Contents:

Abstract.......................................................................................................................................2
Introduction.................................................................................................................................3
1.Democratization in society with strong cleavages...................................................................5
1.1.Donald . !orowitz: "odel o# integrative and e$clusive "a%oritarianism......................&
1.2.Arend i%'hart: Consociational democracy....................................................................1(
1.3.)teven I. *il+inson: ,elationshi' between 'arty com'etition and a state-s res'onse to
anti.minority 'olarization and violence................................................................................13
2./lectoral systems in India and its analysis in the conte$t o# !orowitz and i%'hart-s
conce'ts.....................................................................................................................................15
2.1./lectoral systems 0 basic descri'tion.............................................................................15
2.2./lectoral systems 0 theoretical understanding................................................................11
3.A##iliation o# the main 'olitical 'arties by the religion cleavage..........................................12
3.1.3arties with secularism a##iliation...................................................................................2(
3.1.1.)ecularism in Indian Conte$t...................................................................................2(
3.1.2.Congress 'arty and 4nited 3rogressive Alliance.....................................................21
3.1.3.e#tist 'arties...........................................................................................................22
3.2.3arties with !induism a##iliation....................................................................................23
3.3.3arties with Islamic 5"uslim6 a##iliation........................................................................25
3.7.3arties with other mostly regional or s'eci#ic community a##iliation.............................21
3.5.8he characteristics o# the main relevant 'olitical 'arties in India..................................2&
3.5.1.Indian 9ational Congress.........................................................................................22
3.5.2.:haratiya ;anata 3arty..............................................................................................22
3.5.3.Communist 3arty o# India 5"ar$ist6........................................................................31
3.5.7.:ahu%an )ama% 3arty................................................................................................33
3.5.5.)ama%wadi 3arty......................................................................................................37
7.Analysis o# the election on the #ederal level in relation to the main religious disorder and
clashes in the conte$t o# !orowitz< i%'hart.............................................................................35
7.1.Indian #ederalism based and minority autonomy............................................................35
7.2.!orowitz-s ma%oritarism.................................................................................................3&
7.3.i%'hart-s Indian 3uzzle .................................................................................................71
5.Analysis o# the election results in regions with large and #re=uent religious con#licts in
Indian )tates in the conte$t o# *il+inson.................................................................................52
5.1.>u%arat case study...........................................................................................................5?
5.2.@rissa case study.............................................................................................................?1
5.3.4ttar 3radesh case study.................................................................................................?5
5.7.Aerela case study............................................................................................................1(
5.5.,a%asthan case study.......................................................................................................11
5.?."aharashtra case study...................................................................................................&1
5.1.:ihar case study..............................................................................................................&5
5.&.*il+inson-s hy'othesis and its modi#ication and alternative e$'lanation......................2(
Conclusion................................................................................................................................23
)ources and iteratures.............................................................................................................25
ist o# Bigures.........................................................................................................................1(1
ist o# Diagrams.....................................................................................................................1(2
3oCet zna+D: 117 ((( zna+D vCetnE mezer bez 'oznFme+ 'od Carou
11& 521 zna+D vCetnE mezer a 'oznFme+ 'od Carou
1
Abstract
8he wor+ has evaluated the hy'othesis that government without minority electorates-
re=uirement does not 'rotect the minorities against violence< riots and aggression #rom
ma%ority. 8here is a critical view on Indian 'olitical system which has been evaluated and
com'ared with i%'hart-s theory o# consensual democracy and !orowitz theory o#
"a%oritarism. )ome signi#icant 'oints which su''ort division and clashes in Indian societies
have been #ound. 8hese 'oints are evaluated by the two mentioned theoretical a''roaches.
8he other evaluated theoretical assum'tion in this wor+ is based on *il+inson hy'othesis
which describe relationshi' between 'arty com'etition and a stateGs res'onse to anti.minority
'olarization and violence. *il+inson su''orts i%'hart and !orowitz assum'tion o# o##ice
holding and 'ro'ortional re'resentation. *ithout that the riots and violence against minorities
have bigger intensity. 8he wor+ has com'ared selected cases o# governments- and 'arties-
behaviour in 'articular Indian states using *il+inson-s and Harshney-s data and enlarged
them by new data collection based on 8imes o# India records. 8here is a lin+ between
minority su''ort 5as well as 'ro'ortional re'resentation6 #or government increasing its #air
behaviour and minority 'rotection #rom government. !owever< there are also some deviations
#rom this hy'othesis which need e$'lanation. 8he numbers o# riots and deaths as a one
measurement o# their intensities com'are the 'arty and government behaviour in 'articular
cases. 8he number o# 'arties in government and their core electoral su''ort indicates the
intensity as well as =uantity o# communal violence in India. 8his wor+ has enlarged the
hy'othesis and the cases o# moderate "ulti'artism with bi'olar s'ectrum have been included
*il+inson-s assum'tion.
2
Introduction
India is a country o# many religions which have coe$isted #or several centuries. 8his
coe$istence could be generally characterised as 'eace#ul< but also has some historical and
ideological clashes< which have generated 'roblems in both the 'ast and 'resent time. 8he
nationalism and its ideology have brought new troubles to the 'olitical and common li#e o#
many religious communities in many 'arts o# India. 8he identity o# Indians with the Indian
state has been eroded by these clashes and the Indian 'olitical system as well as the main
'olitical 'arties have to co'e with these challenges.
8he main challenge and also the to'ic o# this wor+ is to study the religious clashes and
!induism-s and "uslim-s nationalism. 8hese religious cleavages have brought 'roblems such
as terrorism and community riots. 8his wor+ will analyse these 'roblems o# Indian religions
in 'olitical li#e. 8he main goals o# this thesis are:
1. 8hesis will #ind the highlighted 'oints o# i%'hart and !orowitz theoretical a''roach o#
'roblem solving o# electoral democracy in divided Indian society and #ind which o# these
'oints have any 'ractical connection in India similar to those.
2. *ill+inson-s hy'othesis o# the im'act o# number o# the 'arties in the 'olitical system on
India states government minorities- 'olicy. 3ractical cases show how strong is the
in#luence o# "a%oritarism election system on ethnic 'olicy.
8hese goals will be #ollowing by veri#ication o# two main hy'otheses which have been
analysed in this te$t. 8he hy'otheses are:
1. !y'othesis has based on com'arison o# Indian real 'olitical system with the theoretical
a''roach o# i%'hart and !orowitz. 8he ethnic disorder is 'roduced by the system ga's
which do not #ollow the i%'hart-s and !orowitz-s ideal model and recommendation.
2. 8he number o# 'arties in Indian state governments has strong in#luence on the number o#
ethnic disorder. I# the government de'ends on minorities- votes or secular and minority
'arties< the number o# ethnic violence is lower. I# the government de'ends on ma%ority
'o'ulation the number o# death in violence increases.
8here is a statistical com'arison o# a number o# death and number o# ethnic violence in
selected Indian states.
8he wor+ uses selected case studies o# Indian states . >u%arat< 4ttar 3radesh< Aerala< @rissa<
"aharashtra< ,a%asthan and :ihar. 8hey were selected because together they constitute most
3
o# the e$am'les which are 'ossible to #ind in India relating to our study. >u%arat and
,a%asthan are e$am'les o# two 'arties com'etition< Aerala is an e$am'le o# a 'eace#ul state
with secular 'arty system as o''ose to the violent >u%arat. 4ttar 3radesh and :ihar are
e$am'les o# states with success#ul state 'arties having tremendous in#luence in #ederal level
and with di##erent level o# res'onsibility. >u%arat< "aharashtra and @rissa gave the e$am'les
o# increasing level o# violence with growing electoral success o# nationalistic 'arties in
di##erent environment. 8hese e$am'les together com'lete the scale o# 'otential e$am'le o#
'arty com'etition in India. 8he dee'er e$'lanation o# case studies selection is e$'lained in
cha'ter 5.
"ain goals will be enriched by descri'tion o# Indian secularism as well as by conce't o#
Indian 5!induism6 nationalism 0 !indutva ideology. 8here will be also an analysis and
descri'tion o# main 'olitical 'arties in India 5mainly on #ederal level6 and their a##iliation to
religion.
7
1. Democratization in society with strong cleavages
8he third wave o# democratization brought tremendous discussion about the role o# electoral
system in re'roduction o# democratic system. "any scholars such as i%'hart< !orowitz<
,eynolds or ,eilly discussed their ideal conce't o# electoral system in divided societies and
com'ared the 'ractical cases #rom real 'olitical world. 8heir wor+s introduce also their
normative view on ideal election system< however< their researches are based on 'ractical
cases. 8his wor+ has #ocused mainly on 'o'ular normative attitude to this 'roblem 'resented
by i%'hart and !orowitz. 8he #undamental base o# these case studies is built on consensus
that #irst.'ast.the.'ost 5B3836 system is not the best electoral design #or divided societies with
strong multi.ethnical cleavages. *estminster-s model o# democracy does not generate inter.
ethnical coo'eration and increases the 'robability o# mono.ethnical ma%ority in legislative
assembly and government. 8he minorities have then lower chance to enunciate its interest in
normal 'olitical way. 5compare with Chytlek 2007: 145-1466 !orowitz and i%'hart
described their views on the ideal electoral model #or divided societies.
8he evaluation o# the electoral system 'lays an im'ortant role #or understanding the
I'racticeJ o# 'olitics. Its role is signi#icant< because electoral system hel's determine how
many 'arties a country has< how cohesive they are< who #orms the government< and how long
the government cabinets tend to last. /lectoral system is e$'ressed in electoral laws and their
im'act de'ends on the way 'oliticians and voters ma+e use o# these laws. At times< #lawed
electoral laws can undo democracy or lead to staleness. 5Taagepera 2007: 16
!owever< as also !orowitz wrote Ino electoral system simply reflects oter preferences or
the e!isting pattern of cleaages in a society or the preailing political party config"ration#
$ery party shape an% reshapes these feat"res of the enironment& an% each %oes so in
%ifferent ways'The (est electoral system is the one that straightforwar%ly an% most
acc"rately reflects the preferences of oters#J 5)orowit* 200+a: +6 8here are also si$
signi#icant goals which !orowitz de#ined as the 'otential best way to achieve the #unctioning
electoral system in divided societies. 8he choice must also be geared to the 're.e$isting
#eatures o# the 'olitical environment< since the #unctioning o# electoral mechanisms varies
with the conte$t. !ere are the si$ !orowitz-s 'ossible goals:
1. 'ro'ortionality o# seats to votesK
2. accountability to constituentsK
3. durable governmentsK
5
7. victory o# the ICondorcet winnerJK
5. interethnic and inter.religious conciliationK
?. minority o##ice holding. 5)orowit* 200+a: 46
Cha'ter 1.1. will discuss these si$ 'oint in detailed 'ers'ective as well as !orowitz model o#
integrative and e$clusive "a%oritarianism which give normative recommendations #or ideal
system #or divided societies. 8hen this theoretical 'ers'ective will be com'ared with Indian
reality.
Arend i%'hart< the other scholar< who tried to #ind ideal electoral system #or society with
strong ethnical< religious cleavages in his article 8he 3uzzle o# Indian Democracy: A
Consociational Inter'retation de#ined the Indian model o# ethnical divided society and
#unction saying that the Indian e$'erience does not resemble ethnically accommodative
consociation democracy. Bor one< the structures o# ma%oritarianism e$cluded elements o#
'ro'ortionality and autonomy central to consociationalismK #or another< the 'artition o# India
was a 'artition against consociationalism and #or the construction o# a ma%ority and unitary
state. i%'hart-s e##ort to understand the L'uzzle o# Indian democracy- in the #orm o# a
Lconsociation inter'retation- misunderstands religious Lenca'sulation- as autonomy< tactical
'olitical accommodation within the Congress as elite 'ower.sharing< and linguistic 'luralism
within meta.!indu areas as develo'ed #ederalism. In an ideal consociational system minority
rights are entrenched< guaranteed and bac+ed by a minority veto. 5,ingh 2000: 466
Consociationalism is meant to a''ly where cleavages are dee' and unmediated by multi'le
membershi's. 8o manage con#lict in such societies< i%'hart argues< re=uires using #our
mechanisms o# governance: segmental autonomy< a grand coalition o# governing elites<
'ro'ortional re'resentation and mutual vetoes. Consociations are systems characterized by
these #our distinguishing #eatures. 5$isen(erg 20066 oo+ at the 'recondition o# consensual
democracy as i%'hart called in Indian conce't Ithe -n%ian p"**leJ:
A6 >rand coalition governments include re'resentatives o# all ma%or linguistic and
religious grou's.
:6 A minority veto with regard to vital minority rights and autonomy.
C6 3ro'ortionality in 'olitical re'resentation and civil service a''ointments.
D6 Cultural autonomy #or linguistic and religious grou's.5.i/phart 1006: 2516
8he issue o# ideal model o# consociationalism< consocional or consensual democracy 5in this
wor+ will be used as synonym6 will be discussed in detailed 'ers'ective in cha'ter 1.2.
?
i%'hart also de#ined his normative evaluation o# electoral system in divided societies based
on mentioned consociationalism which will be discussed also in the same cha'ter. i%'hart-s
theoretical 'ers'ective with his 'ractical descri'tion o# Indian 'olitical system will be
critically evaluated #rom the 'resent Indian 'ers'ective. !e also 'resented his ideal model o#
Ione sizeJ 'ower sharing or consensual democracy which should give the best #it #or dividing
societies 5.i/phart 2004: 006 and have been described also in cha'ter 1.2. 8he Indian model o#
consensual democracy will be discussed in cha'ter 2 and 7.
8able 1 o##ers the overview o# theoretical a''roaches to designing o# electoral systems and
gives also the abstract o# their #unctioning. 8his wor+ has #ocused mostly on i%'hart and
!orowitz model.
Table 1 Models of democracy for divided societies
Characterisations characterisation and
goal of electoral
system
mechanical
effect of
electoral
system
strategi
c effect
of
electora
l system
implication for
dividing societies
!clusive
ma"oritarism
*estminster model o#
democracy
B383 system su''ort
arti#icial ma%orities
)trong )trong su''orting
e$clusion o# some
minority grou'
Consensus model
5.i/phart6
great coalition<
'ro'ortional
re'resentation
5'ro'ortional electoral
system6<
'ro'ortionality in
sources allocation<
multilateral veto<
segmental autonomy
'ro'ortional electoral
system< goal is the
most realistic vote
trans#ormation to the
seats
*ea+ *ea+ #unction o# electoral
system in allocation
'rocess is neutral<
moderation is duty
o# 'olitical elites in
great coalition 5seat.
'ooling6
Integrative
consensual model
52eynol%s6
'arliamentalism< great
coalition< #ederalism<
'ro'ortional electoral
system 0 )8H
)8H electoral system
su''ort crosscutting
cleavages
*ea+ "edium connection between
consensual 'ractices
on the level o# elites
5seat 'ooling6 and
interethnic a''eals
through vote
'ooling in
constituencies
Inclusive
ma"oritarism
#centripetalism$
integrative
ma"oritarism%
5)orowit*& 2eilly6
'residentialism<
alternative voting
system< #ederalism
alternative voting< the
goal is to en#orce
interethnic a''eals in
heterogenic
constituencies
)trong )trong strong su''ort o#
interethnic a''eals
through vote
'ooling or
constituency
'ooling
)ource: Chytlek 2007: 146
1
Cha'ter 1.3. describes another view on communal violence which #ocuses more on e$isting
e$am'les o# election results than on normative a''roaches o# electoral design. "oreover<
there is a strong lin+ between normative a''roaches o# i%'hart and !orowitz. 8heir ideal
models 'redict the out'ut o# the electoral system and number o# 'arties in government which
is im'ortant #or *il+inson hy'othesis.
1.1. Donald &. 'orowitz( Model of integrative and e!clusive Ma"oritarianism
@ne o# the leading theorists o# democratic institutional design< Donald . !orowitz<
em'hasizes how 'ower#ul the electoral system can be in sha'ing the character o# a democracy
and how ve$ing the choices can be. 8here are numerous ways that voter 're#erences can be
aggregated in order to determine which 'arties get how many seats in 'arliament. /very
electoral system has biases and no system merely 'assively translates Iindividual wishes into
a collective choice.J !orowitz identi#ies si$ above mentioned 'ossible aims o# an electoral
system< some o# which directly con#lict with one another. 53iamon% an% 4lattner 2006: 56.
Birst goal o# !orowitz is the normative goal o# proportionality 0 the closest 'ossible matches
#or the relative 'arty shares o# the vote. It could be call also as I#airnessJ. 53iamon% an%
4lattner 2006: 56 )cholars and decision ma+ers are inclined to %udge electoral systems by
their ability or inability to 'roduce 'ro'ortional results. 5)orowit* 200+a: 46 !orowitz
em'hasized that this is not one o# the most im'ortant goal among the other si$.
Accountability to constituents should show that the elections to re'resentative bodies
assume some degree o# accountability o# legislators to those who elect them. >enerally the
electoral systems which limit the 'ower o# central 'arty leaders to choose candidates 'roduce
more res'onsive re'resentatives. 8his shows the sovereignty o# the voter to choose the
candidates. *hen central 'arty leaders have 'ower to select candidates< the voter-s
sovereignty to choose the candidates< rather than %ust to choose among candidates< is thought
to be im'aired. !orowitz said that 'ossibilities to choose among candidates 5such as in o'en
list in 'ro'ortional re'resentation6 can have 'erverse conse=uences< es'ecially in multiethnic
societies. 5)orowit* 200+a: 56
Durable government is a third goal. An electoral system is not able to re'resent the
idiosyncratic o'inions o# every voter. 9evertheless< according to !orowitz< some systems
ma+e it 'ossible #or many shades o# o'inion to be re'resented< sometimes so many that the
legislature ends u' being #ragmented< with no 'arty having anywhere near 5( M o# the seats.
&
In these 'articular cases are coalition governments necessary. *here the legislature is
garmented< it may be di##icult to 'ut together durable coalitions. @ther electoral design may
#orce 'arties to aggregate the diverse o'inions in a society #or the sa+e o# electoral success.
*here this ha''ens and diverse o'inions are re'resented within 'arties rather than across
'arties. 8he reduction in the number o# 'arties ma+es it more li+ely that durable governments
can be #ormed. And durable governments are thought to be desirable as they 'romote 'olicy
consistency and res'onsibility and may avoid the instability that can result during interregna
or #rom the creation o# #ragile< un'redictable coalitions. 5)orowit* 200+a: 5-66
As a #orth goal !orowitz mentioned a Hictory o# the Condorcet winner. 8he Condorcet
winner is the candidate who would receive a ma%ority o# the vote in a 'aired or head.to.head
contest with each and every other candidate. *inner is obviously the more 'o'ular candidate<
whose victory ought to be 're#erred. !owever< there are obstacles to this outcome and some
electoral systems can dis#avour the Condorcet winner and it could be wanting. !orowitz has
chosen the system o# alternative vote as an electoral design that does a good %ob at 'ic+ing the
Condorcet winner. 5)orowit* 200+a: 66
Interethnic and interreligious conciliation is #i#th goal o# !orowitz institutional design.
/lectoral systems that 'roduce 'ro'ortional result or accountability to constituents or durable
governments may or may not #oster interethnic conciliation. Im'ortant =uestion is whether a
given system 'rovides 'oliticians with electoral inducements #or moderate behaviour< that is<
#or com'romises with members o# other ethnic grou's #or the sa+e o# electoral success.
/lectoral systems that allow 'oliticians to be elected without behaving moderately may ma+e
'ost.electoral conciliation more di##icult. Bor interethnic conciliation< the =uestion is how the
electoral system a##ects the 're.electoral calculations o# 'arties and 'oliticians. 5)orowit*
200+a: 6-76 8he necessity to engage in what !orowitz calls Ivote.'ooling- in order to win
elections and maintain coalitions is what #orces 'oliticians to moderate their demands and
o##er 'rotection to minorities. 56ilkinson 2004: 76
As a last but not least goal #or multiethnic success#ul societies is re=uirement o# minority
office holding. It gives rise to attem'ts to achieve 'ro'ortionality between votes and seats<
e$ce't that 'ro'ortionality in that res'ect is 'arty 'ro'ortionality rather than grou'
'ro'ortionality. Creation o# homogeneous constituencies could mean not only more minority.
dominated constituencies but also more constituencies in which ma%ority.grou' voters
dominate and in which ma%ority.grou' candidates do not need to worry about minority
2
su''ort or minority interests. 5)orowit* 200+a: 7-16 !orowitz 'ut stress on im'ortance o#
ma%ority interest in minority votes also in earlier mentioned goals.
