections we
intensify a picture of fragmented multi-party system, but at the state level we can find all kinds of
contests: bipolar, triangular, four cornered or even more fragmented. If the unit and the nature of
political choice vary from state to state, so does the outcome. The changing fortunes of political
parties are not replicated across state boundaries in ways that was the case in the past. In terms of
pattern, anti-incumbency is the norm in many states, but not everywhere.

Politics of violence:
A rise in the politics of coercion and state response to it leads to a spiral of shrinking space

for democratic politics. Indian is now witnessing the rise of all forms of violence in public life:
violence as an instrument of electoral mobilization, violence as an instrument of achieving high
political objectives, secessionist violence, and so on. Except in cases of communal violence, the state
has routinely adopted a militarist approach to terrorism and violence. This has given birth to issues
of state repression in Manipur, Nagaland and parts of Assam. The response to militant violence in
Punjab, Jammu & Kashmir and terrorist violence more recently, has also been one of flexing the
repressive state apparatus. In addition to using state repressive machinery, Chhattisgarh has also
witnessed the formation of a civil militia (Solva Judam) to combat collective violence of Naxlites.
The growing concern about security and terror has led to increased emphasis, cutting across the
states, on the security apparatus to the detriment of the civil and political rights and a democratic
culture. As mentioned earlier, India faced such problems immediately after the achievement of
Independence like Naga and Mizo insurgency in the North-East India, Plebiscite Front agitation in
Jammu and Kashmir, demand for a separate sovereign state for Tamil speaking population in south
India, etc. [6] All these have a common effect: they erode the democratic space; implicitly justify the
use of coercion by the state; provide justification for strong laws and draconian powers to the
police without any guarantee that governance will improve if political actors engaged in violence
and coercion are put down or that civil society will be the stronger by employing strong state
protection. (Mukherjee 1999)

Salient of State Level Parties:

State-level parties have become more salient than ever before. They never bargain for Prime

Ministership. The State-level parties like AIADMK, TDP, SP, BSP Biju Janata Dal, Assam Gana
Parishad, Siva Sena, MNC and the TMC, even are not permanent allies of the UPA or the NDA. The
7

leaders of these parties are more dependent of national parties for sharing power at centre. (Bidyut
Chakrabarty 2006)

Power sharing mechanisms:

The greater political clout of the states and their unwillingness to share power with their sub-units
has blunted the democratizing impulse of institutional reforms and accentuated inequalities across
states instead of reducing differences in access to power. Due to its centralized tendencies and quasifederal nature the relationship between the states and the Centre has been defined by the balance of
two opposite forces: Special provisions has been made for a few states. A few institutional
innovations for sub-regional autonomy, the Regional Development Boards in Maharashtra, the
Darjeeling Hill Council in West Bengal and the Bodoland Development Council are instances that
have made only a cosmetic difference in the absence of political will to share power. (Lijphart,
Arend, 1989)

Goods and services also varies:

Governmental outcomes have become more multicolored at the state level. Citizens access
to various goods and services varies across the country, within each state, district and town and even
village. But the most significant variation now is the one among different states, which is a function
of how everyday politics, including social movements and political struggles, relates to the
governmental apparatus.

Citizens identity:

The evolution of democratic politics has given birth a separate identity to the states. Each state
has developed a distinctive political culture, its own vocabulary of politics. Some of the long-term
political trends and patterns have also differentiated along state lines. A prolonged practice of
differentiation of political community has ensured that the citizens identity has crystallized around
states. The reorganization of states along linguistic lines had set off this process.

Polarization of Political Competition:

An added concern of state politics is the nature and consequence of party political
competition. It has not offered a meaningful choice to the citizens. We can categorize four major
8

types of party political competition in contemporary times: (i) bipolar convergence (Rajasthan, MP,
Gujarat, Chhattisgarh, HP, Uttarakhand), (ii) multiparty-bipolarity (Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Kerala,
Maharashtra, Odisha, Bihar, Tripurak Delhi,), (iii) stable multi-polar convergence (Andhra Pradesh,
Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, Assam, Jharkhand, J&K, Manipur), and (iv) fluid multi-polarity
(Arunachal, Mizoram, Haryana, West Bengal). In most of the states two or more than two parties
emerged as principal parties.( Yogendra Yadav and Suhas Palshikar 2008) Till 2009 West Bengal
presented an exception where one party remained the dominant force.

State level parties are

oriented towards specific regions, religion or caste. The proliferation of political and social forces
does not allow a single force to dominate the state politics; at the same time all of them want a share
in political power.
Conclusion:
State politics in India has evolved through different phases. Development of state politics in
India was marked by the emergence of new issues, processes and political forces over more than six
decades. Understanding the social and political reality of states we need certain analytical tools.
Such tools are known as the perspectives or frameworks. Any attempt to understand reality without a
framework is like groping in the dark. Political scientists have used different frameworks in order to
capture and understand patterns of state politics in India. For the study of politics there are some
principal frameworks. These are systemic, Marxian, neo-Marxian, postmodernist, frameworks etc.
The systemic framework considers political unit of analysis as a system. It argues that every system
consists of various components which keep conflicting and adjusting with each other. In the process,
the system maintains itself; it adapts to the challenges and the environment. The Marxian framework
on the other argues that politics is reflections of the class relations in the society. The nature of
politics depends on that of economic contradictions in a society. But there have been changes in this
type of Marxian framework. The advocates of these changes agree that economy is important in
impacting politics but non-economic factors are also very important. The latter also have their
relative autonomy. The Marxian framework with these changes is known as neo-Marxian
framework.
Though these are some principal frameworks, but till the date no specific frameworks has
been developed still today particularly to study the state politics. Some scholars opine that the same
frameworks applied to study politics at national level can also be applied at any state or local level. It
must be noted that these frameworks are not specific to the unit of political analysis local, state or
9

national levels. These could be applied to any unit - local, state or national politics. For the purpose
of studying state politics, these could be called as the frameworks for the study of state politics.
Their significance further increases for state politics as several aspects of politics are more visible in
states. In fact, there are not uniform patterns of state politics.
Notes:
1.