!orowitz and also Australian 'olitical scientist :en ,eally e$amined to what e$tent electoral
systems can Iencourage coo'eration and accommodation among rival grou's< and there#ore
wor+ to reduce the salience o# ethnicity.J :oth scholars 're#erred vote.'ooling mechanisms<
which Ima+e 'oliticians reci'rocally de'endent on votes #rom grou's other than their own.I
)uch systems give an advantage to moderate candidates who reach across the divides o# 'arty
and ethnicity to a''eal #or the second and lower.order 're#erences o# the voters< and who
thereby e$hibit a Ica'acity to re'resent grou's other than their own.J !orowitz evaluated this
system through his mentioned si$ goals. 8he 'otential electoral design see in alternative vote
and see also the value o# the single trans#erable vote 5)8H6< in which voters ran+ a larger
number o# candidates in multimember districts. 8he advantage o# )8H is that it is a #airer<
more 'ro'ortional system than AH< better able to re'resent minorities. 8he disadvantage<
!orowitz stressed< is that the low threshold #or election in a district I'rovides #ew incentives
to inter 'arty agreements to trans#er votes<J and thus generates Iwea+er incentives to
com'romiseJ than alternative vote 5AH6< under which a candidate must ultimately gather
enough lower.order 're#erences to win a ma%ority o# votes in the district. 53iamon% an%
4lattner 2006: 5---5---6
1.). Arend &i"phart( Consociational democracy
Consociational< consensual or consensus democracy described by Arend i%'hart is in his
words Ikin% of %emocracy can (e seen as an instit"tional arrangement that is a(le to pro%"ce
as m"ch consens"s as possi(le in co"ntries& s"ch as ethnically an% religio"sly %ii%e%
societies& where a spontaneo"s consens"s is in short s"pply#J 5.i/phart 1001: 1006 i%'hart
used the term consociational democracy in his boo+ Democracy in 3lural )ocieties 'ublished
in 1211. In this boo+< he em'hasized IconsociationalJ democracy as a solution #or states
where traditional ma%oritarian democracy might not wor+ due to dee' ethnic< linguistic< or
religious cleavages. 5.i/phart 10776 ater he advocates Iconsensus democracyJ in his boo+
3atterns o# Democracy as the ideal governance ty'e #or any country. It is not ideal ty'e %ust
#or dee'ly divided states. 5.i/phart 1000a6
8he crucial decisions by 'olitical leaders are to establish 'ower.sharing in some o# the dee'ly
divided societies. 8he 'ower.sharing systems that were set u' in some societies 5such as
1(
)witzerland in 1273< Austria in 1275< "alaysia in 1255< :elgium in 121(6 have the same
general 'attern: an inclusive government consisting o# re'resentatives o# all o# the im'ortant
rival grou'sK as much autonomy #or these grou's as 'ossibleK 'ro'ortionality in re'resentation
and a''ointmentsK and a #ormal or in#ormal minority veto 'ower with regard to the most vital
and #undamental matters. 5.i/phart 1001: 101-1026 i%'hart 51001: 1026 argued that set 'ower
sharing systems were Iinente% an% re-inente% time an% again (eca"se of its compelling
logic: it was the most rational choice to (e ma%e in the circ"mstances of potential or act"al
ciil strife# The moral is that p"re rational-choice %ecisions can an% %o occ"r#J
8he im'ortant 'art o# consensus in society i%'hart #ound in consisting o# the ty'es o#
e$ecutive 'ower< e$ecutive and legislative relations< 'arty system< electoral system< and
interest grou' system. Democracies that have either broad governing coalitions or minority
cabinets that are de'endent on the shi#ting su''ort o# legislative ma%orities 5instead o# one.
'arty ma%ority governments6 also tend to have relatively strong legislatures 5instead o#
dominant< and even domineering< e$ecutives6< multi'arty systems 5instead o# two.'arty
systems6< 'ro'ortional election systems 5instead o# 'lurality or ma%ority electoral systems6<
and cor'oratist or coordinated interest grou' systems 5instead o# #ree.#or.all com'etitive
'luralism among interest grou's6. 8hese are the democracies that i%'hart call consensus
democracies< and the democracies characterized by the contrasting cluster o# traits are the
ma%oritarian democracies. /lections by 'ro'ortional re'resentation allow or encourage
multi'le 'arties to #orm and to gain re'resentation in 'arliaments< and multi'arty systems
ma+e it more li+ely that either coalition or minority cabinets will be #ormed. 5.i/phart 1001:
10+-1046
i%'hart disagree with !orowitz and his conce't o# Ione size #its allJ recommendation
regarding 'ower sharing rules and institutions while the o'timal model should be ada'ted
according to the 'articular #eatures o# the country at hand. i%'hart disagree that everything
de'ends on these characteristics. 5.i/phart 2004: 006 !e o##er his own way and outlined nine
areas o# constitutional choice and 'rovide own recommendations in each area. !e called Ione
sizeJ 'ower sharing model.
i%'hart #ound as one o# the most im'ortant choice is the legislative electoral system< #or
which three broad categories are 'ro'ortional re'resentation 53,6< ma%oritarian systems< and
intermediate systems. Bor divided societies< ensuring the election o# a broadly re'resentative
legislature should be the crucial consideration< and 3, is undoubtedly according to i%'hart
the o'timal way o# doing so. 5.i/phart 2004: 00-1006 i%'hart argued that consensus
11
democracies clearly out'er#orm the ma%oritarian democracies. 8he reason #or this is 'artly
structural< because consensus democracies generally use 'ro'ortional re'resentation 53,6 as
their electoral systems. 3, ma+es it much easier #or minorities and women to be elected< and
3, also boosts voter turnout in two ways: by minimizing the wasted.vote 'roblem< it ma+es it
more attractive #or voters to vote< and by ma+ing it more attractive #or 'arties to cam'aign in
areas where they are relatively wea+< such stronger 'arty e##orts will also stimulate turnout.
!owever< an alternative or additional e$'lanation would be cultural: consensus democracy
itsel# and what I have %ust called its Nconse=uencesN may both be argued to s'ring #rom a
general cultural inclination toward a strong community orientation and social consciousness.
And indeed< the consensus democracies are the +inder and gentler democracies: they are more
li+ely than ma%oritarian democracies to be wel#are states< to be 'rotective o# the environment<
to have less 'unitive criminal %ustice systems 5as measured by their rates o# incarceration and
use o# the death 'enalty6< and to be more generous with #oreign aid. 8he moral o# this story is
another victory #or cultural e$'lanation. 5.i/phart 1001: 105-1066 8he i%'hart-s trust in
'ro'ortional re'resentation will be signi#icant #or critical a''roach o# Indian electoral system
in other 'art o# this wor+. !owever< i%'hart also 'ut the stress on guidelines with *+. A
'articular ty'e selection within 3, system can be signi#icant es'ecially #or new democracies
and it is also about creating much or less distance between voters and their re'resentatives.
5.i/phart 2004: 100-1016 8he distance could enlarge or reduce the 'ossibilities #or minorities-
re'resentation. /arlier mentioned !orowitz-s thought said that 'ossibilities to choose among
candidates 5such as in o'en list in 'ro'ortional re'resentation6 could have 'erverse
conse=uences< es'ecially in multiethnic societies. 5)orowit* 200+a: 56
Bor dividing societies is im'ortant choice also the selection between parliamentary or
presidential government. In countries with dee' ethnic and other cleavages< the choice
should be based on the di##erent systems- relative 'otential #or 'ower sharing in the e$ecutive.
As the cabinet in a 'arliamentary system is a collegial decision.ma+ing body 0 as o''osed to
the 'residential one.'erson e$ecutive with a 'urely advisory cabinet 0 it o##ers the o'timal
setting #or #orming a broad 'ower.sharing e$ecutive. 3residential election is necessarily
ma%oritarian in nature. 5.i/phart 2004: 102-10+6 As well as selection of the head of the state
is im'ortant 'art o# i%'hart theoretical a''roach.
i%'hart agrees with !orowitz that sharing of e!ecutive power and group autonomy are
two +ey ingredients #or success#ul democracy in divided societies and denominated them as
two N'rimary characteristicsN o# consociational democracy. 3ower.sharing means the
12
'artici'ation o# the re'resentatives o# all signi#icant grou's in 'olitical decision.ma+ing<
es'ecially at the e$ecutive levelK grou' autonomy 5or nonterritorial autonomy6 5.i/phart
2004: 1056 means that these grou's have authority to run their own internal a##airs< es'ecially
in the areas o# education and culture. 5.i/phart 1000(6 /lite bargaining in democratic system
has its own arrangement o# mutual chec+s and balances. 8o the e$tent that elected
re'resentatives 'artici'ate in the bargaining 'rocess< they are a channel through which
'o'ular desires< goals< and values enter into governmental decisions. 3olitical and
bureaucratic elites in democratic countries are 'ower#ul< #ar more 'ower#ul than ordinary
citizens can beK but they are not des'ots. 53ahl 1001: 11+-1146
Cabinet stability 'roblem< according to i%'hart< should not be overestimated. 8he vast
ma%ority o# stable democracies have 'arliamentary rather than 'residential or semi.
'residential #orms o# government. 8his is argument against others which says that cabinets
de'ending on ma%ority su''ort in 'arliament can be dismissed by 'arliamentary votes o# no.
con#idence which can lead to cabinet instability and< as a result< regime instability. 5.i/phart
2004: 10+6
8he choice between federalism and decentralization is im'ortant #or divided societies with
geogra'hically concentrated communal grou's. i%'hart believes that a #ederal system is a
good way to 'rovide autonomy #or these grou's. !e also recommends an e$istence o# second
5#ederal6 legislative chamber with strong 'ower. 8he sha'e o# #ederalization should be
designed by country to country. 5.i/phart 2004: 104-1056
*ower sharing beyond the cabinet and parliament is essential. :road re'resentations o# all
communal grou's su''ose to be also in the civil service< %udiciary< 'olice as well as military.
8his aim can be achieved 5but not necessary6 by instituting ethnic or religious =uotas.
5.i/phart 2004: 105-1066
1.,. -teven I. .il/inson( +elationship between party competition and a state0s
response to anti1minority polarization and violence
8he essential =uestion is what determines ethnic violence brea+s out and whether the state
will 'rotect minorities or notO @ne res'onse can be #ound in *il+inson hy'othesis that
democratic states 'rotect minorities when it is in their governments- electoral interest to do so.
It was also described on some cases in Indian states in theses I8he ,eligious Clashes in India
and 8heir Im'act on /lection ,esultsI. )'eci#ically< 'oliticians in government will increase
13
the su''ly o# 'rotection to minorities when either o# two conditions a''lies: when minorities
are an im'ortant 'art o# their 'arty-s current su''ort base< or the su''ort base o# one o# their
coalition 'artners in a coalition governmentK or when the overall electoral system in a state is
so com'etitive 0 in terms o# the e##ective number o# 'arties 0 that there is there#ore< a high
'robability that the governing 'arty will have to negotiate or #orm coalitions with minority
su''orted 'arties in the #uture< des'ite its own 're#erences. 8he necessity to engage in what
!orowitz calls Ivote.'ooling- in order to win elections and maintain coalitions is what #orces
'oliticians to moderate their demands and o##er 'rotection to minorities. *e can call it Ithe
'ros'ect o# vote 'ooling with 'ro#itJ. In India< vote 'ooling moderates even the behaviour o#
nationalist 'arties that have no minority su''ort< as long as these 'arties are #orced to #orm
coalitions with 'arties that do rely on minority votes. 56ilkinson 2004: 7-16
@n the other hand< 'oliticians in government will restrict the su''ly o# security to minorities
i# they have no minority su''ort and the overall levels o# 'arty com'etition in a state would
be low. Bigure 1 shows the model o# the 'arties- com'etition and its im'act on government
'olicy ma+ing in the #ield o# minorities and religious grou's. As it is showed in model A 0
three or more 'arties 'revent the riots or community violence and care more about minorities.
17
2igure 1 The theoretical relationship between party competition and a state3s response
to antiminority polarization and violence 5/9H3 P e##ective number o# 'arties
1
6
)ource: 6ilkinson 2004: 1+0
). lectoral systems in India and its analysis in the conte!t of 'orowitz and
&i"phart0s concepts
).1. lectoral systems 4 basic description
India is a constitutional democracy with a 'arliamentary. #ederal system o# government< and
at the heart o# the system is a commitment to hold regular< #ree and #air elections. 8hese
elections determine the com'osition o# the government< the membershi' o# the two houses o#
1
6 8he #ormula #or the e##ective number o# 'arties is /93H P 1QRv
i
2
< where
i
is vote share o# the ith
'arty. 8his widely used measure weights 'arties with a higher vote share more heavily than those
'arties with a very low vote share< thus 'roviding a better measure o# the IrealJ level o# 'arty
com'etition than i# we were to sim'ly count the total number o# 'arties com'eting in a state.
56ilkinson 2004: 76 Bor this wor+ will be used the #ormula #or e##ective number o# 'arties in
assembly: 9P1QRs
i
2
< s
i
seat share o# the ith 'arties in assembly. 5Sedo 2((?: &16 8his #ormula stresses
more on 'arty sharing in assembly and do not count with lost votes. 8his is more use#ul i# the system
use B383 electoral system.
15
'arliament< the state and union territory legislative assemblies< and the 3residency and vice.
'residency.
8he country has been divided into 573 3arliamentary Constituencies< each o# which returns
one "ember o# 3arliament to the o+ )abha< the lower house o# the 3arliament. 8he size and
sha'e o# the 'arliamentary constituencies are determined by an inde'endent Delimitation
Commission< which aims to create constituencies and has roughly the same 'o'ulation<
sub%ect to geogra'hical considerations and the boundaries o# the states and administrative
areas. 5$lection Commission of -n%ia6
Delimitation is the redrawing o# the boundaries o# 'arliamentary or assembly constituencies
to ma+e sure that there are< as near as 'racticable< the same number o# 'eo'le in each
constituency. In India boundaries are meant to be e$amined a#ter the ten.yearly census to
re#lect changes in 'o'ulation< #or which 3arliament by law establishes an inde'endent
Delimitation Commission< made u' o# the Chie# /lection Commissioner and two %udges or
e$.%udges #rom the )u'reme Court or !igh Court. !owever< under a constitutional
amendment o# 121?< delimitation was sus'ended until a#ter the census o# 2((1< ostensibly so
that states- #amily.'lanning 'rograms would not a##ect their 'olitical re'resentation in the o+
)abha and Hidhan )abhas. 8his has led to wide discre'ancies in the size o# constituencies<
with the largest having over 2<5((<((( electors< and the smallest less than 5(<(((. 5$lection
Commission of -n%ia6
3arliament has two chambers 0 8he !ouse o# the 3eo'le 5o+ )abha6 and 8he !ouse o# the
)tates 5,a%ya )abha6. o+ )abha has 575 members 5Constit"tion of -n%ia& Chapter --& 7rticle
11a6< 573 members elected #or a #ive year term in single.seat constituencies and 2 members
a''ointed to re'resent the Anglo.Indian community. 8he two unelected members are a relic
#rom the 'ast. 8he s'ecial dis'ensation o# nominating two members o# /uro'ean or /urasian
blood was created as a transitory arrangement< at the time o# Inde'endence in 1271< to 'rotect
the interests o# the de'arting ruling class. 8he 573 members are elected under the 'lurality
5G#irst 'ast the 'ostG6 electoral system.
8he !ouse o# the )tates has 275 members< 233 members elected #or a si$ year term< with one
third retiring every two years. 5Constit"tion of -n%ia& Chapter --& 7rticle 106 8he members are
elected by legislators o# the state and union 5#ederal6 territories. 8he elected members are
chosen under the system o# 'ro'ortional re'resentation by means o# the )ingle 8rans#erable
Hote. 8he twelve members are to be nominated by the 3resident in accordance with the
'rovisions o# clause as given in the Constitution o# India< Cha'ter II< Article &(.
1?
8he )tate Assemblies have been divided into #ederal 3arliamentary Constituencies< each o#
which returns one "ember o# 3arliament to the o+ )abha. 8he size and sha'e o# the
'arliamentary constituencies are determined by an inde'endent Delimitation Commission<
which aims to create constituencies and has roughly the same 'o'ulation< sub%ect to
geogra'hical considerations and the boundaries o# the states and administrative areas.
5$lection Commission of -n%ia6
).). lectoral systems 4 theoretical understanding
Indian electoral system too+ the basic electoral law #or o+ )abha and )tate Assemblies #rom
:ritish tradition and its *estminster model o# 3arliamentarism. !owever< selected B383
system has o'erated di##erently.
Indian electoral system with a single member district voting does not determinate the same
outcomes as B383 system in the 4A. According to Duverger law the B383 system should
su''ort two 'arty system. !owever< Indian reality shows something di##erent. 8he 'arty
system on #ederal level 'roduces #rom 122(s multi.'arties when in the 'eriod be#ore the
characteristic was 'arty system with 'redominant 'arty< which was I9C. 8he last two decades
are characterised by multi coalition government and by multi.'arties.
Indian 'arty system could be characterises as a 'uzzle 5i%'hart used this word #or his
descri'tion o# Indian 'olitical system6 o# many 'arty subsystems< which e$ist on the level o#
states o# Indian union. /lectoral concentration corres'onds to 'arty systems in 'articular
Indian states. Bederal 'arty system is more 'uzzles o# these states- 'arty structures< which
mutually lin+ed to each other. !owever< state level does not have always two 'arty system
#ormats as could be awaited according to B383 and *estminster model 5li+e in >reat
:ritain6. As an e$am'le could be mentioned 4ttar 3radesh< :ihar< Aerela< *est :engal etc.
@n the other side< it is 'ossible to #ind almost 'ure two 'arty system on state level in >u%arat.
Indian 'arty system has its anomalies< which do not re#lect Duvergen-s or )artori-s 'rinci'les.
/lectoral concentration in India does not always #ollow traditional Indian cleavages
5languages< religious< etc.6< but system could be also described as multi.level 'olitical and
'arty system o# 'articular Indian states< which has its own conservancies on #ederal level. It
is di##icult to say that on the #ederal level is 'ossible to #ind electoral concentration< but it is
mostly state 'arty system< which has its own s'eci#ic di##erences #rom #ederal level.
According to )trmis+a< Indian 'olitical and 'arty system does not have any theoretical
11
bac+ground< which is able to substantiate the strength o# electoral system to 'arty system.
5Chytlek 2004: 456 It is not really 'ossible to im'lement )artori-s 'rinci'les on the #ederal
level.
I# we loo+ at the !orowitz and i%'hart conce't< we can see that they see in *estminster
model and in its B383 electoral system disadvantage #or minority. 8he reductive e##ect o#
B383 eliminates the minority votes 5also "uslims6 and its re'resentatives. It means that in
society where !indus have ma%ority is not 'ossible #or minorities 5"uslims6 gain the
'arliamentary seats or to have success#ul own 'arty. *ithout the strong concentration o#
voters it is not 'ossible to elect own minority re'resentative. !owever< secular 'arties 5such
Congress6 usually gains the minority votes and give a 'ro#it #rom such divided constituencies
where do not e$ist big concentration o# minority votes. 8he e$am'le o# >u%arat state shows
how the minority re'resentation in assembly could be su''ressed. )imilar situation is also on
the #ederal level. 8he e$am'le o# >u%arat was selected< because the state has #aced strong
communal violence in 'ast two decades. 8he number o# "uslims in >u%arat is around 2 M.
9evertheless< it was only 3.2 M o# candidates o# I9C 52.1 M o# all elected candidates6 in 2((1
but it is bigger number com'are to :;3. >u%arat has also very strong religious and community
cleavage between "uslims and !indus. 8he "uslim minority is underre'resented and main
reason is the e##ect o# B383. 8his is also one signi#icant e$'lanation which su''orts bi.
'artism in >u%arat. 8he :;3 is a 'arty with strong a##iliation to nationalism and ideology o#
!indutva and I9C o''oses to this conce't with its idea o# secularism. 8his cleavage cannot
be marginalised because B383 increases it. i%'hart and as well as !orowitz see the B383 as
the way which increase communal disharmony due to under re'resentation o# minorities and
cleavage increasing.
8he other e$am'le is Aerala where is strong "uslim community and in northern 'art o# this
state is strong concentration o# voters in some constituencies and the local "uslim 'arty .
"uslim league is able to gain ma%ority o# votes. @n the other hand state ;ammu and Aashmir
shows that 'arties count with strategic electoral behaviour o# voters. 8here is a 'arty which
ma+es a 'ro#it #rom !indu minority. !indus +now that :;3 cannot be elected and 're#er
secular Aashmir 3eo'les Democratic 3arty 5;A3D36 which has chance to be elected and will
'rotect their interest. 8hese e$am'les also show that B383 system in India 'roduce strategic
behaviour among electorates and minorities. 8hey try to vote according the religious
cleavages< the 'arties which have chance to win and 'rotect their interest. !owever< this does
not solve the 'roblem o# under re'resentation o# minorities and low level o# vote 'ooling.
1&
,eservation o# seats 'olicy #or religious minorities #or 'arliamentary election does not e$ist
on #ederal level. !owever< there are seats which are reserved #or scheduled caste and
scheduled tribe. "oreover< these bac+ward communities have also s'ecial =uotas #or
government services and higher education. 8his does not e$ist on religious base. 8here are
some cases< which #ollow also the religious way. Bor e$am'le< the state Andhra 3radesh uses
the reservation seats also #or religious communities. !owever< the reservation o# seats #or
minorities in election 5"uslims6 cannot solve the main 'roblem with the e##ort to marginalize
the community 5religious6 cleavage. 8here is no su''ort o# inter.ethnic a''eals through vote
'ooling or constituency 'ooling as !orowitz mentioned in his wor+. 8here is also no active
e##ort #or the moderation by 'olitical elites to achieve the consensus or great coalition 5seat.
'ooling6 which is advantage o# consensual system described by i%'hart.
Table ) Muslims in 5u"arat Assembly elections #winners6candidates%
7ear Congress
ontestants
89* Independents won
12&( 2Q2 (Q( :
12&5 1Q1( (Q( :
122( 2Q? (Q( :
1225 3Q1( (Q1 1
122& 7Q1 (Q1 :
2((2 3Q5 (Q( :
)::; <6= :6: :
)ource: 8a/i"llah 2001
,. Affiliation of the main political parties by the religion cleavage
Indian 'olitical 'arties do not always #ollow the religious cleavages. /ven in :ritish India
when the !indu."uslim communal divide was shar' and dee'< only "uslim eague and the
!indu "ahasabha and the A+ali Dal #ollowed the religious division in the society. 8he largest
'arty I9C was not a !indu 3arty. A#ter inde'endence< "uslim eague 5'arty with this name
still e$ist in Aerala6 le#t #or 3a+istan< most Indian "uslims %oined Congress or other secular
'arties. 8he other 'arties o# the right and the le#t in India today are not communal 'arties with
strong communalist 'olitics as its main 'ro#ile. 8hey 'ro%ect themselves as secular 'arties.
)ecularism is the national creed. !owever< there are some di##erences o# understanding o#
12
secularism and 'ressure on its im'ortance. :;3 is a 'arty o# I!indutvaJ< but even this 'arty
claims to be #or I'ositive secularismJ and its membershi' is o'en to all. Its minority basting is
'ractical 'olitical behaviour. 8hese dissimilarities are described in #ollowing cha'ters which
ma+e the division among Indian 'arties- a##iliation to secularism.