Most of the states assumed their distinct identities in the wake of the reorganisation of states in 1956 and state
politics largely followed the pattern of the national politics.

However, the state politics which assumed the

distinct form by the end of the 1960s was a precursor to the defeat of the Congress in 1967 general elections in
several states and formation of non-Congress governments in 1969. There emerged regional leaders and
political parties with their strong social bases.
2.

Presently state level politics is free from the control of national. Lawrence Saezs book Federalism without a
Centre shows that globalisation has enabled the states in India to act as independent entities to pursue their
agendas; they can now negotiate directly with the international donors, and enter into agreement with different
agencies. Of course, this has to be done with the consent and approval of the central government. It was not
possible in the pre-globalisation phase. Globalisation has also resulted in the erosion of inter-governmental
institutions. Saez argues that the inter-governmental cooperation has given way to inter-jurisdictional
competition.

3.

Studying the political system as mega unit of analysis - nation-state, political system, party system, caste system,
etc. has been impacted by the modenisation project. While in the practice politics of modernisation or
modernity does not give enough autonomy to the parts of a political unit, in academic studies the impact of
modernisation project or modernity is reflected in the neglect of these parts.

4.

The state governments get more power to negotiate directly with multilateral and private actors, it appears that
each of them is weaker in terms of collective bargaining and more vulnerable to capital blackmail (competing
offers to Tata for the Nano cars is an example). The federal fiscal relations remain heavily loaded against the
state and the Centre continues to dictate many key economic policies irrespective of the political preferences of
the state government.

5.

In the pre and post independence a number of princely and native states (Jammu & Kashmir, Goa, Hyderabad,
and Pondicherry) integrated with the Indian Union, integration within the state and its distinctiveness from
other states. During 1956 more states were created by the state reorganization policy on linguistic basis. The
struggles for a linguistic state sharpened this process in states like AP, Maharashtra and Punjab, while
regional identity found expression through other movements in Tamil Nadu (Dravid movement), Assam (antiforeigners movement), Mizoram (insurgency) and West Bengal (Communist movement). No doubt there are
differences in the level of identity consciousness. But these states as a political community are very conscious of
their identity and existence.

6.

From 1980s onwards insurgency has spread to more states. While the rise of the state leaders and parties till
the 1970s challenged the dominant party system, insurgency movements question the homogenizing nationbuilding approach of the centre in support of federation-building approach. In some cases insurgency has

10

been a by-product of autonomy movement or the movement against the outsiders. In the process new groups
demand autonomy or self-determination.

References:

Atul Kohli, Democracy and Discontent: India's Growing Crisis of Governability Cambridge University Press
(April 26, 1991)

Atul Kohli, The State and Poverty in India, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987

Bidyut Chakrabarty, Coalition Politics in India, Oxford University Press, 2006

Iqbal Narain, State Politics in India: An Overview, in Iqbal Narain, (Ed) State Politics in India, Meenakhi
Publications, Meerut, 1976.

Jayaprakash Narayan 2010), Continuity and Change - Parliamentary Reforms, A Consultation Paper

for

National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, Campaign Coordinator, Lok Satta,
Foundation for Democratic Reforms, 401/408 Nirmal Towers, Dwarakapuri Colony, Punjagutta, hyderabad ,
pp,6-7

Kothari Rajani, Politics in India, Orient Longman Ltd, New Delhi, 1970.

Lijphart, Arend, Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration, Popular Prakashan, Bombay,
1989.

Myron Weiner, State Politics in India, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1968.

Paul, R. Brass, Politics of India since Independence,(reprint) Cambridge University Press, New Delhi, October
1994

Virendra Grover, Indian Political system: trends and Challenges, (Ed), Deep and Deep, New Delhi, 1997.

Yogendra Yadav and Suhas Palshikar, From Hegemony to Convergence: Party System and Electoral Politics in
the Indian States 1952-2002, Journal of the Indian School of Political Economy, January-June 2003.

Yogendra Yadav and Suhas Palshikar, Ten Theses on State Politics in India, Seminar, November 2008.

Yogendra Yadav, Understanding the Second Democratic Upsurge: Trends of Bahujan Participation in Electoral
Politics in the 1990s, in Francine R. Frankel, Zoya Hasan, Rajeev Bhargava and Balveer Arora (eds.),
Transforming India, OUP, New Delhi, 2000, pp. 120-45; Suhas Palshikar and Sanjay Kumar, Participatory
Norm: How Broad Based is it? Economic and Political Weekly, 18 December 2004, pp. 5412-17.

*Lecturer, P.G. DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

Berhampur University, Bhanja Bihar
Berhampur 760 007 (Odisha)

11