,.1. *arties with secularism affiliation
Among the main 'olitical 'arties< which e$ist in India< the secular 'arties have 'ower in states
with a higher level o# the education. As e$am'le the states o# *est :engal< Aerela or
8amilnadu and !aryana. 8hese states have di##erent levels o# industrialisation and
urbanisation. 8he level o# religious or ethnic minorities is also di##erent< but generally< it is
'ossible to say that there are large grou's o# "uslims. /s'ecially states o# Aerela and *est
:engal have more than Indian average 'ercentage o# "uslims in their 'o'ulation. I# we loo+
at table & 5'. ?(6< there are states with generally lower level o# religious or ethnic violence
com'ared to other states with similar level o# "uslim 'o'ulation. !ow can this result be
e$'lainedO
3.1.1. )ecularism in Indian Conte$t
Indian scholar "ehta described secularism in two dimension: 16 as a term directly concerned
with the value o# individual liberty. 8hose who advocate the disentanglement o# the state #rom
religion as #ar as is 'ossible are motivated by a concern #or #reedom. 59ehta 2004: 7+6 26 As
a term o# communal harmony< secularism as res'ect #or all religions< and secularism as a
'ro%ect #or giving di##erent grou's their own s'ace to collectively de#ine their identities. 8his
secularism is even less motivated by a concern #or individual liberty. It is motivated by the
high ideals o# 'eace< sometimes solicitude #or 'luralism< sometimes a genuine 'iety towards
the diversity o# society. 8his de#inition o# secularism does not ma+e #reedom as a central
value. 8his version o# secularism is not averse to using state 'ower to advance religious ends
'rovided some +ind o# 'arity between di##erent communities is maintained. )o< as 'er this
view< it is all right #or the state to ban 'ractices o##ensive to !indus so long as it does the
same #or "uslims< and so #orth. In deed< it could be argued that the 'arity model< has
dominated Indian secularism. *hile< the state is not itsel# religious< its involvement in
religious activity is vast. 8his state can subsidize religious 'ilgrimages #or "uslims< and ban
cow slaughter #or !indus. 59ehta 2004: 746
2(
Chatter%i described conce't o# the secular state as #ollowing:
1. 8he state guarantees o# conscience in matters o# religion to all citizens.
2. 8here is no discrimination between individuals on grounds o# religion. 8his would
im'ly that there is e=uality be#ore the law and 'ositions o# authority are o'en to all.
3. 8he state is not concerned with and< there#ore< does not inter#ere in matters o#
religion. 5Chatter/i 1005: 016
8his is a de#inition above and a''lies to the Christian religion. 8he =uestion arises as to
whether the same 'rinci'le cannot be invo+ed in the case o# the Indian religions 0 !induism<
Islam 5Indian Islam6< :uddhism and )i+hismO 5Chatter/i 1005: 026 8he secularism in Indian
conte$t has been understood di##erently.
Birstly< secularism in India 5according Dr. ,adha+rishran 0 #ormed vice.'resident o# India6
I%oes not mean irreligion or atheism or een stress on material comfort# -t proclaims that it
lays stress on "niersality of spirit"al al"es which may (e attaine% (y a ariety of ways#J It
tries to build u' a #ellowshi' o# believers not by subordinately individual =ualities to the
grou' mind but by bringing them into harmony with each other. 8his #ellowshi' is based on
'rinci'le o# diversity in unity which alone has the =uality o# creativeness. )econdly<
secularism in Indian conce't means an e=ual status #or religious. 5Chatter/i 1005: 10+6
Conce't o# Indian secularism described by Chatter%i as well as second de#inition given by
"ehta brought many challenges #or India. )ecularism< which is based on e=ual status #or
religious and state religious subsidizing< is di##icult #or maintenance in situation when the
'olitical system is divided to two grou's 0 religious nationalist and secularist. Also the
challenge could be #inding in electoral system which could not give chance #or religious
grou' 'ro'ortionality. 9ationalism 5!indutva ideology re'resented by 'arty in government6
and lac+ o# 'ro'ortional re'resentation could bring 'rivileges #or ma%ority religion. Bor
nationalists it could be di##icult to maintenance secularism and to be neutral to the religious
grou'sK es'ecially in situation when the main electoral su''ort comes #rom ma%ority.
3.1.2. Congress 'arty and 4nited 3rogressive Alliance
A similar situation is in the states where the Congress 'arty lead the government< but the
'roblem is in strict secular 'olitics< which is sometime not #ollowed by I9C. I9C has mar+ed
as a :rahmanical 'arty< which is dominated by !indu elites and :rahmans. !owever< there is
secular a##iliation characterisation.
21
)ecular a##iliation could be also evaluated by the number o# cross religious su''orters in
election. Diagram 1 and 2 shows the gain o# main 'olitical grou's or 'arties among di##erent
religious grou's. I9C 5with coalition 'artners- su''ort6 is only one 'arty in election o# 122?
and 122& which were able to recruit their voters across di##erent religious minorities. "uslims
and Christians who are out o# !indutva understanding o# !indu nation 're#erred Congress.
:;3 with its 'artner do not have su''ort among religious communities. Hice versa< :;3 #ocus
more on Indian religious grou' where their su''ort is strong 0 mainly !indus. 8he Congress
had its strength among the "uslims and the dalits. 5)eath an% :a%a 2006: 1+56
Congress 'arty has tried to #ollow the Indian way o# secularism in governing and its 'olitical
'rogramme. )ecularism is 'art o# the ideology o# the 'arty. In the Congress 'rogramme it is
'ossible to #ind some 'oints about minorities and its 'ositive discrimination a''roach.
;The Congress (eliees in affirmatie action for all religio"s an% ling"istic minorities# The
Congress has proi%e% for reserations for 9"slims in <erala an% <arnataka in goernment
employment an% e%"cation on the gro"n%s that they are a socially an% e%"cationally
(ackwar% class# The Congress is committe% to a%opting this policy for socially an%
e%"cationally (ackwar% sections among 9"slims an% other religio"s minorities on a national
scale# The Congress also ple%ges to e!ten% reserations for the economically %eprie%
persons (elonging to comm"nities that are at present not entitle% to s"ch reserations#
The Congress will a%opt all possi(le meas"res to promote an% maintain comm"nal peace an%
harmony& especially in sensitie areas# -t will enact a comprehensie law on social iolence
in all its forms an% manifestations& proi%ing for inestigations (y a central agency&
prosec"tion (y ,pecial Co"rts an% payment of "niform compensation for loss of life& hono"r
an% property#
The Congress commits itself to amen%ing the Constit"tion to esta(lish a Commission for
9inority $%"cational -nstit"tions that will proi%e %irect affiliation for minority professional
instit"tions to central "niersities# ,pecial steps will (e taken to sprea% mo%ern an% technical
e%"cation among women in minority comm"nities partic"larly#= 5-8C 20046
3.1.3. e#tist 'arties
In introduction o# this cha'ter are mentioned states which have been active secular 'arties
such as C3I5"6 or I9C which have a great deal o# 'olitical 'ower. In *est :engal and Aerela
the main 'ower in government is the Communist 'arty 0 C3I5"6 and has been #or almost 7(
22
years 5they have had strong 'ower in both state 'arliaments and governments #rom 1211 in
*est :engal and res'ectively in Aerela in 121(6. 8his 'arty insists on secularism and
su''orting the minorities in their cultural li#e and education. )trict secularisation and non.
discrimination o# all religious and ethnic grou's hel' avoid 'olitically motivated intolerance
among religious communities and unwanted 'olitical su''ort o# religious cleavage on the side
o# government 'olicy ma+ing. 8he connection between the number o# religions riots and
secular 'olicy ma+ing can 'robably be #ound in *est :engal or Aerela 5C3I5"6 and coalition
government6 where the lowest number o# riots and violence e$ists 5see table &< '. ?(6.
Diagrams 1 and 2 also su''ort the secular a##iliation o# Communist 'arties in India. C3I5"6
and C3I were 'art o# B in 122? which had bigger gains among religious grou' than among
!indu. !owever< the su''ort among !indus was similar to other communities. Alliance B
where also Indian communist 'arties too+ 'art gain the 'ro#it #rom their secular 'olitics and
the su''ort among "uslim 'o'ulation were higher than among other grou's.
@ne success#ul e$am'le o# relatively 'eace#ul state under communist 'arty government is
*est :engal. 8he relative absence o# violence against minorities and the lowest castes and
classes in *est :engal has not earned the C3I5"6 the credit it deserves. An Labsence- by
de#inition constitutes an invisible achievement< es'ecially because *est :engal has had a
tradition o# harmonious caste and Lcommunal- relations since the 'artition in 127&< =uite
inde'endently o# the C3I5"6 actions. !owever< there is little 'recedent o# historical basis #or
some o# the most virulent communal con#licts that have occurred elsewhere in India in the
recent 'eriod. 5>as" 2006: +45-+466
,.). *arties with 'induism affiliation
)ince the rise o# the Indian national movement< three com'eting themes about India 0
territorial< cultural< and religious 0 have #ought #or 'olitical dominance. 8he territorial notion
is that India has a Isacred geogra'hy<J enclosed between the Indus ,iver< the !imalayas and
the seas and em'hasized #or 2<5(( years since the time o# the "ahabharata. 8he cultural
notion is that ideas o# tolerance< 'luralism< and syncretism de#ine Indian society. India is not
only the birth'lace o# several religions 0 !induism< :uddhism< ;ainism< and )i+hism 0 but in
its history< it has also regularly received< accommodated< and absorbed IoutsidersJ 0 3arsis<
;ews< and I)yrianJ Christians 5whose reached India be#ore /uro'eans6. In the 'rocess<
syncretistic #orms o# culture have emerged and become 'art o# India. 8he third religious
23
notion is that India is originally the land o# the !indus< and it is the only land that the !indus
can call their own. India has nearly all o# !induism-s holy 'laces and its holy rivers. A great
deal o# diversity may e$ist within !indu society: a #aith in !induism brings the various
'ractitioners together. India thus viewed is a !indu nation. 5?arshney 2002: 60-616
In 'olitical discourse< the territorial idea is called Inational unityJ or Iterritorial integrity<J the
cultural idea is e$'ressed as I'olitical 'luralismJ< and the religious idea is +nown as
!indutva< or 'olitical !induism. 5?arshney 2002: 616 8he recognition o# !induism as a meta.
ethnicity has been an essential com'onent o# Indian nation and state.building and has called
#or radical revision o# the e$'erience o# Indian democracy since 1271. It does not con#orm to
secularized ma%oritarianism 5where the state encourages acculturation and assimilation but
allows ethnic grou's to maintain ethnicity in the 'rivate s'here< #or e$am'le the 4)A6. Indian
democracy subordinated secularism to the Lnationalism o# the !indu ma%ority-. 5,ingh 2000:
45-466
:;3 is the biggest and main 'arty which su''orts the ideology o# !indutva and !indu
nationalism. In last o+ )abha election this ideology went to the bac+cloth and the main
election to'ics was economic growth. 8he 'resent to'ic be#ore new o+ )abha election is the
;ammu.Aashmir issue due to 2((& disorder in this state as well as the discussion around 4).
India 9uclear deal which also divided 'olitical s'ectrum out o# secular 0 anti.secular.
!owever< the ideology o# the :;3 is based on !indutva. In :;3 'olitical mani#esto is the
em'hasis on the Indian nationalism and ideology o# !indutva. 5>@4 20046
8he victory o# :;3 ideology o# !indutva was the decision o# the Indian )u'reme Court. In a
%udgment the )u'reme Court ruled that no 'recise meaning can be ascribed to the terms
G!induG< G!indutvaG and G!induismGK and no meaning in the abstract can con#ine it to the narrow
limits o# religion alone< e$cluding the content o# Indian culture and heritage. 8his gave the
hallmar+ o# legitimacy to the main stream o# Indian nationalism ideology. 5<"%lABek 2006:
24-25& compare with -n%ian ,"preme Co"rt %ecision from 3ecem(er 11
th
& 1005 in case of the
election of the 9aharashtra Chief 9inister& 9r# 9anohar @os""
2
C
)hiv )ena 5meaning Army o# )hiva< re#erring to )hiva%i6 is a right.wing 'olitical 'arty. 8he
)enaGs ideology is based on the conce'ts o# G:humi'utraG 5"arathi #or N)ons o# )oilN6 and
!indutva or !indu nationalism. !owever< in recent times< the )ena has laid more em'hasis on
2
6 8he unanimous view e$'ressed by the three ;udges regarding !induism and !indutva are based
u'on the views e$'ressed earlier by the Constitution :ench o# the )u'reme Court in a #ew cases. Bor
e$am'le< in )hastri Tagna 3urushad%i case 512??536 )C, 2726 and in )ridharan case 5121? )C, 71&6.
5>haratiya @anata 4arty6
27
!indutva. 5<"%lABek 2006: 256 )hiv )ena was 'art o# :;3 leaded government 51222.2((76
and has been coalition 'artner in 9ational Democratic Alliance leaded by same 'arty.
!indutva and !induism 'olitics are the main ideological attributes o# 9DA and coalition
'artners o# :;3. 8his is also the characteristic which give 9DA the dimension o# o''osition
to 43A and I9C.
,.,. *arties with Islamic #Muslim% affiliation
Indian "uslim nationalism re#ers to the 'olitical and cultural e$'ression o# nationalism<
#ounded u'on the religious tenets and identity o# Islam< o# the "uslims o# the Indian
subcontinent. )ome 'rominent "uslims 'olitically sought a base #or themselves< se'arate
#rom !indus and other Indian nationalists< who es'oused the Indian 9ational Congress.
"uslim scholars< religious leaders and 'oliticians #ounded the All India "uslim eague in
12(?. "uslims com'rised 25 M to 3( M o# 5're.'artition6 IndiaGs collective 'o'ulation. )ome
"uslim leaders #elt that their massive cultural and economic contributions to IndiaGs heritage
and li#e merited a signi#icant role #or "uslims in a #uture inde'endent IndiaGs governance and
'olitics. 5<"%lABek 2006: 256
3arties which su''ort "uslim communities and their rights mostly coo'erate with I9C<
because its secular 'olitics a##iliation su''orts these communities and give to "uslims the
advantages in the 'ower#ul o''osition o# !indu nationalism and !indutva. 9ow these 'arties
are in coalition with I9C in the 4nited 3rogressive Alliance 543A6 in the 'resent ruling
coalition o# 'olitical 'arties in India. 543A was #ormed a#ter the 2((7 o+ )abha elections6.
@ther 'arties try to coo'erate with other secular 'arties such as C3I5"6. Indian 4nion "uslim
eague is an Islamic nationalist 'olitical 'arty in India. 8he chie# su''ort base o# the 'arty is
northern Aerala where there is strong concentration o# "uslims. "uslims ma+e ma%ority o#
voters in some constituencies in Aerala which give them advantage in B383 system to have
strong electorate su''ort. All India "a%lis.e.Ittehadul "uslimeen 5All India Council o# the
4nion o# "uslims6 is a 'olitical 'arty in India that was #ormed to re'resent the "uslim
'o'ulation o# Andhra 3radesh. 8he stronghold o# AI"I" is the old city o# !yderabad and
"uslim dominated areas o# Andhra 3radesh< though it has its units in some 'arts o#
"ahrashtra and Aarnata+a also. All India "uslim Borum is a "uslim 'olitical 'arty in India.
8he 'resident is 9ihaluddin and the general secretary is Dr. ". A. )herwani. 8he Borum is
25
staunchly o''osed to the !indutva nationalism o# :;3. 8he Borum has collaboration with
Communist 3arty o# India 5"ar$ist.eninist6 iberation. 5<"%lABek 2006: 25-266
Diagram 1 -upport for main political parties in 1>>= election according to religion
,
26,2
28,9
8,4
7,4
3,7
25,4
35,3
3,1
25,3
10,1
1,2
25,0
39,9
3,0
2,0
5,6
0,0
49,5
48,3
14,3
16,7
2,4
5,6
42,7
26,5
6,0
12,0
2,4
4,8
48,3
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
r
e
l
i
g
i
o
u
s

g
r
o
u
p

v
o
t
i
n
g
Hindu Muslim Christian Sikh Others
INC !"# N$ %$ !S# Others
)ource: 4rakash 2006: 145
3
6 122? /lection:
I9CU P I9C U All India Anna Dravida "unnetra Aazhagam 5AIAD"A6
:;3U P :;3 U )amata U )hiv )ena U !aryana Hi+as 3arty
9B P ;anata Dal U )ama%wadi 3arty
B P C3I 5"6 U C3I U ,evolutionary )ocialist 3arty 5,)36 U Borward :loc+ 5B:6
2?
Diagram ) -upport for main political parties in 1>>? election according to religion
@
25,6
37,4
17,4
3
16,6
35,1
6,8
34,4
1,3
22,4
42,1
9,1
18,6
0,4
29,8
21,9
39,8
18
10,2
10,1
26,4
10,5
3,9
10,5
26,4
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
r
i
l
i
g
i
o
u
s

g
r
o
u
p

v
o
t
i
n
g
Hindu Muslim Christian Sikh Others
INC !"# '$ !S# Others
)ource: 4rakash 2006: 146
,.@. *arties with other mostly regional or specific community affiliation
)ama%wadi 3arty and :ahu%an )ama% 3arty are 'arties which are out o# the main stream
a##iliation. 8hey are regional 'arties based in 4ttar 3radesh< but :)3 have tried to enlarge
their base to other Indian states. 8he electoral base is among under'rivileged grou's o# Indian
society as has been already mentioned lower. 8he main su''ort has been #ound among
)cheduled 8ribes and )cheduled Castes and they also try to #ind the electoral among other
religious minorities 5"uslims6< which can give them the voting advantage. 5compare with
Chan%ra 2004: 141-1406 !owever< the main base o# :)3 is in state o# 4ttar 3radesh< but the
'arty-s in#luence is in #ederal 'olitics as well. 8he 4ttar 3radesh generates high number o#
7
6 In the election 122&:
:;3U P :;3 U )amata U )hiv )ena U !aryana Hi+as 3arty U AIAD"A U A+ali Dal U 8rinamool
Congress U o+ )ha+ti U :i%u ;anata Dal U 8D3 598,6
4B P ;anata Dal U )3 5"ulayam6 U 8elugu Desan 3arty 58D3 5966 U A>3 U 8amil "aanila Congress
58"C6 U Dravida "unnetra Aazhagam 5D"A6 U "aharashtrawadi >omanta+ 3arty 5">36 U C3I U
C3I5"6 U ,)3 U B:
21
seats #or :)3 in o+ )abha. 8he Congress 3arty historically gains the su''ort #rom )cheduled
Castes< but :)3 too+ its 'lace in 4ttar 3radesh. :)3 loudly identi#ied itsel# as a cham'ion not
o# the nation as a whole< but o# :ahuma%
5
)ama% and the )cheduled Castes in 'articular.
5Chan%ra 2004: 1516 4ttar 3radesh has around 21 'ercent o# )Cs in its 'o'ulation.
IndiaGs 'rimary o''osition 'arty 'rior to the :;3 was #ragmented into several regional 'arties.
8he )ama%wadi 3arty believes in democratic socialism and o''oses the unrestricted entry o#
multinational com'anies into India. 5,ama/wa%i 4arty 9"m(ai we(6 )ama%wadi 3arty is
'rimarily based in 4ttar 3radesh< where it bases its su''ort largely on @:Cs and "uslims.
@ther mostly regional 'arties such as ;anata Dal 54nited6< )hiromani A+ali Dal or :i%u ;anata
Dal are also 'art o# 9DA 5the :;3 led ruling alliance6. 8heir a##iliation could be also de#ined
as a !induistic. 8here are many other more or less success#ul ;anata 'arties. Anti.secularism
is not signi#icant 'art o# their identity and some o# ;anata 'arties could be also 'ro.secular as
well as 'ro.hindu. )ome ;anata 'arties such as ,ashtriya ;anata Dal are 'art o# 'ro.secular
4DA. !owever< these 'arties noti#y their sel# as adherents o# ;anata movement #rom 121(s
and ;anata 3arty.
,.<. The characteristics of the main relevant political parties in India
8his cha'ter characterises the 'olitical 'rogramme and 'olitical base o# main 'olitical 'arties
in India. Bor as much as the number o# 'olitical 'arties in India is enormous and their success
in di##erent by the states< this wor+ will #ocused mostly on two 'resent biggest 'arties. 8hese
'arties lead also two main alliances in the country. "oreover< there is also mentioned e#t
Bront which is mi$ture o# communist and socialist 'arties. Bor all that there will be only study
o# Communist 3arty o# India 5"ar$ist6 which have been success#ul in *est :engal and
Aerela and is the biggest and leading 'arty in e#t Bront. :ahu%an )ama% 3arty and )ama%wadi
3arty have been selected because their electoral success is 'erce'tually similar to C3I5"6 in
both last election. 8he electoral gains in last two #ederal elections were bigger than 7 M which
is limitation #or this selection. 8hese #ive 'arties are the biggest 'arties in India. ,elative to
e$isting alliances there will be also characteristic o# these alliances 'rogramme according to
their leaders.
5
6 :ahu%an literally means ma%ority. It means ma%ority o# the castes in !indu society 5including
untouchable6 who are not :rahmins< Ashatriya or Haishya. 5Chan%ra 2004: 1416
2&
3.5.1. Indian 9ational Congress
Indian 9ational Congress 5also +nown as the Congress 3arty< abbreviated I9C6 is a ma%or
'olitical 'arty in India. Created in 1&&5< the Indian 9ational Congress became the nationGs
leader in the Inde'endence "ovement< with over 15 million Indians involved in its
organisations and over 1( million 'artici'ants in its struggle against the :ritish /m'ire. A#ter
Inde'endence in 1271< it became the nationGs dominant 'olitical 'arty. In the 17th o+ )abha
52((7.2((26< 175 I9C members< the largest contingent amongst all 'arties< serve in the house.
8he 'arty is currently the chie# member o# the ruling 4nited 3rogressive Alliance coalition
government su''orted by the e#t Bront. 5-n%ian 8ational Congress we(6
Congress 'arty has tried to #ollow the secular attitude in governing and its 'olitical
'rogramme. )ecularism is 'art o# the ideology o# the 'arty. In the Congress 'rogramme it is
'ossible to #ind some 'oints about minorities and its 'ositive discrimination a''roach. 8his
has been described in 'revious cha'ter 3.1.2. 8he minority su''ort which Congress has is
strong. Dalit and other minorities were more li+ely to vote #or the Congress than the :;3 and
allies in almost all )tates in last election. @nly *est :engal< Assam and 4ttar 3radesh have
di##erent a##iliation o# their voters. 5,ings an% ,a!ena 2001: 2216 8he cleavage which ma+es
the 'arty di##erent is in their attitude to minorities and more im'ortant to un'rivileged grou's
in Indian society. Congress is traditionally more 'o'ular #or those grou's. !owever< Congress
also #ollows its >andhi-s heritage.
8he economic 'rogramme is in 'resent on the right mainstream. 8he su''ort o# liberalisation
o# the economy is very strong. :oth main relevant 'arties and alliance su''ort liberal
'rinci'les o# #ree mar+et. 8he mar+et oriented economy is dominant in I9C #rom the
beginning o# 122(s. In 125(s< ?(s< 1(s was I9C more 'ro.socialist oriented economy with
mi$ture central 'lanning and o# #ree mar+et. 8he international 'olitics o# I9C is 'ro.western
and 'ro.American. 8here is strong coo'eration with the 4)A in I*ar on 8errorJ.
3.5.2. :haratiya ;anata 3arty
8he :haratiya ;anata 3arty 5:;36< literally meaning Indian 3eo'leGs 3arty< created in 12&(< is
one o# the two ma%or national 'olitical 'arties in India. It 'ro%ects itsel# as a cham'ion o#
socio.religious cultural values o# the countryGs !indu ma%ority< conservative social 'olicies
and strong national de#ence. Its constituency is strengthened by the broad umbrella o# !indu
nationalist organizations< in#ormally +nown as the )angh 3arivar 5eague o# Indian nationalist
22
organizations6< where the ,ashtriya )wayamseva+ )angh
?
'lay a leading role. )ince its
ince'tion< the :;3 has been a 'rime o''onent o# the Indian 9ational Congress. It has allied
with regional 'arties to roll bac+ the le#t.o#.centre tendencies #ormerly endorsed by the
Congress 3arty< which dominated Indian 'olitics #or #our decades. 8he ideological rallying
cry o# the :;3 is !indutva< literally N!induness<N or cultural !indu nationalism. 5<"%lABek
2006: 216
As was mentioned in cha'ter 3.2. the main conce't o# the ideology on which :;3 has been
built is Cultural nationalism< which is called !indutva. 8he :;3 wants to ta+e its ins'iration
#rom the history and civilisation o# India. Bor this 'arty means ;-n%ian nationhoo% stems
from a %eep c"lt"ral (on%ing of the people that oerri%es %ifferences of caste& region&
religion an% lang"age# 6e (eliee that C"lt"ral 8ationalism for which -n%ianness&
>haratiyata an% )in%"ta are synonyms -- is the (asis of o"r national i%entity=. 5>@4 20046
8he :;3 really hel's the )u'reme Court decision about !indutva that it is not a religious or
e$clusivist conce't. It is inclusive< integrative< and abhors any +ind o# discrimination against
any section o# the 'eo'le o# India on the basis o# their #aith. 5>@4 20046
It has also been written in the :;3 Hision document 2((7 that :;3 ;appeals to the religio"s
an% social lea%ers of the )in%" an% 9"slim comm"nities to spee% "p the process of %ialog"e
an% (ring it to an amica(le an% early fr"ition# 6e hope that these efforts will s"ccee% in
heral%ing a new chapter of amity in )in%"-9"slim relations an% fortify national integration;.
5>@4 20046 >enerally it is 'ossible to say that :;3 is a conservative 'olitical organisation. It
sees itsel# as rising to the de#ence o# indigenous culture< and Indian religious systems which
include !induism< ;ainism< )i+hism and :uddhism. 8o many !indu nationalists< :harat is a
!indu ,ashtra< literally a !indu nation. According to :;3< this de#inition does not e$clude
"uslims< Christians< or other minorities. !indu ,ashtra is 'ortrayed as cultural nationalism
and !induism as the entire com'le$ system o# culture< history< #aith and worshi' that have
evolved in India over the 'ast 5<((( years. In the 'olitical language o# !indu nationalists< all
the 'eo'le o# India< their culture and heritage are N!indu<N which literally means Ninhabitant
o# the land o# the river )indhu<N the modern.day Indus. 8he :;3 has been accused o# being a
$eno'hobic< racist< and #ascist organization by its o''onents. Its su''orters< on the other hand<
argue that it is no more than a conservative< nationally.oriented 'arty which does not wish to
'olarise the country on communal 5religious6 grounds. 5<"%lABek 2006: 216 :;3 has
?
6 8he ,ashtriya )wayamseva+ )angh 5)ans+rit< N9ational HolunteersG 4nionNK also +nown as the
)angh or the ,))6 is a !indu nationalist organization in India.
3(
'romoted and su''orted an anti.terrorist law< which they #eel in its 'resent #orm could be
misused to harass minority grou's such as "uslims. 5,atish 20026
8he economic 'rogramme is in 'o'ulist right mainstream. 8he su''ort o# liberalisation o# the
economy is in 'ractical way similar to I9C. :oth main relevant 'arties and alliance su''ort
liberal 'rinci'les o# #ree mar+et. !owever< there is also 'o'ulist orientation o# the 'olicy
ma+ing. 8he :;3 is against #oreign ca'ital which is against traditional grou's- interest. 8he
economic 'hiloso'hy o# the 'arty stood on three 'illars: economic develo'ment or growth<
social stability or harmony< and sel#.reliance or swadeshi. @'eration e$'erience #rom :;3
governance showed that :;3 continued with on.going 'olicy o# economic re#orms started by
I9C. 8his was a 'arado$ in :;3-s economic 'olicy. 8raditionally a 'arty o# small traders and
entre'reneurs< the :;3 would not li+e to sub%ect this community to on onslaught o# the
international big brand names. !owever< 'arty showed its willingness to continue with the
re#orm 'rocess to achieving higher economic growth. 5Dhosh 2000: 216-+056
8he international 'olitics o# :;3 is 'ro.western and 'ro.American and anti."uslims. 8here is
an agreement with strong coo'eration with the 4)A in I*ar on 8errorJ. !owever< the :;3 is
not o'en to the coo'eration with the *est which could be against Indian national
inde'endence. /$am'le is the new I9uclear DealJ agreement with the 4)A #rom 2((& with
which the :;3 strongly disagree. Anti.9uclear Deal 'osition goes together with the economic
a''roach which I(ase% on a self-reliant approach#J Also :;3 and 9DA want to be Vat the
forefront of %efen%ing the interests of -n%ian kisans
7
(y (ringing a(o"t a coalition of
%eeloping co"ntries against s"ch "n/"st practices of %eelope% co"ntries#; 5>@4 ?ision
3oc"ment 20046 8he economic a''roach goes together with nationalism 5cultural
nationalism6 which is 'romoted by :;3 and 9DA.
3.5.3. Communist 3arty o# India 5"ar$ist6
8he C3I5"6 was #ormed at the )eventh Congress o# the Communist 3arty o# India held in
Calcutta #rom @ctober 31 to 9ovember 1< 12?7. 8he C3I5"6 was born 5as they declared6 in
the struggle against revisionism and sectarianism in the communist movement at the
international and national level< in order to de#end the scienti#ic and revolutionary tenets o#
"ar$ism.eninism and its a''ro'riate a''lication in the concrete Indian conditions. 8he
C3I5"6 declare its sel# as the leading e#t 'arty and it is committed to build a e#t and
1
6 Aisans . Barmers
31
democratic #ront which can 'resent a real alternative to the e$isting bourgeoisie.landlord
'olicies. 5C4-E9C 20066
C3I5"6 declares the 'arty 'olicy and 'arty behaviour as the right communist 'arty in India
with the right "ar$ist ideology. !owever< the 'ractical 'olicy is mostly similar to socialist
'arties. 8he bac+ground o# their 'rogramme is on social and economic bases. C3I5"6 gives
the s'ecial stress on social 'roblems o# the Indian society. 8hey are on the side o# untouchable
'eo'le and also as a secular 'arty they are again caste system. It means that it is not really
'o'ular 'arty among higher class and higher castes. /s'ecially< i# it is com'ared to :;3 or
other 'arties su''orting !indu religion and ideology. 8he 'arty is mostly su''orted by rural
'eo'le and wor+ers. 8his is also one o# the reasons why the 'arty is very success#ul in rural
areas and states such as Aerela< 8ri'oli or *est :engal. 5<"%lABek 2006: 226
C3I5"6 is a communist 'arty traditionally on the side o# secularisation o# society and 'olitics.
In religious issues and ethnic and religious violence< this 'arty sees the 'roblem with social
and economic bac+ground. 8hey see the 'roblem in lac+ o# e=ual o''ortunities and in
discrimination.
A 'assage is written in the C3I5"6 'rogramme about the attitude to this 'roblematic issue:
I-n con%itions of capitalist e!ploitation the g"arantee% rights to the minorities proi%e% in the
Constit"tion are also not implemente%# There is the lack of eF"al opport"nities an%
%iscrimination against the 9"slim minorities (oth in the economic an% social sphere#
Comm"nal riots an% iolent attacks against the 9"slims hae (ecome a permanent feat"re#
The 2,, an% its o"tfits constantly instigate hatre% against the minorities an% they target the
Christian comm"nity also# This fosters alienation an% insec"rity among the minorities& which
(ree%s f"n%amentalist tren%s an% weakens the sec"lar fo"n%ations# 9inority comm"nalism
isolates the minorities an% hampers the common moement of all oppresse% sections# 3efence
of minority rights is a cr"cial aspect of the str"ggle to strengthen %emocracy an% sec"larism#J
5C4-E9C 20066 As stated in the 'rogramme mentioned< the C3I5"6 wants to solve the
=uestion o# "uslim and other minorities grou' by invo+ing strong secular 'olicy.
8he economy 'rogramme bac+ground is in le#t side o# 'olitical s'ectrum. In 'resent time< it is
not communist central 'lanning economy which dominates to the C3I5"6. It is more social.
mar+et economy which is more similar to socialist 'arties. 8he su''ort o# liberalisation o# the
economy is only in the way which cannot have bad im'act o# the lower social grou's. 8he
C3I5"6 su''ort the wel#are 'rogramme against 'overty. 8here is strong #ocus on rural and
agriculture 'olicy. 3arty wants to I%efen% the interests of the co"ntry against the
32
%epre%ations of imperialism#J 5C4-E9C 20066 8he international 'olitics o# C3I5"6 and e#t
Bront is neutral to the *est and more anti.American. 8here is bigger su''ort o# ,ussia and
China. /$am'le could be the new I9uclear DealJ agreement with the 4)A with which the
C3I5"6 strongly disagree. C3I5"6 also disagree with 4)A activities in A#ghanistan and
3a+istan.
3.5.7. :ahu%an )ama% 3arty
8he :)3 was #ormed in 12&7 by Aanshi ,am who has remained 'arty leader ever since till
his death in 2((1. 8he 'arty emerged #rom Aanshi ,amGs earlier activity 'romoting the
interests o# )cheduled Caste government em'loyees. Although the :)3 is recognised by the
/lection Commission as a national 'arty it e##ectively #unctions on certain 9orth Indian states
only. @n 11
th
"ay 2((1 the 4ttar 3radesh :)3 was elected as the #irst single ma%ority 'arty
since 1221 with "ayawati as leader in the 'arty.
:)3-s ideology is based on the argument that the ma%ority are o''ressed by the select u''er
class. It aims to change this using the government 'ower. 5-n%ian elections we(6 8he :)3 is
the 'olitical 'arty with the stated goal o# serving the traditionally lower castes o# Indian
society< including )udras 5the #ourth Harna6 and Dalits 54ntouchables6. :)3 is the 'arty
#ormed to re'resent religious minorities< those at the bottom o# IndiaGs caste system.
8he #ounder o# this 'arty was Aanshi ,am< who wanted to mobilize members o# his IownJ
ethnic category #or the #orwarding o# his 'olitical goals. 8he 'rinci'al salient categories that
he could identi#y as his own were ,amdassia< Chamar
&
< 3un%abi< )i+h and )cheduled Caste.
@# these< the )cheduled Caste category was the only one that had a nationwide membershi'.
!is motivation #or entering 'olitics< #urthermore< had to do s'eci#ically with the grievances o#
the )cheduled Castes. !owever< the 'o'ulation o# )cheduled Castes is not su##icient to bring
about a victory in the struggle #or 'ower either at the centre or in any o# the Indian states.
Aanshi ,an resuscitated the term I:ahu%anJ
2
which literally means Ima%orityJ and
'o'ularized it. As he said: ;>ah"/an ,ama/ is comprise% of ,che%"le% Caste& ,che%"le%
Tri(es& Gther >ackwar% Classes an% conerte% minorities#= 5Chan%ra 2006: 144-1416
&
6 ,amdassia 0 the )i+h-s Chamar occu'ational caste in 3un%abK Chamar 0 5#rom the )ans+rit
Charma+ara6 is a 'rominent occu'ational Dalit caste in India. Chamars were traditionally engaged in
'ro#ession such as eatherwor+ing and )hoema+ing. Chamars are among the biggest castes in India.
2
6 Aanshi ,am de#ined this term as an inscri'tive category consisting o# a collection o# subordinate
ethnic categories< hitherto considered se'arate< that constitute a ma%ority o# the Indian 'o'ulation.
33
Chandra says that the s'eci#ication o# the grou's< on which :)3 has targeted their 'olitical
'rogramme< has been based on ethnical 'rinci'le. 8he term )cheduled 8ribe re#ers to tribal
'o'ulations that are eligible under the Indian Constitution #or a##irmative action in
government em'loyment< education< and re'resentative institutions. )cheduled 8ribes ma+e
u' & 'ercent o# the 'o'ulation o# India. 8he term @ther :ac+ward Classes 5@:Cs6 re#ers<
misleadingly< to a collection o# subordinate caste categories identi#ied by the
governmentQa''ointed "andal Commission as bac+ward and there#ore deserving o#
a##irmative action in government em'loyment. Although the census does not collect data on
the 'o'ulation o# @:Cs< as they are now called< they are estimated to ma+e u' 52 'ercent o#
the Indian 'o'ulation. Binally< the term converted minorities re#ers to India-s religious
minorities "uslims< who ma+e u' 12 'ercent o# the Indian 'o'ulationK Christians< who ma+e
u' 2.37 'ercentK )i+hs< who ma+e u' 1.27 'ercentK and :uddhists< who ma+e u' (.1? 'ercent.
8he :)3 re#ers to the :ahu%an )ama% as constituting &5 'ercent o# the 'o'ulation o# India.
8he &5 'ercent #igure< while not 'recise underlines its claim to s'ea+ #or the ma%ority o# the
Indian 'o'ulation. 5Chan%ra 2006: 141-1406
8he 'roblem o# :)3 is that many voters #rom these grou's have 'olitical 're#erences in other
'olitical 'arties and while ethnic and social grou's #ocus on dividing any e##orts o# the 'arty-s
'o'ularising among these communities. 4ttar 3radesh is only one state where :)3 gains
wide.ranging su''ort #rom its target grou'.
3.5.5. )ama%wadi 3arty
8he )ama%wadi 3arty is one o# several 'arties that emerged when the ;anata Dal 53eo'leGs
3arty6 bro+e u'. 8he )ama%wadi 3arty believes in democratic socialism and o''oses the
unrestricted entry o# multinational com'anies into India 5,ama/wa%i 4arty 9"m(ai we(6.
)ama%wadi 3arty has the strongest su''ort in 4ttar 3radesh. 8he electorates consist mostly
#rom @:Cs and "uslims< 'articularly "ulayam )ingh TadavGs
1(
5'arty su'reme6 own
Tadav
11
caste. )3 is +nown #or its socialist 'hiloso'hy and is also on the side o# 'o'ulism. It
1(
6 "ulayam )ingh Tadav 5born 9ovember 22< 12326 is a 'olitician in 4ttar 3radesh< India. !e has
been re'eatedly elected to the 4ttar 3radesh legislative assembly since 12?5 and is the current chie#
minister o# the state.
11
6 Tadav is a !indu caste which is re#erred to in ancient !indu scri'tures. 8hey are among
the #ew surviving ancient Indo.Aryan +shatriya 5Ashatriya is the title o# the 'rincely military
order in the Hedic society. 8hey are the warrior and ruling caste< in the varna system6 clans
+nown as 'anch%anya 53anch%anya< meaning #ive 'eo'le< is the common name given to #ive
most ancient vedic +shatriya tribes6.
37
is 'ossible to see on )ama%wadi 3arty-s slogans I$F"ality an% 4rosperity of allJ and their
o''osition against communal #orces. Another )ama%wadi 3arty-s 'o'ulist motto is I,4 is
against fao"rs of a confe%eration of -n%ia-4akistan->angla%esh#J. 8he 3arty o''oses wild
entry o# international com'anies to India. 8he 'arty believes that agriculture< small and
middle industry is the strength o# Indian economy and assistance should be given to these
sectors. All o# these 'o'ulist 'roclamations su''ort the Indian nationalism and socialism
bac+ground o# 'olitics. 8he main agendas #or the last elections in 2((7 was 'rovision #or
reservation in %obs< medical and technical institutionsK reconstitution o# the )hanti )ura+sha
:alK remove illiteracy amongst "uslimsK creating more em'loyment o''ortunities and
removing 'overty. 5,ama/wa%i 4arty 9"m(ai we(6
8he advantage o# )3 in last election in 2((7 was that )3 has strong su''ort o# the Tadav
community. Its avowed ob%ective o# battling communal #orces and TadavGs determination to
de#eat them has won it a large "uslim #ollowing as well< es'ecially in 4ttar 3radesh. 8he
)ama%wadi 3arty can ban+ u'on the Tadavs< but has now to com'ete with the :)3 and
Congress #or the su''ort o# "uslims and 8ha+urs. )3 has the election base built on minorities
5also "uslims6 and )chedule caste. It means that they have similar 'otential among voters as
:)3 has< but )3 com'ared to :)3 tries to #ind su''ort among higher classes 5owner o# small
and middle businesses6 as well as higher castes. Although it could divide their 'otential as the
'arty which su''ort minorities as a socialist 'arty.
@. Analysis of the election on the federal level in relation to the main religious
disorder and clashes in the conte!t of 'orowitz$ &i"phart
@.1. Indian federalism based and minority autonomy
Indian #ederalism as an im'ortant as'ect o# the state constitution will be described in this
cha'ter. Bederalism 'lay im'ortant role in Indian 'olitics and has also strong im'act on
minorities and cleavages in India. 8his is the reason why this cha'ter interested in this area a
bit dee'ly. Bederalism is an im'ortant #actor #or both theories o# i%'hart and !orowitz.
!orowitz tal+s about #ederalism and i%'hart a bit widely about segmental autonomy.
35
)egmental autonomy automatically does not mean #ederal constitution. !owever< i%'hart
also 'ut the stress on im'ortance o# #ederal 'olitical system. i%'hart believes that a #ederal
system is a good way to 'rovide autonomy #or minorities. 5.i/phart 2004: 1046 Bederalism
su''oses to give the minorities- autonomy and #reedom #rom central 5ma%ority6 government.
Indian #ederalism is characterised by union o# states. 8he 'osition o# the states under the
Indian constitution according to 3ro#. "a%eed can be summed u' as #ollows:
( 8he Constitution does not grant to any )tate the right o# secession.
( 8he states do not have any 'riori rights< but only such rights as have been e$'ressly
granted to them by the constitution. /ven the residuary rights vest in the union
government. In the concurrent #ield o# 'owers it is the union law which 'revails over a
state law in the event o# a con#lict between the two.
( 8here is a single uni#ied ;udiciary #or the whole country and an integrated Civil )ervice
under the su'ervision and control o# the All Indian )ervices.
( 8he governors o# states are a''ointees o# the union government and besides being the
constitutional head o# the state they are also the eyes and ears o# the union in the state.
( 8he constitution guarantees individual rights and rights o# certain grou's< such as
scheduled castes< scheduled tribes< and minorities< but not o# state as such. It does not
concede even the right o# e=ual re'resentation to the states in the u''er house o# the union
'arliament. 59a/ee% 2005: 66
8he e$ecutive 'ower o# the union e$tends to giving o# such directions to a state as may a''ear
to be necessary #or that 'ur'ose. !owever< this does not em'ower the union to inter#ere in any
matter 'ertaining to the e$clusive concern o# a state. 8he union can issue a direction only
where some action o# a state government is li+ely to 're%udice the e$ercise o# the e$ecutive
'ower o# the union. 59a/ee% 2005: 6-76 8he #ederalism is based mostly on language 'rinci'le.
8here is no real #ederalism or s'ecial autonomy based on religious and given to religious
grou's. Indian #ederalism #ollows language and cultural autonomy and there is less autonomy
#or religious minorities. 8he #unction o# #ederalisation in India cannot #ollow minorities-
interest. 8his #ederalisation cannot give any 'articular segmental autonomy to minorities
inside India as i%'hart or !orowitz described. !owever< there is also no concentration o#
religious grou' which can #ollow the state boundaries. @nly Aashmir and 3un%ab could be
characterised as states with religious demarcates. ,eligious grou's are characterised as
communities on local level inside o# urban or rural area. Indian union has reorganized its units
3?
on the basis o# either one or two or the combination o# #our structural 'rinci'les o# state
#ormulation:
( 3reservation and strengthening o# the unity and security o# IndiaK
( inguistic and cultural homogeneityK
( Binancial< economic and administrative considerationsK
( )uccess#ul wor+ing o# the national 'lan. 5,ingh 2005: 06
Bor Indian Iconstitution #athersJ only a strong centre could e##ectively drive economic
develo'ment and ensure e=uality across territorial %urisdictions< religions< languages< classes
and castes. ater was it realised that #ederalism could hel' solve con#licts rooted in
territorially base ethnic< religious< linguistic< and other characteristics. )ince 12&2< coalition
governments at the centre< 'roli#erating regional and state 'arties across the country< and
liberalisation o# the economy< have served to decentralise the #ederal 'olitical system in many
res'ects. In a very limited sense< Indian #ederalism can be called asymmetrical because there
are still s'ecial 'rovisions #or Aashmir and northeast states such as 9agaland and "aghalaya.
59a/ee% 2005: 16 /$ce't #ew cases< there is no real religious division o# 'ower and religious
grou' do not have reservation o# seats in regional 5state6 assemblies. 8here is de'arture #rom
the rule in e$am'le o# mentioned state Andhra 3radesh with its reservation o# seats #or
religious grou'. !owever< as was mentioned be#ore< the reservation o# seats is not the right
way #or !orowitz and i%'hart who do not su''ort B383 system #or dividing societies.
Bederal 'olitics in India has changed with develo'ing o# multi'artism. India historically
develo'ed 'hases o# one.'arty dominant systems at the national but subse=uently turned into
multi.'arty systems with increasing 'oliticization and assertion o# regional and ethnic
identities. 8he e##ects o# 'ro'ortional re'resentation are seen even under 'lurality electoral
system due to the com'licating third #actor o# social and regional diversities. It is widely
acce'ted that 'ro'ortional re'resentation lead to a multi.'arty system. 5,ingh an% ,a!ena
2001: 1566 "ulti'artism in India conte$t cannot wor+ as a good system #or consensual
democracy in i%'hart-s theoretical conte$t. Bigure 2 and other electoral results show that
many constituencies have been challenged by two.'arty com'etition. )ome states as
,a%asthan< >u%arat etc. have tendency to be 'ure bi'artisan. @nly #ew states and some
constituencies gave chance more than two main 'arty grou's.
3arty system is 'erha's the most im'ortant intervening variable that signi#icantly in#luences
the wor+ing o# a #ederal 'olitical system. 8he centralized 'hase o# Indian #ederation was
31
s'anned the era o# the dominant 'arty system. 8his #eature o# the 'arty system was clearly
re#lected in the wor+ing o# all organs o# the government. Autonomy o# states was somewhat
overshadowed by the rule o# the same 'arty in 9ew Delhi as well as in almost all states. 5,ing
an% ,a!ena 2001: 156-1576 8his overly centralization was challenged by new multi'artism in
122(s and beginning o# new millennium. Coalition and minority governments have increased
the autonomy o# the #ederal 'arliament as well as that o# state governments that was ever the
case under one.'arty ma%ority governments. 8his trend o# greater #ederalization o# the
'olitical system is li+ely to continue. 5,ingh an% ,a!ena 2001: 1516 !owever< this does not
increase the communal harmony because #ederalism is not based on religious minorities. 8he
division will not #ind the solution as !orowitz or i%'hart described. ,eligious communities
cannot get autonomy in this #ederal sha'e o# boundaries.
According to !orowitz India as the #ederation< do not #ollow the 'ower division and 'ower
sharing o# government among religious cleavages. 8he main cleavage< on which the Indian
#ederation was based< is linguistic 'rinci'al. 8here are some states which have also the
religious identity as 3un%ab. !owever< there is also strong linguistic root in 3un%abi language.
Autonomy o# religious minorities is not su''orted by #ederalism as i%'hart recommended in
his theoretical a''roach. !e also recommends an e$istence o# second 5#ederal6 legislative
chamber with strong 'ower< which can also give better re'resentation #or minorities.
!owever< this does not e$ist in Indian case< because the second chamber is a chamber o# the
Indian states more than Indian minorities and religious communities. In s'ite o# that< the
4''er !ouse is able to better re'resentation o# minorities or su''ort 'ro'ortionality as well as
su''ort crosscutting cleavages due to )8H electoral system #or this chamber 5compare with
2eynol%s: 20026. 9evertheless< the ,a%ya )abha does not give a trust to the #ederal
government which is a 'riority right o# o+ )abha. )tate level assemblies consist only #rom
one chamber with B383 system arrangement.
@.). 'orowitz0s ma"oritarism
!ow !orowitz-s si$ goals #or success#ul 'olitical system in divided societies are #ul#illed in
Indian conte$t has been described in this cha'ter. 8he #irst goal proportionality of seats to
votes is not in India achieved. I# we loo+ at Indian 'arty system we can see that this is
multi'artism. Brom the beginning o# 122(s the 'arty system has trans#ormed #rom dominant
'arty system to multi'artism. 5compare with ,ingh an% ,a!ena 2001 or ,a!ena 1004: +1-4+C
3&
or 7rora 200+: 1+-006 Brom the 12&2 brea+'oint we can see in India coalition or minority
governments. 9onetheless< the Indian 'arty system is mostly 'roduct o# #ederalism and
territoriality. It could be called as multi.level 'arty system< because there are many relatively
inde'endence 'arty systems in di##erent Indian states and they coe$ist together with #ederal
level. 8he B383 electoral system 'roduce 'arties which have many times concentrated voters
bac+ground in 'articular territories and states o# India. 8he e$am'le is C3I 5"6 which has
strong electoral in *est :engal and Aerela but in other state their voting gains are not as
much strong. 8he similar successes have 'arties li+e :;3 and :)3 in 4ttar 3radesh or
)hivsena in "aharashtra or )3 in @rissa. Dee' observation shows that the electoral outcomes
'roduce mostly two 'arty com'etitions in constituencies. 8hese electoral rivalries 'roduce in
many state bi'artism. 8he e$am'les could be >u%arat< "adhya 3radesh< 3un%ab< !imachal
3radesh< Aarnata+a< Delhi< Assam and there could be also included ;ammu and Aashmir and
other states are more or less #ar to this characteristic. 5-n%ian $lection Commission& compare
with ,ingh an% ,a!ena 2001: 177-1706 @n the other side< there are also some e$am'les which
do not su''ort Duverger-s or )artori-s a$ioms #or B383 electoral system also on the state
level o# election com'etition and the B383 does not 'roduce two candidates com'etition. 8he
deviation is in 4ttar 3radesh where in some electoral constituencies could be 'ossible #ind
three or #our 'arties which allocated similar 'ercentage o# votes. /lection in 4ttar 3radesh is
the e$am'le when B383 generates multi'artism on the state level o# electoral com'etition
5see #igure 2< ' 716. 5compare with Chytlek 2007: 50-516 8hese 43-s electoral com'etition
outcomes have negated Duverger-s and )artori-s a$ioms #or B383.
8he electoral com'etition in India could be also characterised as bi'olar 'lus one minor le#t
stream. 8wo main streams have been 'roduced since 1222 res'ectively 2((7. @ne stream is
9ational Democratic Alliance 59DA6 leaded by :;3 and another one is 4nited 3rogressive
Alliance 543A6 leaded by Congress. 8he minor e#t Bront is mainly re'resented by C3I 5"6
'lus other small le#tist 'arties which are out o# two main alliances. 8he results o# election in
1222 and 2((7 according to this division are shown in table 3 and 7.
!owever< the electoral system gives small chance #or minorities and communities which do
not have electoral concentration in 'articular constituencies. !orowitz assum'tion o#
'ro'ortionality o# seats to votes is not #ul#illed #or many minorities< because B838 do not
'roduce real 'ro'ortionality. 8his is e$am'le o# religious grou's such as "uslims. inguistic
or ethnic cleavages could be more #ollowed as shows the e$am'les o# 8amilnadu< :ihar< 4ttar
3radesh< @rissa and 3un%ab. 3un%ab could be also e$am'le o# religious concentration o# )i+h
32
electoral community. 8hese e$am'les show regional 'arties- success. 8hey have relatively
strong 'osition in the #ederal o+ )abha due to voters- concentration in states where the main
'arties- bases are. 8hey are #or e$am'le :)3 and )3 in 4ttar 3radesh< )hiromani A+ali Dal
in 3un%ab as well as )hivsena in "aharashtra and :;D in @rissa.
/$am'les o# ;ammu and Aashmir and 9orth.eastern states have been e$cluded due to validity
o# the Armed Borces 5)'ecial 3owers6 Act 5Act 2& o# 125&< #rom 11th )e'tember< 125&6
which gave s'ecial 'ower to the security #orces against 'utative terrorist. 8he number o#
deaths and causalities has been misre'resented.
8he over re'resentative o# winners has certainly become a serious de#ect in the Indian system.
It has been #urther aggravated by the B383 voting system< with a single non.trans#erable vote
and single member constituencies< which India co'ied #rom :ritain. It was argued that a
'ro'ortional or list or any such alternative voting system would throw u' too many 'arties.
Cho'ra 52((3: 11(.1116 noted that the reasoning was understandable but it bac+#ired. In
'ractice it has meant a distortion: A 'arty can obtain a #ar higher share o# seats than o# votes<
because any 'arty can win a constituency with a minority share o# the vote i# no other 'arty
has 'olled one vote more. I# a 'arty wins many seats in this way it can have a much higher
share o# seats than o# votes.
7(
Table , lection results for &o/ -abha in 1>>>
Alliance *arty A of votes -eats
Bational Democratic Alliance
,=$; );:
:haratiya ;anata 3arty 23<& 1&2
;anata Dal 54nited6 3<1 21
)hiv )ena 1<? 15
Dravida "unnetra Aazhagam 1<1 12
:i%u ;anata Dal 1<2 1(
All India 8rinamool Congress 2<? &
3attali "a++al Aatchi (<1 5
Indian 9ational o+ Dal (<? 5
"arumalarchi Dravida "unnetra Aazhagam (<7 7
;ammu W Aashmir 9ational Con#erence (<1 7
)hiromani A+ali Dal (<1 2
,ashtriya o+ Dal (<7 2
o+ )ha+ti (<( (

Indian 9ational Congress 2&<3 117
Communist 3arty o# India 5"ar$ist6 5<7 33
8elugu Desam 3arty 3<1 22
)ama%wadi 3arty 3<& 2?
:ahu%an )ama% 3arty 7<2 17
All India Anna Dravida "unnetra Aazhagam 1<2 1(
,ashtriya ;anata Dal 2<& 1
9ationalist Congress 3arty 2<3 &
Communist 3arty o# India 1<5 7
,evolutionary )ocialist 3arty (<7 3
All India Borward :loc (<7 2
"uslim eague Aerala )tate Committee (<2 2
A+hil :haratiya o+ 8antri+ Congress (<2 2
;anata Dal 5)ecular6 (<2 1
Communist 3arty o# India 5"ar$ist.eninist6 iberation (<3 1
:hari'a :ahu%an "ahasangha (<2 1
All India "a%lis.e.Ittehadul "uslimen (<1 1
".>.,. Anna Dravida Aazhagam (<1 1
Aerala Congress (<1 1
Aerala Congress 5"ani6 (<1 1
)ama%wadi ;anata 3arty 5,ashtriya6 (<1 1
3easants and *or+ers 3arty o# India (<1 1
)hiromani A+ali Dal 5)imran%it )ingh "ann6 (<1 1
!imachal Hi+as Congress (<1 1
"ani'ur )tate Congress 3arty (<1 1
)i++im Democratic Bront (<( 1
Inde'endent 2<1 ?
Total 1 <@,
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
71
Table @ lection results for &o/ -abha in )::@
Alliance *arty A of votes -eats
Bational Democratic Alliance
,,$: 1?1
:haratiya ;anata 3arty 22<2 13&
All India Anna Dravida "unnetra Aazhagam 2<2 (
;anata Dal 54nited6 2<? &
9ationalist 8rinamool Congress 2<1 2
)hiv )ena 1<& 12
)hiromani A+ali Dal (<2 &
:i%u ;anata Dal 1<3 11
9agaland 3eo'leGs Bront (<2 1
"izo 9ational Bront (<( 1
Cnited *rogressive Alliance
,<$@ )1?
Indian 9ational Congress 2?<1 175
Dravida "unnetra Aazhagam 1<& 1?
9ationalist Congress 3arty 1<& 2
,ashtriya ;anata Dal 2<2 21
o+ ;an )ha+ti 3arty (<? 7
8elangana ,ashtra )amotni (<? 5
3attali "a++al Aatchi (<5 ?
;har+hand "u+ti "oucha (<5 5
"arumalarchi Dravida "unnetra Aazhagam (<7 7
Indian 4nion "uslim eague (<2 1
,e'ublican 3arty o# India 5Athvale6 (<1 1
;ammu and Aashmir 3eo'leGs Democratic 3arty (<( 1
&eft 2ront
;$; <>
Communist 3arty o# India 5"ar$ist6 5<1 73
Communist 3arty o# India 1<7 1(
,evolutionary )ocialist 3arty (<7 3
All India Borward :loc (<2 3
Dthers
:ahu%an )ama% 3arty 5<3 12
)ama%wadi 3arty 7<3 3?
8elugu Desam 3arty 3<( 5
;anata Dal 5)ecular6 1<5 3
,ashtriya o+ Dal (<? 3
Asom >ana 3arishad (<5 2
;ammu and Aashmir 9ational Con#erence (<1 2
All India "a%lis.e.Ittehadul "uslimeen (<1 1
Aerala Congress (<1 1
)i++im Democratic Bront (<( 1
9ational o+tantri+ 3arty (<1 1
)ama%wadi ;anata 3arty 5,ashtriya6 (<1 1
Indian Bederal Democratic 3arty (<1 1
:haratiya 9avsha+ti 3arty (<1 1
Total . <@,
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
72
2igure ) Territorial election results for the &o/ -abha election in )::@
)ource: -n%ian elections we(
Accountability to constituents is de#ined by B383 electoral system where the voters are
inde'endent to select the candidate. 8he 'ersonality o# the candidate 'lay im'ortant role in
this system as well as the 'arty membershi'. 8he 'arty is the authority who selects the
candidate #or 'articular constituencies. !owever< we can see that 'arties also #ind the seats
runners who are more vote.able. 8he >u%arat e$am'le in table 2 5'. 236 shows that ethnicity
or religious a##iliation 'lay im'ortant role. 8here should be stressed that !orowitz said that
73
89D 1 8i"u 9anata Dal
89* 1 8haratiya 9anata *arty
8-* 1 8ahu"an -ama" *arty
C*I 4 Communist *arty of India
C*I #M% 4 Communist *aty of India #M%
DME 1 Dravida Munnetra Eazhagam
IBC 4 Indian Bational Congress
9D#C% 4 9anata Dal #C%
&9B-* 1 &o/ 9an -ha/ti *arty
-'- 1 -hivsena
BC* 4 Bationalist Congress *arty
+9D 1 +ashtriya 9anata Dal
-AD 1 -hiromani A/ali Dal
-* 1 -ama"wadi *arty
'ossibilities to choose among candidates can have 'erverse conse=uences< es'ecially in
multiethnic societies. 5)orowit* 200+a: 56
I# we tal+ about victory o# the ICondorcet winnerJ< in Indian conce't we can tal+ about
advantages and disadvantages o# B383 system #or the o+ )abha elections. 8he reason #or
selection o# B383 electoral system was in Indian conte$t the e$treme 'luralist society with
many cleavages which can generate very #ragmented election results and re'resentation in
lower house o# the 'arliament. !owever< the Condorcet winner as+s #or the victory among all
electoral alternatives. @n the other side< the selected electoral system #or 4''er !ouse< which
is )8H< #ollow the rules o# the Condorcet winner. In s'ite o# it< this wor+ #ocuses more on
o+ )abha as a house o# 'arliament which generate the constitution o# Indian #ederal
government. 8here is observing that selected B383 electoral system generally does not
#ollow the a$iom o# Condorcet winner. 5compare with Chytlek 2007: 406
Inter1ethnic and inter1religious conciliation and durable governments can be 'ossibly
#ound in Indian modern 'olitical history. 8he Congress 'arty was based on inter.religious
membershi' #rom its beginning. !owever< #or inter.ethnic and inter.religious conciliation< the
=uestion is how the electoral system a##ects the 're.electoral calculations o# 'arties and
'oliticians. 5)orowit* 200+a: 6-76 8he necessity to engage in what !orowitz calls Ivote.
'ooling- in order to win elections and maintain coalitions is what #orces 'oliticians to
moderate their demands and o##er 'rotection to minorities. 56ilkinson 2004: 76 8his is not
easy to #ind in real Indian 'olitics due to Congress government and its one 'arty dominance in
Indian 'olitics during 125(s< 12?(s< 121(s as well as in 12&(s. 8he ;anata 3arty and its ;anata
"ovement at 121(s and 12&(s and its cross.national government would not be de#ined as a
coalition or multi.religious movement in its basic. !owever< there are some signi#icant
changes #rom 122(s and at the beginning o# millennium. Brom this 'eriod Indian government
is based on coalition o# 'arties across state< #ederal and regional 'arties re'resented in the o+
)abha. 8he coalition government lead by :;3 is hardly 'ossible to be denominated as inter.
ethnic or inter.religious conciliation 'ower. Also the :;3 leaded governmental and electoral
coalition 9ational Democratic Alliance is set u' #rom mostly on !induism based 'arties. 8he
'art o# the coalition is also 9agaland 3eo'les- Bront as a 'ure regional 'arty< but not out o#
inter.religious grou' o# !indutva ideology. @n the other side< by Congress leaded coalition
4nited 3rogressive Alliance consists #rom "uslim 'arties or regional 'arties su''orted by
"uslim such as Indian 4nion "uslim eague and ;ammu and Aashmir 3eo'leGs Democratic
77
3arty. ,egardless< they do not have big value in this coalition and their re'resentation in o+
)abha is marginal 5see tables 3 and 76. As !orowitz also wrote in his theory< the B383 system
does not create inter.ethnic and inter.religious conciliation due to its main ma%ority 'rinci'le
when the winner wins everything. !owever< Indian elections also 'roduce high number o#
"3s with criminal charges among every ma%or 'olitical 'arty. 5see ,ing an% ,a!ena 2001:
2216
Durable government is in last two decades in India very di##icult to construct. 8he
multi'artism across the whole country gives very di##icult negotiation 'osition #or 'arties and
they ma+e labile com'romises among Indian ethnic< regional as well as religious 'arties. A
=ualitatively new 'hase in Indian 'olitics was ushered in with the advent o# the multi.'arty
system in 12&2 elections which have continued ever since. *ith no clear ma%ority #or any one
'arty during two decades< the coalition and minority governments have been the rule< with
decisive role 'layed by some ma%or regional 'arties. 5,ingh an% ,a!ena 2001: 151-1506
Minority office holding is in India connected on #ederal level with All India )ervices 0
divided to Indian Administrative )ervice and Indian 3olice )ervice. 8his system and
institution is heritage a#ter :ritish /m'ire. 8ables 5 and ? shows that the "uslim minority is
discriminated in the selection 'rocess #or the Indian Civil 5Administration6 )ervices. 8he
'ro'ortion o# new administration sta## is lower that the 'ercentage o# "uslim in Indian
'o'ulation.
Table < Indian Administrative -ervice from 1>;1 till 1>?:
Inta/e
7ear Total Muslims -i/hs Christians
1>;1 &1 1 51.17M6 7 57.52M6 5 55.17M6
1>;) 172 1 5(.1M6 ? 57.&5M6 7 52.&1M6
1>;, 127 3 52.71M6 5 57.(3M6 1 55.?7M6
1>;@ 171 1 5(.1M6 2 5?.3&M6 7 52.&3M6
1>;< 122 2 51.55M6 5 53.&1M6 1 55.72M6
1>;= 13& 5 53.?2M6 2 5?.52M6 1( 51.27M6
1>;; 15& 1( 5?.32M6 7 52.53M6 13 5&.22M6
1>;? 137 1( 51.7?M6 ? 57.71M6 13 52.1(M6
1>;> 111 3 52.5?M6 & 5?.&3M6 1 55.2&M6
1>?: 127 1 5(.&(M6 5 57.(3M6 3 52.71M6
Total 1)>@ ,; #).?=A% =1 #@.;1A% ;, #<.=@A%
)ource: 3r# Dopal ,ingh 2eport on 9inorities& 101+& p#+1 an% 8a/i"lah 2001
75
Table = Muslims in Indian Administrative -ervices since 1>?1
7ear Total inta/e Muslims
1>?1 12? 1 5(.12M6
1>?) 1?1 5 52.22M6
1>?, 235 1 5(.73M6
1>?@ 233 ? 52.5&M
1>?< 217 7 51.&1M6
1>?= 21? ? 52.1&M6
1>?; 11& 5 52.&1M6
1>?? 272 15 5?.(2M6
1>?> 27? 13 55.2&M6
1>>: 22& 2 53.(2M6
1>>1 211 & 53.?2M6
1>>) 151 3 51.21M6
1>>, 171 2 51.3?M6
1>>@ 131 2 51.53M6
1>>< 21 & 5&.12M6
1>>= &1 3 53.1(M6
1>>; 1? 3 53.25M6
1>>? 55 1 51.&2M6
1>>> 5? 2 53.51M6
)::: 23 ? 5?.75M6
Total ,)== 1:, #,.1<A%
)ource: 8a/i"llah 2001
Table ; +epresentation of D8Cs6-Cs6-Ts in the -ervice of the Central 5overnment in
1>;>
Class I #total B F 1;@:)1% Class II #total B F >1)>)<%
)CsQ)8s @:Cs )CsQ)8s @:Cs
1&.33 M 12.21 M 5(.5? M 25.?3 M
)ource: ,ingh an% ,a!ena 2001: 102
8able 1 shows that the @:Cs Q )Cs Q )8s are more re'resented in governmental o##ices than
"uslim community 5see tables 5 and ?6. !owever< there are also some dis'ro'ortionalities
advanced by higher castes o# Indian !indu society. 8hese disadvantaged grou's o# Indian
society do not have 'ro'ortional re'resentation in higher 'osition o# Indian government
5Class I6 in s'ite o# reservation 'olicy o# Indian state. 8here is evidence that the higher
'osition and also lower 'osition are under re'resentative by @:Cs and on the other hand over
re'resentative by )CsQ)8s in lower level o# governmental bureaucracy. 8otal average number
7?
o# )Cs< )8s and @:Cs try to res'ect the reservation 'olicy. )cheduled tribes ma+e u' &
'ercent o# the 'o'ulation o# India. Although the census does not collect data on the 'o'ulation
o# @:Cs< as they are now called< they are estimated to ma+e u' 52 'ercent o# the Indian
'o'ulation. 5Chan%ra 2006: 1416
8he conclusion< o# com'arison o# !orowitz-s theoretical a''roach according to Indian
conte$t which have been done in this wor+< shows that Indian 'olitical system does not re#lect
ideally any goal #rom the si$ de#ined. In Indian conte$t it is 'roblematic< because i# one goal
re#lects religious cleavage than on the other side could damage the other socio.'olitical
cleavage in Indian society. As an e$am'le could mentioned the minority o##ice holding goal
where India #ollow the socio.economic and cultural cleavage among !indu society 5re#lect
)8Q)C6< but do not res'ect the religious cleavage. 8he similarities could be #ind in electoral
system and in reservation seats 'olicy advantaged )8 and )C< but any religious grou'. 8he
right to be re'resented is damaged by B383 electoral system es'ecially in the conte$t o#
religious communities- re'resentation.
@.,. &i"phart0s Indian *uzzle
I# we loo+ at the 'oints above in cha'ter 1 which basically characterised i%'hart-s conce't o#
consensual democracy and com'are it with the situation in India we can #ind some analogy<
but also some dissimilarity. 8his system comes near to a system o# two main 'arties. As stated
in i%'hart-s de#inition o# consensual democracy< we need to #ind the similarities #rom 'oints
o# A6 grand coalition governments< :6 e$isting o# minority veto< C6 'ro'ortionality in
re'resentation< D6 cultural autonomy.
It is also 'ossible to #ind 5A6 grand coalition in India< but it is not the coalition which can
include 'arties su''orted by di##erent communities. /s'ecially on the #ederal level the 'arties
ma+e the alliances< which o''ose each other. 9ow< we can #ind 9ational Democratic Alliance
593A6 and 4nited 3rogressive Alliance 543A6< which are #rom two main blocs 0 nationalism
versus secularism. It should also be mentioned that we can #ind coalition on a state level< in
which nationalist-s or communities- 'arties coo'erate with 'ure secular 'arties. 8he state
level can also show the situation where the system o# two main 'arties 0 bi'artism with strong
bi'olarism 0 can be #ound in state >u%arat in 2((2.
71
5:6 "inority veto 0 the main 'arties have been su''orted by the smaller ones< which are
usually based on the state level< but they also have their own ideology. Coalitions in India are
now mainly based on cleavage nationalism versus secularism. In the states< where the 'arties
cannot get ma%ority o# votes they have to de'end on communities- votes and their national
rhetoric against the minorities are not as culminated as in the system o# two main 'arties. It
means that the smaller 'arties can success#ully bloc+ the ma%ority in ideal 'osition< es'ecially
I9C de'ending on the votes o# Indian minorities. 5<"%lABek 2006: +56 3arty system with
dominancy o# I9C has also signi#icant advantage #or minorities. Congress was the 'arty
re'resented in the structure o# the 'o'ulation. 8here were also im'ortant 'ositions o#
minorities such as "uslims or )i+hs etc. According to i%'hart this cross 'o'ulation
membershi' structure o# I9C gave to minorities veto. !owever< the 'arty system
develo'ment made changes in style o# government. 9ew nationalistic governments neglect
the right o# minorities and minority veto is su''ressed. 5compare with .i/phart 10066
In an ideal consociational system minority rights are entrenched< guaranteed and bac+ed by a
minority veto. 4n#ortunately< in India the minority veto has been 'ractically non.e$istent #or
most religious minorities and< in the case o# "uslims< has been #re=uently undermined by
Lcom'ensatory- concessions to the !indu community. 5,ingh 2000: 466
5C6 3ro'ortionality 0 8he electoral system o# the two chambers o# Indian 3arliament have a
combination o# two voting system. It is a combination o# 'lurality 5G#irst 'ast the 'ostG6
electoral system and 'ro'ortionality system with )ingle 8rans#erable Hote. 8he G#irst 'ast the
'ostG system in o+ )abha is a heritage o# :ritish rule and their *estminster-s
'arliamentarism. India with its #ederalism and wild s'ectrum o# the 'o'ulation 0
communities< minorities and castes system< generate a big s'ectrum o# the electoral results 0
es'ecially in states with various structures o# 'o'ulation and regional 'arties. 8he main
division is between :;3 and I9C. *here :;3 and I9C o'erate as the biggest and two
dominant 'arties the 'roblem with religious violence seems to be worse 5e.g. state >u%arat6<
but where it is necessary< governing coo'eration in coalition< the tension is wea+er and 'arties
show more res'ect #or the minorities. 3arties as well as their candidates 5es'ecially the secular
one6 try to res'ect the structure o# the 'o'ulation. !owever< i# we loo+ also at the tables 2< 7<
? 5'ages 23< 7? and 5(6 we can realise that there are not always success. 8he e$am'le can be
again state >u%arat 5see table 26 where I9C is not able to 'ut number o# "uslim candidates to
state assembly according to the 'ro'ortion in >u%arati 'o'ulation. "oreover< the successes o#
the minority candidates in election are not big< because the B383 system does not hel' to
7&
maintain the 'ro'ortionality e$isting in the Indian 'olitical system. >odbole 52006: 20+6
indicated that number o# "uslims in o+ )abha is low and have decreasing tendency. 8he 1
th
o+ )abha had ma$imum "uslims among "3s 0 71 5&.5 M6< the 12
th
o+ )abha had only
7.22 M. 8he 'ercentage o# "uslims in Indian 'o'ulation is around 13 M. 8here is evidence o#
under re'resentation o# this religious minority. 8he minorities incline to the 'arties with
secular 'olitics. !owever< the secular 'arties #ollow the electoral strategy in !indu ma%ority
'o'ulation. 8hey 're#er !indu candidates who have bigger chance to be elected.
3ro'ortionality o# re'resentation is 'roblematic in B383 system due to its relevant ma%ority o#
votes but also #or the sha'ing o# constituencies. :rass 5200+: 140-100& 210-2206 shows how
the demogra'hic changes in#luence the electoral behaviour and sha'ing o# constituencies. !e
argues that where the demogra'hic changes inside o# conse=uences- boundaries< there is are
more 'robability #or communal riots. 8here#ore< the resultant communalization and
'olarization in turn reduce the electoral 'ros'ects o# 'arties and candidates who stand #or
secular 'olitical 'ractices< inter.communal coo'eration< and class or caste mobilisation rather
than communal mobilisation. 5>rass 200+: 2206 8he not e$isting 'ro'ortionality in Indian
election and state as well as #ederal assembly 'roduce 'otential con#lict between religious or
other communities.
5D6 Cultural autonomy 0 India has a secular democracy with many religions and other
minorities. Bederalism hel's to su''ort the system< where the cultural autonomy can #unction<
which is based on languages. 8he 'roblem is with 4ntouchables and religious minorities< but
the government tries to hel' to im'rove their 'osition by 'ositive discrimination in the 'ublic
governmental sector 0 Indian Civil )ervice. 5<"%lABek 2006: +56 )ome success could be
#ound among scheduled tribes and scheduled caste< where e$ist reservation seats 'olicy.
,egardless< the situation o# these communities is not yet satis#ying. Burthermore religious
minorities do not have the 'ro'ortional re'resentation in Indian Civil )ervice 5Administration
)ervice6 as is shown in table 5 and ? 5'ages 72 and 5(6. "uslims do not have the 'ro'ortioned
re'resentation in governmental o##ices according to their number in Indian 'o'ulation. @n the
other side< the Christians and )i+hs are Iover re'resentativeJ according to their average
'ercentage o# inhabitants in India.
A#ter #i#ty years o# inde'endence India maintains a constitutional commitment to secularism.
!owever< the 'ractice o# secularism in India is now increasingly under attac+. In the =uest #or
electoral advantage< the once.dominant Congress 3arty< made a series o# choices that
com'romised IndiaGs secular ethos. 8hese choices enabled the e$'licitly anti.secular :;3 to
72
dramatically e$'and its 'olitical base through the 'ursuit o# a blatantly anti.secular and
ma%oritarian 'olitical agenda. In recent years< as a direct conse=uence o# the :;3Gs rhetoric
and 'olicies< a range o# religious minorities have been sub%ected to discrimination and
violence. 8he growing electoral strength o# hitherto disen#ranchised grou's< the e$istence o#
institutions committed to secularism and the continuing secular constitutional dis'ensation
o##er some ho'e #or sustaining the secular order in India. 5Dang"ly 200+6
i%'hart-s 're#erences #or constitution o# the 'olitical system show his a##iliation to
'ro'ortional re'resentation as shown mainly in cha'ter 2.2. and 7 and 5.2. India does not
have the 'ro'ortional electoral results in s'ite o# e$isting multi'artism. "ulti'artism re#lects
not only regional or linguistic cleavages but not the strong religious one. /lectoral results in
India e$'ose B383 disadvantages and unsuitability #or dividing societies according to
i%'hart-s 5and as well as !orowitz-s6 theories. 8his is valid #or state as well as #ederal level
elections. 8he B383 system cannot #ollow the i%'hart-s assum'tion o# guidelines with 3,.
8he distance o# B383 to electorates reduces the 'ossibilities #or minorities- re'resentation in
India.
8he Indian model o# 'arliamentary government hel's to set u' the system o# coalition and
collegial decision.ma+ing. 8his is valid #or India in last two decades. 8here were some
deviations o# this system when the India was governed by dominant congress 'arty where the
main 'osition had 'rime minister and the cabined 'layed second role. 5compare with ,ingh
an% ,a!ena 2001: 150& 217-211 or ,ingh 2005 or 9a/ere 20056
Cabinet stability or disability in Indian last two decades conte$t changed the relationshi'
between #ederal and state governments. 8he state governments lead by regional 'arties o#ten
ta+e advantage #rom coo'eration on #ederal level and governmental su''ort and try to
negotiate bigger 'ower #or their local state government. )tate level is #or regional 5recognized
state6 'arties the main source o# voters and 'ower. It is signi#icant #or #ederal as well as state
level o# election. 5compare with ,ingh an% ,a!ena 2001: 151& 171-172& 217-211 or ,ingh
2005 or 9a/ere 20056 8he 'osition and role o# the institution in 'olitical system has changed.
As an e$am'le could be also mentioned the role o# ,a%ya )abha. *ith the trans#ormation o#
the 'arty system by the 122(s< the u''er house has emerged as a #ederal second chamber as it
re#lects a di##erent 'arty con#iguration than that o# the o+ )abha. 8he di##erential
o''ositional ma%ority in the ,a%ya )abha is attributable to a di##erent 'arty system
con#iguration in the )tates whose legislatures #rom the electoral college #or the #ederal )econd
Chamber. 8hus< the governmental ma%ority in the o+ )abha now must ma+e inter.house
5(
legislative understanding with the ,a%ya )abha to #acilitate 'assage o# legislations and
constitutional amendments. 5,ingh an% ,a!ena 2001: 1516 ,egardless< the ,a%ya )abha
re#lects mostly only regional and linguistic cleavage and the religious cleavage is in
bac+ground. 8he 'roblem with religious communities- right o# re'resentation is not resolved.
Due to this we cannot also tal+ about 'ower sharing beyond the cabinet and 'arliaments based
on religious grou' re'resentation or =uotas.
I# we loo+ on diagram 1 5'. 3(6< we can see that there is signi#icant trend in increasing o#
communal violence in India in last three or two decades. 8hin inclination i# also #ollowed by
increasing o# the number o# 'arties and setting u' o# multi'artism. !owever< i%'hart has the
e$'lanation #or this trend. !e argues that India was the most consociational under 9ehru-s
governments when I9C has its own internal multi.ethnicity and its governments #ollowed
crucial rules #or 'ower.sharing with minorities. /s'ecially the minority veto and ethnicity
'ro'ortionality have been violated. 5compare with 6ilkinson 2004: 100-1016
i%'hart-s assum'tion #or consensual democracy is not #lu##ily accom'lished. All 'arties
agree with secularism and secular orientation o# India. !owever< there are some signi#icant
di##erences which neglected secularism and religious minorities. According to i%'hart-s
theory the reason could be in electoral system with lac+ o# 'ro'ortionality which does not
give #ull re'resentation right to minorities. !owever< there is strong 'arliamentary and #ederal
system o# government which has good assum'tion #or 'ower sharing. @n the other hand the
B383 system neglects minority re'resentation. "oreover< the "uslim minority do not have
'ro'ortional re'resentation in government o##ices. 8heir o##ice holding is lower than their
'ercentage in 'o'ulation. )haring o# e$ecutive 'ower and grou' autonomy o# minorities is
lower. /s'ecially "uslim minority 'artici'ation o# the re'resentatives in 'olitical decision.
ma+ing almost does not e$ist. !owever< there are some di##erences according the 'arties. I9C
governments usually give bigger chance to minorities because their votes are signi#icant #or
electoral success. :;3 as the second biggest 'arty does not de'end on minorities votes. 8he
minority 'artici'ation in their state or #ederal assemblies or governments is lower.
51
<. Analysis of the election results in regions with large and freGuent religious
conflicts in Indian -tates in the conte!t of .il/inson
8his cha'ter will analyse the election result and the 'arty system in the conte$t o# riots
incidences in 'articular Indian states. Bor this analyse will be use *il+inson-s hy'othesis
about in#luence o# the number o# the 'arties in 'olitical system on number o# the riots and
their intensity. Bor this analysis we will use the *il+inson-s and Harshney-s data about
religious and communal violence in India. 8heir data analyse Indian communal violence #rom
1211 until the year 1225. ,es'ectively< these data re#lect communal violence by states. 8here
are also data gathered u' by Harshney #rom 125( till 1225 #or all India. 8he ne$t 'eriod is not
ma''ing in any o##icial resources or statistical analysis. 8here are only #ractioned re'orts
about communal violence collected by nongovernmental or international organisation such as
!uman ,ight *atch. *il+inson and Harshney had to deal with similar 'roblem and their data
collection mostly based on the news'a'er article survey 5compare with 6ilkinson 2004: 241-
2406. )imilar study o# communal violence and riots will bring also this wor+. 8he new data
collection has been collected #rom biggest /nglish news'a'ers in India I8imes o# IndiaJ #rom
its online database. 8he 'eriod< #or which was data collected through this survey< is #rom the
year 2((1 till August 2((&
12
.
Data collection based on @lza+-s de#inition o# communal riots 5Gl*ak 1002: 2++-2+46. 8his
de#inition used also *il+inson s'eci#ication 56ilkinson 2004: 2556. @lza+ and *il+inson
de#ined the communal riots:
1. 8here is violence.
2. 8wo or more communally identi#ied grou's con#ront each other Q members o# the
other grou'< at some 'oint during the violence.
3. Additionally< there have to be also identi#ied the grou's and their members as a 'art o#
religious communities.
13
8here is a selection o# Indian state which have been analysed. 8he choice o# states was based
on data resources availabilities. 8here is also selection based on causalities and e$am'les o#
'arty system. >u%arat is the state which has changed #rom non.violence state to one o# the
12
6 @nline 8imes o# India database has been available #rom the year 2((1.
13
6 8here is a strong 9a$alite "ovement in some Indian states. !owever< the communal violence
among caste 5Dalists< @:Cs against landlords and u''er castes6< which is well re'orted by Indian
'olice< is not able to mar+ed as religious communal violence. "oreover< there is mostly socio.
economical bac+ground o# this violence. 5compare with 3eshpan%e +16-217& for f"rther information
also see 7nn"al report of the 9inistry of )ome 7ffairs 2007& chapter --& 4ara no# 2#6+6
52
most rioting states 5according to the number o# victims6 in India. It is also the e$am'le o#
domination o# one 'arty. 8he case study o# 4ttar 3radesh has been selected #or the signi#icant
'arty system with regional 'arties with #ederal level in#luence as well as #or the structure o#
'o'ulation. 4ttar 3radesh is an e$am'le o# the state which has multi'arty system and there
cases o# communal violence are relatively #re=uent. Aerala has been selected as a case with
o''osition o# >u%arat 'arty system. In >u%arat is strong :;3 with !indutva ideology and
Aerala is +nown #or le#tist coalition multi'arty government. Aerala is only one state with
success#ul "uslim 'arty which is given by the structure o# 'o'ulation. It is also very 'eace#ul
state according to number o# religious riots. @rissa is another e$am'le< which analyse
moderate multi'arty system with nationalist 'arty in government. It is 'resent e$am'le o#
increasing communal violence in 2((1 and 2((& against Christian-s minority. @rissa is a state
with coalition government and with multi'arty system. In the 'ast< it was also relatively
'eace#ul state also during the years o# high number o# riots in India. Analyse o# 'resent
violence in connection with 'resent government can e$'lain the changes in the intensity o#
disorder it this state. "aharashtra was selected because it was in 122(s one o# the #irst
e$am'le o# electoral success o# nationalist 'arty with anti.secular and anti.muslim a##iliation
and un'recedented brutal communal violence with 'artici'ation o# governmental security
#orces. ,a%asthan is e$am'le o# 'ure bi'artism with com'etition between nationalist and
secular 'arties< but on the other hand with lower number o# religious disorders com'are to
other cases. 8he number o# victims in communal riots is similar to Aerala e$am'le. :ihar is
e$am'le o# the state where the traditional #ederal 'arties have relatively low electoral success.
"ost o# the votes gain 'arties which have small in#luence on #ederal 'olitics or government.
"ulti'artism is high as in 4ttar 3radesh but there is :ihar-s main 'arties do not have as big
role as a state 'arties 5:)3< )36 in 4ttar 3radesh. 8here#ore< :ihar is good com'arison to
4ttar 3radesh e$am'le.
All these states. >u%arat< 4ttar 3radesh< Aerala< @rissa< "aharashtra< ,a%asthan and :ihar
were selected because together they ma+e large scale o# e$am'le which is 'ossible to #ind in
India. 8hese e$am'les together com'lete the scale o# 'otential e$am'le o# 'arty com'etition
in India.
i%'hart-s and !orowitz-s theoretical conce'ts will be also #ractionally used in e$'lanation o#
case studies. !owever< there will be only #ocus on 'articular 'roblems which are ty'ical #or
the selected case study. "ost o# the 'roblems which generate communal violence in India
were described above and it means that they could be similar to them. As an e$am'le can be
53
mentioned B383 electoral system. 8his method generates low minority re'resentation and
lesser 'ro'ortionality in whole India. ,egardless there are some signi#icant highlights and
s'eci#ics which could be described dee'ly by i%'hart-s or !orowitz-s theoretical
assum'tions.
Diagram 3 shows the develo'ment o# intensity o# communal violence in whole India. 8here is
a number o# riots com'arisons as well as intensity o# violence measured by number o# deaths.
8here is a trend which shows increasing o# communal disorder when Congress lost its
dominancy in 'arty system. "ulti'artism and com'etition between main rival 0 Congress and
:;3 brought an increasing trend o# violence and their victims in 122(s as well as in early
years o# new millennium. 8he trend #rom this last two decades also o'ened the =uestion o#
viability o# Indian secularism 'hiloso'hy in the sha'e as cha'ter 7.1.1. has described. 8he
main electoral com'etition has been between secular Congress 543A6 and nationalist :;3
59DA6 in some states as well as in #ederal election. 8he other 'arties also o'erate within the
nationalist or secular 'arty 'olitics. e#tist 'arties as Indian communist 'arties o'erate inside
secular bloc. 8here are %ust #ew 5mostly regional6 'arties which o'erate only within other
Indian cleavages.
57
Diagram , Communal Hiolence and +iots in 1><:11>>< and )::11)::?
1@

) * 1+0194, ( 6+5488
-
2
* 0+1677
) * 0+2535, 18+342
-
2
* 0+0262
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
1950 1953 1956 1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007
Year
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

D
e
a
t

s
ri.ts deaths trend /deaths0 trend /ri.ts0
)ource: ?arshney 2002: 05& Times of -n%ia an% a"thor
17
6 >u%arat 5Ahmedabad6 riots were the biggest riots in modern Indian history. !owever< there is not
e$act number o# death 'eo'le in this Ahmedabad riots. "a$imum number o# deaths is o##icially
'resented around &5(. 8he international organization re'orted number o# a''ro$imately 2((( victims
5compare with )"man 2ights 6atch 2004 or H,C-I2 20016
55
Table ? Total +iots and Deaths by -tates and ffective Bumber of *arties
/##ective no. o# 'arties
in #ederal electoral term
5year o# election6
Incidents in 'articular electoral term
9umber o#
Deaths
125(.1225
9umber o# Communal
,iots 9umber o# Deaths
1222.2((7 2((7.2((& 1222.2((7 2((7.2((& 1222.2((7 2((7.2((&
Andhra 3radesh 1.25 512226 2.31 52((76 2 2 1 3((
:ihar 7.?7 52(((6 5.21 52((56 1 1 &2(
Delhi 1.?1 5122&6 1.&& 52((36 1 1((
>u%arat 1.22 52((26 1.23 52((16 1((X 2 2??XXX 3? 172(
!aryana 2.&& 52(((6 1.13 52((76 2(
!imachal 3radesh 2.31 5122&6 2.1? 52((36 2 .
Aerala 3.23 52((16 7.(1 52((?6 1 1 25
Aarnata+a 2.72 512226 3.57 52((76 7 2 1 27(
"adhya 3radesh 2.31 5122&6 1.?& 52((36 1 1 33(
"aharashtra 7.&3 512226 7.&7 52((76 7 5 135(
@rissa 3.13 52(((6 3.73 52((76 1 1(XX 3 21 2(
,a%asthan 1.?3 5122&6 2.25 52((36 2(
8amil 9adu 2.&1 52((16 3.12 52((?6 3(
4ttar 3radesh 7.12 52((26 2.27 52((16 5 & 3( 2 125(
*est :engal 3.35 52((16 2.52 52((?6 22(
X >u%arat court system has registered more than 1((( cases o# communal violence during the riots in 2((2
XX @rissa court system has registered more than 12( cases o# communal violence in 2((1 and 2((&
XXX >u%arat o##icial sources tal+ about &5( victims in the riots in 2((2< !uman ,ight *atch re'orted about 2(((
deathss
)ource: ?arshney 2002: 01& Times of -n%ia& $lection Commission of -n%ia an% a"thor
<.1. 5u"arat case study
*ho can actually gain #rom the communal and religious violenceO 8he hy'othesis is that the
main 'ro#it is on the side o# nationalist 'arties such as :;3 which can recruit new electoral in
the ne$t election. 8hese 'arties have 'ro'osed an easy way how to solve the religious 'roblem
and 'roclaim su''ort to ma%ority 5!indu6< which is the Lmoral and historical 'ower- in the
con#lict. 3arties as :;3 have mostly core electorates #rom this ma%ority. Diagram 2 shows the
growth in community riots which has started in &(s and this trend raised similarly with the
'o'ularity o# !indutva and :;3. 8he case study shows also communal violence in >u%arat in
2((2. 8here was the situation clearer than in other states< because the election #ight was
#ocused on two big 'arties 0 :;3 an I9C. >u%arat has been also the most a##ected state by
religious disorder in India 5com'are with number o# deaths in last two decades6.
8he >u%arat communal violence were the 'roduct o# the long and sustained mobilization that
too+ 'lace in the state long be#ore Ahmedabad riots in 2((2 ha''ened. In e##ect< the stage #or
the 'ost Ahmedabad disorder had been set some time ago. :;3 had systematically reached out
5?
to >u%arati in order to disseminate the message o# !indutva. 5Chan%hoke 2004: 51-526 Bor
details see table & which shows intensity o# violence by states.
Diagram @ Total deaths per year in communal violence$ 5u"arat
) * 3+6808, 41+526
-
2
* 0+0182
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
!ear
"
i
l
l
e
#
)ource: ?arshney 2002: 00& Times of -n%ia reports& a"thor
>u%arat witnessed several more riots since 12?2< in 12&1< in 12&5< in 122(< in 1222.23 and
also the biggest in 2((2 and several other riots in between. According to the N8imes o# IndiaN
re'ort< under "adhav )ingh )olan+i
15
who was chie# minister on three occasions< 21? 'eo'le
died in 111 incidents o# mob violence. 4nder Amarsingh Chaudhuri
1?
< 5&2 'ersons died in
713 incidents o# violence. And under Chimanbhai 3atel
11
< who was chie# minister twice< 5?3
'ersons died in 31( incidents o# violence. 5$ngineer 20066 In com'arison with these #acts the
re'ort written by !uman ,ights *atch said that during communal riots in 2((2 as many as
15
6 "adhav )ingh )olan+i is an Indian 'olitician #rom Indian 9ational Congress 'arty and a #ormer
/$ternal a##airs minister o# India and #ormer Chie# "inister o# >u%arat.
1?
6 Amarsinh Chaudhary was an Indian 'olitician #rom I9C. !e was the Chie# "inister o# >u%arat
#rom 12&5 to 12&2.
11
6 Chimanbhai 3atel is a #ormer chie# minister o# >u%arat state in India #rom I9C. !e served in that
o##ice #rom 1213 to 1217 and #rom 122( to 1227.
51
2<((( "uslims were le#t dead. 8he riots occurred a#ter some "uslims allegedly attac+ed a
train carrying !indu 'ilgrims and activists. @ne carriage caught #ire and #i#ty.nine !indus
were +illed in the blaze. In retaliation< !indu e$tremist mobs< o#ten with 'olice 'artici'ation
and com'licity< +illed hundreds o# "uslims and dis'laced thousands. 8he re'ort also said that
the >u%arat state government< led by Chie# "inister 9arandra "odi o# the !indu nationalist
:;3< not only #ailed to ta+e a''ro'riate action to 'revent the violence< but has since #ailed to
investigate 'ro'erly the crimes committed as well. It has consistently sought to im'ede
success#ul 'rosecutions o# those allegedly involved in the massacres< leading the )u'reme
Court and 9ational !uman ,ights Commission 59!,C6 to intervene on several occasions.
5)"man 2ights 6atch 20046
Table > ffective number of parties in 5u"arat
7ear 1>?: 1>?< 1>>: 1>>< 1>>? )::) )::;
ffective number
of parties
1?
1.=) 1.@; ,.)@ 1.>= 1.>> 1.>) 1.>,
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia an% a"thor
8he :;3< #or many years in o''osition against the erstwhile.ruling Congress 3arty< has
de#ined the terms in which this s'lit 'ublic can be reconstituted. 8hey have aligned their
national 'olitics with the more communal cam'aigns at the local level< using 'ower o# the
religious image to by'ass the gul# in language and literacy. )imultaneously< the inability o#
their o''onents to bridge this ga' has been critical #or their success. In the 'rocess< they have
come to dominate the rhetorical #ield o# 'olitics. In a 'oor country where !indus are &( 'er
cent o# the 'o'ulation< arguments #or state 'rotection o# minorities have been hard.'ressed to
withstand !indu chauvinism-s assault. Deliberately engineered riots against "uslims have
been an indis'ensable tool in this connection. 8ogether with vicious rumour mongering<
which a state government is well 'laced to carry out uno''osed< #ear and sus'icion resulting
#rom violence 'ro%ect a dee'er divide than actually e$ists between the religious communities.
52a/agopal 20066
Com'arison with table & and with diagram 2 shows that *il+inson-s hy'othesis is su''orted
by the >u%arat case< but there is some 'erturbation. @n the contrary< the last 'eriod #rom the
1&
6 /##ective number o# 'arties: 9P1QRs
i
2
< s
i
'ro'ortion o# seats o# the 'arties in assembly. 5Je%o 2006:
176
5&
year 2((7 has shown also the decrease o# violence intensity< but again the brutality o#
communal riots 5li+e @rissa6 has ta+en intensity in 2((&. !ence#orth< there are still cases o#
communal violence but without #atal cases com'ared to beginning o# 21
st
century. 8here are
also cases o# terrorist attac+s #rom "uslim #undamentalist side which have been not counted
as regular communal violence according to de#inition o# communal violence. 8hese cases
would increase number o# victims o# religious cleavage noticeably. According to 8imes o#
India records #rom 2((1.2((&< >u%arat has higher number o# communal violence than is
average. In India in mentioned 'eriod 5e$ce't the @rissa case in last two years where is higher
number o# communal disorder than in >u%arat6. *il+inson-s su''osition has been su''orted
in >u%arat case. "oreover< there should be enlargement o# the hy'othesis. Hiolence in >u%arat
was higher when #ederal government was more nationalistic oriented and the electoral did not
have core inside o# religious minorities. 8he highest number o# violence with victims
in >u%arat ha''ened during :;3 government on the state as well as #ederal level. It was #rom
the electoral term 1222.2((7 and beginning o# nineties when the new electoral behaviour and
'arty system #ormed and when the nationalist 'arty was the most im'ortant 'art o# #ederal
government.
In connection with i%'hart and !orowitz< there are some signi#icant highlights which also
can e$'lain why the communal violence is higher in >u%arat. i%'hart see the main success o#
communal harmony in divided societies in 'ro'ortional re'resentation and electoral system.
8he B383 system cannot give this result in >u%arat. 8he constituencies are not also sha'ed
according to ethnic or religious base. 8here is low chance #or minorities to be re'resented in
>u%arat Assembly. "a%ority re'resentation o# nationalistic 'arty in government does not need
to as+ #or minority su''ort and also does not need to create any great coalition or share the
seats with minorities. )eat.'ooling with minorities does not e$ist. 8here is no chance #or other
i%'hart-s assum'tion such as minority veto or segmental autonomy. )egmental autonomy #or
religious minorities is given only by Indian understanding o# secularism< but it is sometime
neglected by nationalistic government. /$am'le could be #ound in >u%arat again where the
Christian community must to #ace violent conversion to !induism. 5Times of -n%ia recor%s6
!orowitz-s assum'tion also counts with minority o##ice.holding< which is very low in
>u%arat. 8his state does not have any "uslim re'resentation in )tate Assembly 5see table 2< '.
236. 8he number o# "uslim in governmental %obs is generally very low in whole India. Hote
'ooling which can create interethnic a''eals is not e$ist in B383 environment and in :;3
domination in >u%arat.
52
Table 1: The 5u"arat Assembly lection +esults in )::;
5total seats: 1&26
*arty Contestants .on A of votes
Congress
113
52 ,?.::
:haratiya ;anata 3arty
1&2
111 @>.1)
9ationalist Congress 3arty
1(
3 1.:<
Dthers
>:,
, 11.?,
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
Table 11 The 5u"arat Assembly lection +esults in )::)
5total seats: 1&26
*arty Contestants .on A of votes
Congress
1&(
51 ,>.)?
:haratiya ;anata 3arty
1&1
121 @>.?<
Dthers =)?
@ 1:.?;
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
Table 1) The 5u"arat Assembly lection +esults in 1>>?
5total seats: 1&26
*arty Contestants .on A of votes
Congress
112
53 ,@.?<
:haratiya ;anata 3arty
1&2
111 @@.?1
Dthers
;=@
1) ):.,@
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
Table 1, The 5u"arat Assembly lection +esults in 1>><
5total seats: 1&26
*arty Contestants .on A of votes
Congress
1&1
75 ,).?=
:haratiya ;anata 3arty
1&2
121 @).<1
Dthers
) 1?)
1= )@.=,
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
Table 1@ The 5u"arat Assembly lection +esults in 1>>:
5total seats: 1&26
*arty Contestants .on A of votes
?(
Congress
1&1
33 ,:.;@
:haratiya ;anata 3arty
171
?3 )=.=>
;anata Dal
171
1( )>.,=
Dthers
1 @1@
1= 1,.)1
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
Table 1< The 5u"arat Assembly lection +esults in 1>?<
5total seats: 1&26
*arty Contestants .on A of votes
Congress 1&2 172 <<.<<
:haratiya ;anata 3arty 127 11 1@.>=
;anata Dal 171 17 1>.)<
Dthers =>: ? 1:.)@
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
Table 1= The 5u"arat Assembly lection +esults in 1>?:
5total seats: 1&26
*arty Contestants .on A of votes
Congress 5I6 1&2 171 <1.:@
:haratiya ;anata 3arty 121 2 1@.:)
;anata Dal 5;36 152 21 )).;;
;anata Dal 5)C6 1? 1 :.=,
Dthers @>; 1: 11.<@
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
<.). Drissa case study
@rissa is a state which could be diagnosed with low number o# violence as well as with low
intensity. !owever< in 'ast decade< there is some signi#icant shi#t in electoral behaviour as
well as in minority a''roach #rom government. @rissa changed 5see table 1?6 its 'arty system
#rom dominant 'arty system< to two 'arty system< to moderate multi'artism. !owever< this
multi'artim is bi'olar 5there is marginal third le#tist 'ole without big im'ortance #or
government com'osition6. :;3 and its coalition 'artner :;D 5:i%u ;anata Dal6 won last two
elections. :;D is a leading 'arty in @rissa< which has regional #ocus as well as !indu
5!indutva6 a##iliation. 8here is also I9C which has the main o''onent to the nationalist
coalition. 8he electoral behaviour could be com'ared with the >u%arat e$am'le where there is
secularism o# I9C su''orted by minorities con#ronted with :;3 nationalism. 8he intensity o#
?1
2((1 and 2((& riots is strong. !owever< the number o# death is minimized com'are to >u%arat
case. In s'ite o# it< there are increasing =uantities o# victims in @rissa #rom Christmas 2((1.
8he number o# dis'laced is u' to 2(<(((. 5compare% with H,C-2I 20016 4)CI,B Annual
,e'ort 2((& said that Ipolice reporte%ly look the other way or een appear to (e complicit in
the attacks.J
Diagram < Total deaths per year in communal violence$ Drissa
) * 0+0366, 3+6917
-
2
* 0+0003
0
20
40
60
80
100
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
!ear
"
i
l
l
e
#
)ource: ?arshney 2002: 101& Times of -n%ia reports& a"thor
8here is a similar situation in >u%arat where government security #orces have been accused o#
inactivity. )ome re'orts also mentioned that incited mobs against Christians in India are
su''orted and #re=uently invo+ed by the !indus nationalist and su''orted by nationalist
'olitical grou's and leaders. In @rissa it is mainly )angh 3arivar 59ational Commission #or
"inorities 59C"6 named this organisation in its re'orts6 which has close lin+ to :;D.
Table 1; ffective number of parties in Drissa
?2
7ear 1>?< 1>>: 1>>< )::: )::@
ffective number
of parties
1$<) 1.@1 ).< ,.1, ,.@,
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia an% a"thor
8his situation only 'artly su''orted *il+inson-s hy'othesis. !owever< there are signi#icant
attributes which increase the validity o# hy'othesis that government< which is not de'endent
on minorities- votes< does not 'rotect minorities #rom ma%ority aggressions. @n the other side<
there is disagreement that the lower number o# 'arties corres'onded with higher number o#
riots. 8he hy'othesis could be modi#ied. 8he bi'olarism escalates intensity o# community
disorder.
Coalition o# nationalistic 'arties does not search #or su''ort #rom minorities. :i'olarism and
coalition nationalistic government cannot be consider as great coalition as i%'hart
understands it. 8here is also no chance #or interethnic a''eals through vote 'ooling or
constituency 'ooling as !orowitz described. @rissa-s last communal violence was care#ully
observed by Christian community in India and also in abroad. 5compare with H,C-2I 20016
8he 'ressure o# this Indian religious minority on #ederal government hel's to decrease the
intensity o# violence. )tress which 'ut !orowitz or i%'hart on #ederalism can be
understandable also in this conte$t. )ecular and 'ro.minority #ederal government could
reduce negative conse=uences o# ma%ority nationalistic government in the state.
Table 1? +esults of the )::@ Drissa Assembly lection
5total seats: 1716
*arty Contestants .on A of votes
:haratiya ;anata 3arty ?3 32 1;.11
:i%u ;anata Dal &7 ?1 );.,=
Indian 9ational Congress 133 3& ,@.?)
Communist 3arty o# India ? 1 :.;;
Communist 3arty o# India 5"6 3 1 :.<<
;har+hand "u+ti "orcha 12 7 1.;?
Independents6Dthers )>> 1: 1,.@>
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
Table 1> +esults of the )::: Drissa Assembly lection
5total seats: 1716
?3
*arty Contestants .on A of votes
:haratiya ;anata 3arty ?3 3& 1?.):
:i%u ;anata Dal &7 ?& )>.@:
Indian 9ational Congress 175 2? ,,.;?
Communist 3arty o# India 22 1 1.))
Communist 3arty o# India 5"6 15 1 :.;;
;anata Dal 5)6 27 1 :.?@
;har+hand "u+ti "orcha 21 3 ).1@
Independents ),= ? 1:.==
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
Table ): +esults of the 1>>< Drissa Assembly lection
5total seats: 1716
*arty Contestants .on A of votes
:haratiya ;anata 3arty 177 2 ;.??
Indian 9ational Congress 17? &( ,>.:?
Communist 3arty o# India 21 1 1.;1
;anata Dal 17? 7? ,<.@1
;har+hand "u+ti "orcha 1? 7 1.>@
;har+hand 3eo'leGs 3arty 7 1 :.1;
Independents =?) = 1:.<1
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
Table )1 +esults of the 1>>: Drissa Assembly lection
5total seats: 1716
*arty Contestants .on A of votes
:haratiya ;anata 3arty ?3 2 ,.<=
Indian 9ational Congress 175 1( )>.;?
Communist 3arty o# India 2 5 ).>?
Communist 3arty o# India 5"6 3 1 :.?@
;anata Dal 132 123 <,.=>
Independents ,?> = ;.,=
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
Table )) +esults of the 1>?< Drissa Assembly lection
5total seats: 1716
?7
*arty Contestants .on A of votes
:haratiya ;anata 3arty ?1 1 ).=:
Indian 9ational Congress 171 111 <1.:?
Communist 3arty o# India 21 1 ,.,1
;anata 3arty 17( 21 ,:.=1
Independents ,;@ ; 1:.<:
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
<.,. Cttar *radesh case study
9orth.Indian states in general and 4ttar 3radesh in 'articular< are generally believed to be
worst.a##ected by communal violence. 8his is 'artly true because< in 'o'ular and scholarly
'erce'tions< the IworstJ states are usually seen as those with the greatest total number o#
incidents and deaths. 8here#ore the most 'o'ulous states< even i# they have a lower 'er ca'ita
rate o# deaths in communal riots< a''ear to be the most violent. 4ttar 3radesh is however not
the worst state in number o# communal riots and deaths and it is 5with 'o'ulation o# 115
million6 the most 'o'ulated state in India and #i#th in the world. I# we com'are it with >u%arat
which has the highest 'er ca'ita rate o# deaths in communal incidents< at around 111 'er
million o# urban 'o'ulation 0 4ttar 3radesh has only 73 deaths 'er million 5in the years 125(.
12256. Clearly< communalism is not 'rimarily a northern Indian 'roblemK it is a serious issue
#or western India. Indeed< the western state o# >u%arat not only has a greater 'er ca'ita rate o#
deaths and incidents but also a larger number o# total deaths in riots than do 4ttar 3radesh.
Although >u%arat has high levels o# deaths in communal incidents< a loo+ at the state level
data #or >u%arat over time 5diagram 76 in com'arison with that #or 4ttar 3radesh 5diagram ?6
suggests that there are signi#icant =ualitative di##erences in the levels o# violence in 4ttar
3radesh that may< at one level< %usti#y that 'o'ular 'erce'tions o# them as the most
communally violent state. 5?arshney 2002: 06-016
Increasing number o# e##ective 'arties in 43 Assembly and the decreasing trend o# deaths in
riots in last decade shows that there is 'ossible lin+ between multi'artism and minority
'rotection i# the coalition 'artner or government as whole de'ends on minorities. 43
governments in 122(s and #irst decade o# new millennium have de'ended on )CsQ)8s< @:Cs
and religious minorities such as "uslims.
?5
Diagram = Total deaths per year in communal violence$ Cttar *radesh
) * (3+097, 81+754
-
2
* 0+1073
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
!ear
"
i
l
l
e
#
)ource: ?arshney 2002: 102& Times of -n%ia& a"thor
8he growth o# e##ective number o# 'arties in 43 had started in 122(s and continued till the
election in 2((1< where was signi#icant setbac+ o# this number. !owever< the result o# 2((1
election con#irmed the increasing su''ort o# :)3 and )3. 8hese 'arties have base among
)CsQ)8s and @:Cs. "oreover< the su''ort also comes #rom "uslim 'art and other
minorities.
Table ), ffective number of parties in Cttar *radesh
7ear 1>?: 1>?< 1>?> 1>>1 1>>, 1>>= )::) )::;
ffective number
of parties
1.?1 ).)@ ,.1< ).?; ,.=1 ,.;: @.1) ).>@
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia an% a"thor
??
8he main 'olitical 'arty in 4ttar 3radesh is :)3< )3 and then :;3 5tables 23 and 256. In the
'ast :)3 made coalition with them or other smaller 'arties. Also )3 were in coalition with
:;3. Congress can be characterised as a 'arty in the middle o# the 'olitical s'ectrum with
lower relevancy. 9ationalists cannot be as radical as in >u%arat< because they de'end on their
coalition 'artners and also the nationalist are not the main stream o# 43 'arty system. Also<
the secularism cannot be as strict as in Aerala< because o# the same reason. It means that the
government tries to 'revent the riots and communal violence< because o# its de'endence on
minorities 0 es'ecially )3< :)3 and also I9C. In 4ttar 3radesh e##ective multi'artism with
multi'olarised 'olitical environment has been in e$istence. A strong 'arty with strong secular
'rogramme does not e$ist< because the 'ower and electoral 'otential o# I9C is divided
between :)3 and )3. 8he real riots do not have a real im'act on election result as we can see
in >u%arat< because any 'arty cannot destroy their own coalition 'otential. 5<"%lABek 2006:
50-526
4ttar 3radesh with its multi'artism shows that B383 electoral system does not 'roduce only
bi'artism or bi'olar 'arty system. 8he electoral com'etition is in some constituencies among
three or #our big 'arties with di##erent ideology which have good chance to win. !owever<
there is no real 'ro'ortionality o# votes< but in some a''ro$imate to it. Hery tight com'etition
among all #our main 'arties 5:;3< :)3< I9C< )36 shi#ts 'arty behaviour and searches #or the
electoral su''ort also among minorities which are not ty'ical voters #or this 'arty. 8his is
im'ortant in undecided constituencies. 3arties #ollow the interethnic a''eals in heterogenic
constituencies. >overnment also moderates their behaviour. 8he seat 'ooling was necessary
in last decades. !owever< the last election shows that one 'arty 5:)36 can also get ma%ority o#
seats and ma+e one colour government.
Table )@ +esults of the )::; Cttar *radesh Assembly lection
5total seats: 7(36
*arty Contestants .on A of votes
:haratiya ;anata 3arty 35( 51 1=.>;
:ahu%an )ama% 3arty 7(3 2(? ,:.@,
Indian 9ational Congress 323 22 ?.=1
)ama%wadi 3arty 323 21 )<.@,
;anata Dal 546 1? 1 :.@)
,ashtriya o+ Dal 257 1( ,.;:
Independents6Dthers ,>,; 1= 1,.,@
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
?1
Table )< +esults of the )::) Cttar *radesh Assembly lection
5total seats: 7(36
*arty Contestants .on A of votes
:haratiya ;anata 3arty 32( && ):.:?
:ahu%an )ama% 3arty 7(1 21 ),.:=
Communist 3arty o# India 5"6 ? 2 :.1,
Indian 9ational Congress 7(2 25 ?.>=
)ama%wadi 3arty 32( 173 )<.,;
;anata Dal 546 1? 2 :.<?
;anata 3arty 23 1 :.);
,ashtriya o+ Dal 3& 17 ).@?
9atural aw 3arty 13( 1 :.;1
)ama%wadi ;anata 3arty 5,ashtriya6 21 1 :.)@
Independents6Dthers ,:,@ )? 1@.<:
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
Table )= +esults of the 1>>= Cttar *radesh Assembly lection
5total seats: 7276
*arty Contestants .on A of votes
All India Indira Congress 586 31 7 1.,,
:haratiya ;anata 3arty 717 117 ,).<)
:ahu%an )ama% 3arty 22? ?1 1>.=@
Communist 3arty o# India 5"6 11 7 :.;;
Indian 9ational Congress 12? 33 ?.,<
)ama%wadi 3arty 2&1 11( )1.?:
;anata Dal 57 1 ).<=
)ama%wadi ;anata 3arty 5,ashtriya6 11 1 :.<>
Independents6Dthers ):>, )@ >.@,
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
?&
Table ); +esults of the 1>>, Cttar *radesh Assembly lection
5total seats: 7226
*arty Contestants .on A of votes
:haratiya ;anata 3arty
722 111 ,,.,:
:ahu%an )ama% 3arty
1?7 ?1 11.1)
Communist 3arty o# India 5"6
11 1 :.@;
Communist 3arty o# India 31 3 :.=@
Indian 9ational Congress 721 2& 1<.:?
;anata Dal 311 21 1).,,
;anata 3arty 22& 1 :.<)
)ama%wadi 3arty 25? 1(2 1;.>@
Independents6Dthers ;<:= > =.>=
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
Table )? +esults of the 1>>1 Cttar *radesh Assembly lection
5total seats: 7126
*arty Contestants .on A of votes
:haratiya ;anata 3arty
715 221 ,1.@<
:ahu%an )ama% 3arty
3&? 12 >.@@
Communist 3arty o# India 5"6
17 1 :.,)
Communist 3arty o# India 77 7 1.:@
Indian 9ational Congress 713 7? 1;.,)
;anata Dal 317 22 1?.?@
;anata 3arty 322 37 1).<)
Independents6Dthers <=<) > ?.<,
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
Table )> +esults of the 1>?> Cttar *radesh Assembly lection
5total seats: 7256
*arty Contestants .on A of votes
:haratiya ;anata 3arty
215 51 11.=1
:ahu%an )ama% 3arty
312 13 >.@1
Communist 3arty o# India 5"6
& 2 :.,;
Communist 3arty o# India ?& ? 1.<=
Indian 9ational Congress 71( 27 );.>
;anata Dal 35? 2(& )>.;1
;anata 3arty 5;36 112 1 :.;@
o+ Dal 5:6 2(7 2 1.1>
Independents6Dthers ,;@? @) 1<.?)
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
?2
Table ,: +esults of the 1>?< Cttar *radesh Assembly lection
5total seats: 7256
*arty Contestants .on A of votes
:haratiya ;anata 3arty
371 1? >.?,
Communist 3arty o# India 5"6
25 2 :.=?
Communist 3arty o# India 1?1 ? ,.:@
Indian 9ational Congress 725 2?2 ,>.)<
;anata 3arty 311 2( <.=:
o+ Dal 3&5 &7 )1.@,
Indian Congress 1?2 5 ).);
Independents6Dthers ,;=? ), 1=.?:
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
Table ,1 +esults of the 1>?: Cttar *radesh Assembly lection
5total seats: 7256
*arty Contestants .on A of votes
:haratiya ;anata 3arty 7(( 11 1:.;=
Communist 3arty o# India 155 1 ,.<<
Indian 9ational Congress 5I6 727 3(2 ,;.=<
Indian 9ational Congress 546 332 13 =.,?
;anata 3arty 5;36 332 7 ).?>
;anata 3arty 5)C6 322 52 )1.<1
;anata 3arty 5),6 3(2 7 @.1;
Independents6Dthers ))>: 1? 1).:;
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
<.@. Eerela case study
Aerala is a state which has a di##erent 'olitical situation #rom >u%arat. :oth states have similar
religious community 'o'ulation structures. 8here are di##erences in structure o# the
'o'ulation in rural or urban area as well as the in literacy rate. Aerala has the highest literacy
rate in India around 21M and around 1(M in >u%arat 5Cens"s of -n%ia 200166. Aerala is a more
rural state com'ared to a more industrialised and urbanised >u%arat.
8he election results show that Aerala is traditionally multi'artism with coalition governments.
8he dominance o# some 'arties is not as strong as in >u%arat. :i'olarism does not e$ist< but
strong multi'olarism e$ists. 8he strong alliances are divided into the three main stream 0
1(
socialist and communist bloc+s 5le#tist6 led by C3I5"6 and middle.le#t bloc+ led by Congress.
8he third bloc+s are :;3 and their 'artners and they are not as strong in Aerala as in >u%arat.
In Aerala the le#t orientation o# the 'olitics and strong secularism hel's the 'reventing
communal violence and hindering the growth o# nationalism and !indutva ideology. 8he
com'arison o# the states >u%arat and Aerala hel's su''ort the hy'othesis that the two. 'arty
system and the low number o# the e##ective 'arties are blamed #or the riots and clashes among
ma%ority and minority o# the 'o'ulation. @n the other hand< the multi'artism hel' 'revent
communal violence. !ere we should also ta+e into account other variables< such as the
literacy rate and the rural environment. 8he cities and higher concentration o# the 'o'ulation
can increase the chances o# community disorder. "oreover< Aerala is state traditionally with
secular 'arties- dominancy. "uslims and Christians are also very strong minority which is
almost as big as !indus ma%ority. 8here is also concentration o# voters. )ome constituencies
are 'redominantly "uslim or Christian.
3arty system in Aerala has develo'ed #rom strong multi'artism to 'resent moderate
multi'artism. 8he e##ective number o# 'arties was the lowest a#ter election in 2((1 when was
re'orted 3.23 and in 2((? with 7.(1.
Aerala 'arty system is close to the outcomes which generate usually 'ro'ortional 5or list6
electoral system. "uslims as strong minority are re'resented by own 'arty. Also other
a##iliations are re'resented in society. 8he secular le#tist 'arties have strong 'osition in
Aerala-s 'olitical system. C3I5"6 is one tradition leader in Aerala 'oltics. @ther is secular
Congress. :oth secular 'arties have their own o##shoots or brother 'arties 5le#tist or congress
'arties6. 8he nationalist 'arties do not have big su''ort in Aerala societies and they usually do
not gain any seats. 8he governments which are coalition o# 'arties with secular a##iliation
5and o#ten su''orted by minorities- votes or 'arties as "uslim league6 do not have interest to
su''ort riots and intensity o# violence. ,eligious disorder will not bring gains #or any main
'arties in Aerala Assembly.
11
Diagram ; Total deaths per year in communal violence$ Eerala
) * 0+0109, 0+3478
-
2
* 0+0012
0
20
40
60
80
100
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
!ear
"
i
l
l
e
#
)ource: ?arshney 2002: 102& Times of -n%ia& a"thor
Table ,) ffective number of parties in Eerala
7ear 1>?: 1>?) 1>?= 1>>1 1>>= )::1 )::=
ffective number
of parties
;.,> ;.:; <.?= @.,= <.1; ,.>, @.:;
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia an% a"thor
i%'hart and !orowitz- criti=ue o# B383 system is not #ully warranted in Aerala. 8he structure
o# 'o'ulation and concentration o# religious grou's in the sha'ing o# constituencies give to
the minorities the chance to get their own re'resentation. "oreover< this s'eci#ic situation
creates multi'artism which generates moderate 'olitics. 3arties- re'resentation ma+e great
coalition 5seat 'ooling6 and it create other i%'hart-s assum'tion as strong minority veto and
cultural autonomy #or minorities. 8he 'arties which win the seats are mostly secular and
de'end on minority votes. 8he structure o# the 'o'ulation #orces the 'arties #or coo'eration.
8he secular electoral coalitions #or their electoral success need to gain the votes in di##erent
12
environment and religious grou's. 8hey need to coo'erate and it creates strong su''ort o#
inter.ethnic a''eals through vote 'ooling or constituency 'ooling. Aerala-s e$am'le is near to
i%'hart-s conce't o# consensual democracy.
Table ,, +esults of the )::= Eerala Assembly lection
5total seats: 17(6
*arty Contestants .on A of votes
Cnited Democratic 2ront #CD2% 11= @: ,=.;?
Indian 9ational Congress 11 27 )@.:>
"uslim eague 21 1 ;.,:
Aerala Congress 0 "ani 11 1 ,.)=
;anadhi'atya )amra+shana )amithi 5 1 1.<1
Aerala Congress 5:6 2 1 :.=)
&eft Democratic 2ront 1)> >1 @@.?1
Communist 3arty o# India 5"6 &5 ?1 ,:.@<
Communist 3arty o# India 27 11 ?.:>
;anata Dal 0 )ecular & 5 ).@@
Aerala Congress ? 7 1.;<
9ationalist Congress 3arty 2 1 :.=@
,evolutionary )ocialist 3arty 7 3 1.@@
8haratiya 9anata *arty 1,= : @.;<
Independents 6 Dthers ,>? > 11.>?
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
Table ,@ +esults of the )::1 Eerala Assembly lection
5total seats: 17(6
*arty Contestants .on A of votes
Cnited Democratic 2ront #CD2% 1@: >> @>.:<
Indian 9ational Congress 0 Indira && ?3 ,1.@:
Indian 4nion "uslim eague 23 1? ?.::
Aerala Congress 0 "ani 11 2 ,.<@
;anadhi'atya )amra+shana )amithi 5 7 1.;?
,evolutionary )ocialist 3arty.
:olshevi+
7 2 1.,;
Aerala Congress. ;acob 7 2 1.,)
Communist "ar$ist 3arty 3 1 :.>)
Aerala Congress 0 :ala+rishna 3illai 2 2 :.;)
&eft Democratic 2ront 1@: @: @,.;:
13
Communist 3arty o# India 5"6 17 27 ),.?<
Communist 3arty o# India 27 1 ;.;:
;anata Dal 0 )ecular 12 3 ,.@?
Aerala Congress 0 ;ose'h 1( 2 ).>:
9ationalist Congress 3arty 2 2 ).=:
,evolutionary )ocialist 3arty ? 2 1.;1
8haratiya 9anata *arty 1), : <.:)
:;3 Allies 1 ( :.:=
Independents )== 1 ).1=
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
Table ,< +esults of the 1>>= Eerala Assembly lection
5total seats: 17(6
*arty Contestants .on A of votes
Indian 9ational Congress 27 31 ,:.@,
Communist 3arty o# India. "ar$ist 12 7( )@.@1
Communist 3arty o# India 22 1& ;.??
"uslim eague 23 13 ;.@)
:haratiya ;anata 3arty 12& ( <.@?
;anata Dal 13 7 @.1)
Aerala Congress. "ani 1( 5 ,.1?
Aerala Congress 1( ? ,.1:
Indian Congress.)ocialist 2 3 ).@>
,evolutionary )ocialist 3arty ? 5 ).:;
;anadhi'athya )amra+shna )amithi 5 1 1.<@
Aerala Congress.;acob 7 2 1.1@
Aerala Congress .:ala+rishna 3illai 2 1 :.=@
Independents =,= 1 ).,?
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
17
Table ,= +esults of the 1>>1 Eerala Assembly lection
5total seats: 17(6
*arty Contestants .on A of votes
Indian 9ational Congress 21 55 ,).:;
Communist 3arty o# India. "ar$ist ?7 2& )1.;@
Communist 3arty o# India 27 12 ?.)=
"uslim eague 22 12 ;.,;
:haratiya ;anata 3arty 131 ( @.;=
;anata Dal 13 3 @.:@
Aerala Congress. "ani 13 1( @.,)
Aerala Congress 11 1 ,.,;
Indian Congress.)ocialist 12 2 ,.@;
,evolutionary )ocialist 3arty ? 2 1.;,
Independents 6 Dthers ,@: ? ?.);
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
Table ,; +esults of the 1>?; Eerala Assembly lection
5total seats: 17(6
*arty Contestants .on A of votes
Indian 9ational Congress 1? 33 )@.?,
Communist 3arty o# India. "ar$ist 1( 3& )).?=
Communist 3arty o# India 25 1? ?.:?
"uslim eague 23 15 ;.;,
:haratiya ;anata 3arty 11? ( <.<=
;anata 3arty 12 1 ,.;>
o+ Dal 2 1 :.=)
Aerala Congress 17 5 ,.<@
Indian Congress.)ocialist 17 ? @.:)
,evolutionary )ocialist 3arty ? 5 ).:;
Independents ?>= 1@ 1=.>)
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
15
Table ,? +esults of the 1>?) Eerala Assembly lection
5total seats: 17(6
*arty Contestants .on A of votes
Indian 9ational Congress 3? 2( 11.>:
Communist 3arty o# India. "ar$ist 51 2? 1?.?:
Communist 3arty o# India 25 13 ?.@)
"uslim eague 1& 17 =.1;
:haratiya ;anata 3arty ?2 ( ).;<
;anata 3arty 13 7 @.:@
All India "uslim eague 12 7 ,.)<
Aerala Congress 11 ? <.?=
Indian Congress.)ocialist 15 5 @.?1
,evolutionary )ocialist 3arty & 7 ).;=
Aerala Congress 5I6 12 & @.<<
9ational Democratic 3arty 5 2 1.=;
Independents @1? ,@ )<.:)
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
Table ,> +esults of the 1>?: Eerala Assembly lection
5total seats: 17(6
*arty Contestants .on A of votes
Indian 9ational Congress 5I6 53 11 1;.:,
Indian 9ational Congress 546 31 21 11.)?
Communist 3arty o# India. "ar$ist 5( 35 1>.,<
Communist 3arty o# India 22 11 ;.?:
"uslim eague 21 17 ;.1?
;anata 3arty 22 5 ;.=,
All India "uslim eague 11 5 ,.<1
Aerala Congress 11 & <.)<
,evolutionary )ocialist 3arty & ? ,.:)
Aerala Congress 5I6 11 ? @.><
Aerala Congress 53illai >rou'6 2 1 :.?:
Independents ,)> < 1).:?
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
1?
<.<. +a"asthan case study
,a%asthan is another e$am'le o# com'etition between main two 'arties 5:;3 an I9C6 in the
system. 8he 'arty system in this state could be called as bi'artism 5)artori-s classi#ication6.
!owever< there have been not as many cases o# communal disorder and murdered violence as
in selected 'eriod in >u%arat. !ow it could be e$'lainedO 8he :;3 has not de'ended on
religious minority votes as well as there is no need o# any coalition government due to B383
system and e$isting almost 'ure bi'artism. Communal violence with victims was also
registered in electoral term when the highest numbers o# e##ective 'arties were in ,a%asthan
Assembly. 8he government also de'ended on minorities that time. All these di##erences #rom
>u%arat e$am'le go against *il+inson-s hy'othesis.
8he e$'lanation could be #inding in historical conservancies in both Indian states. Bor some
scholars< the violence in >u%arat was not entirely un'recedented. In >u%arat itsel#< incidents o#
mass violence have tended to be more intense in duration and scale than in other Indian states.
5>as" an% 2oy 2004: +216 ,a%asthan is historically communal riots #ree state and also the
number o# victims is com'aratively very low in India.
,a%asthan had to co'e with communal violence at the end o# 12&(s and beginning o# 122(s.
8hat time the I9C had 'ower but the electoral behaviour was changing and the dominance o#
I9C bro+e and also bi'artism originated. !owever< the number o# death was com'aratively
low as com'ared to causes in :ihar< "aharashatra and >u%arat in the same 'eriod.
11
Diagram ? Total deaths per year in communal violence$ +a"asthan
) * (0+001, 3+2292
-
2
* 41(07
0
20
40
60
80
100
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
!ear
"
i
l
l
e
#
)ource: ?arshney 2002: 102& Times of -n%ia& a"thor
8he 'ossible e$'lanation could be the growing nationalism o# :;3 and its 'otential in state as
well as in #ederal election. !owever< the ne$t election term a#ter the strongest violence in
,a%asthan in 1223< the electoral success was on the side o# :;3 and I9C lost its 'osition in
this state.
Table @: ffective number of parties in +a"asthan
7ear 1>?: 1>?< 1>>, 1>>? )::,
ffective number
of parties
).1 ).=, ).<> 1.=, ).)<
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia an% a"thor
8here is an also im'ortant electoral swing between :;3 and I9C. :oth 'arties are not able to
re'eat their electoral success #rom 'revious election. "oreover< ,a%asthan changes 'eriods
1&
with :;3 or I9C government on #ederal and state level. :oth 'arties do not have coe$istence
o# their government on both levels in the same time. i%'hart and !orowitz 'ut the stress on
#ederalism as the im'ortant #actor #or communal harmony and autonomy o# minorities. 8here
is another reason than this #or ,a%asthan-s communal harmony< but #ederalism and changing
government could be one e$'lanation #or 'eace#ul ,a%asthan. !owever< the I9C which
de'ends more on minority votes have signi#icant interest to 'rotect minorities. @rissa-s
e$am'le can su''ort this assum'tion when #ederal government leading by I9C threatened
intervention to nationalistic government in @rissa during the riots in 2((&. "inority-s
'ressure on #ederal level 5or government6 can hel' to 'revent violence in Indian states which
they have own res'onsibility #or communal harmony and security.
Table @1 +esults of the )::, +a"asthan Assembly lection
5total seats: 2((6
*arty Contestants .on A of votes
:haratiya ;anata 3arty 121 12( ,>.):
Indian 9ational Congress 2(( 5? ,<.=<
:ahu%an )ama% 3arty 127 2 ,.>;
Communist 3arty o# India 5"6 1& 1 :.;;
Indian 9ational o+ Dal 5( 7 ).<?
;anata Dal 546 1( 2 :.>:
Independents 6 Dthers @<; 1< 1,.>;
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
Table @) +esults of the 1>>? +a"asthan Assembly lection
5total seats: 2((6
*arty Contestants .on A of votes
:haratiya ;anata 3arty 12? 33 ,,.),
Indian 9ational Congress 2(( 153 @@.><
:ahu%an )ama% 3arty 1(& 2 ).1;
Communist 3arty o# India 5"6 17 1 :.?1
;anata Dal ?2 3 1.>;
Independents 6 Dthers =)) ? 1@.=>
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
12
Table @, +esults of the 1>>, +a"asthan Assembly lection
5total seats: 1226
*arty Contestants .on A of votes
:haratiya ;anata 3arty 12? 25 ,?.=:
Indian 9ational Congress 122 1? ,?.);
Communist 3arty o# India 5"6 12 1 :.>?
;anata Dal 17? ? =.>,
Independents 1<:= )1 1).>:
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
Table @@ +esults of the 1>?< +a"asthan Assembly lection
5total seats: 2((6
*arty Contestants .on A of votes
:haratiya ;anata 3arty 11& 32 )1.)@
Indian 9ational Congress 122 113 @=.<;
Communist 3arty o# India 71 1 1.),
;anata 3arty 31 1( <.??
o+ Dal ?( 21 11.?=
Independents >>< 1: 11.>:
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
Table @< +esults of the 1>?: +a"asthan Assembly lection
5total seats: 2((6
*arty Contestants .on A of votes
:haratiya ;anata 3arty 123 32 1?.=:
Indian 9ational Congress 5I6 122 133 @).>=
Indian 9ational Congress 546 ?2 ? <.<>
Communist 3arty o# India 25 1 :.>;
Communist 3arty o# India 5"6 1? 1 1.):
;anata 3arty 5;36 1? & ;.,@
;anata 3arty 5)C6 1(3 1 >.<<
Independents ;<: 1) 1,.:?
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
&(
<.=. Maharashtra case study
"aharashtra is the state where the relatively 'eace#ul 'eriod is changed by violent time. 8he
communal violence has tradition in the state and es'ecially :ombay has e$'erience with
clashes between "uslims and !indus. 8he riots are usually very bloody as we can see in
diagram 2. ,iots in 12&7 and in 1222Q23 had many victims. /s'ecially the disorder in the
early 122(s too+ many lives.
*il+inson-s hy'othesis is not as much valid in this case< because the !indu."uslim clashes
in 1222Q23 have been signed u' to )hiv )ena 'olitics. 8his 'arty was not the main 'ower in
the state< but their nationalist 'olitics and increasing electoral 'otency 'rovo+ed riots in
:ombay in 1222. Also there was 'artici'ation o# o##icial security #orces on violence.
!owever< the government did not have situation under the control. :ut the *il+inson-s
hy'othesis could be veri#ied i# we loo+ dee'ly on the structure o# government and their
administration and security #orces. 8he 'olice as well as administration is under the control o#
ma%ority !indus. "uslims and other minorities do not have 'ro'er 'ro'ortion there.
>overnment was under the 'ressure o# 'ublic and "uslims were that time mar+ed as the
instigators o# violence.
i%'hart and !orowitz 'ut stress in their theory on o##ice holding and 'ower sharing in any
level. In "aharashtra the 'olice #orces were under the control o# radical !indus or sometimes
illegally directly under the control o# )hiv )ena. 8here was no #ast bra+e which was 'ossible
#or o##icial use by minorities to sto' the violence or 'ull out the state #orces #rom 'artici'ation
in. Absence o# 'ower sharing and o##ice holding 5which is common in whole India6 or the
consciousness o# im'ortance o# "uslims- votes hel' to create massacre with state
'artici'ation in :ombay.
)tress on a !indu identity and the use o# !indi in 'olitical sloganeering are indicative o# a
ma%or shi#t in the 'olitics o# in *estern India. 8his turn to !induism is what seemed to lead to
the outbrea+ o# violence in :ombay on a scale never be#ore witnessed in the city. In winter o#
1222.23< :ombay e$'erienced the worst !indu."uslim con#lagration the city has ever
+nown. It is shi#t in which once local< native 'arty in :ombay< the )hiv )ena now #inds itsel#
as the dominant 'olitical #orce in the state o# "aharashtra< with a ready ca'acity to incite
wides'read violence. 5<at*enstein& 9ehta an% Thakkar 2006: 257-2516
&1
Diagram > Total deaths per year in communal violence$ Maharashtra
)ource: ?arshney 2002: 101& Times of -n%ia& a"thor
8he )hiv )ena con%ures u' images o# "uslim treachery and betrayal. In in#lammatory
language< the )hiv )ena de'icts anti.national "uslims and destroyers o# tem'les< as
murderers o# the 'olice< and as threats to the Indian state. 5<at*enstein& 9ehta an% Thakkar
2006: 2616
Table @= ffective number of parties in Maharashtra
7ear 1>?: 1>?< 1>>: 1>>< 1>>> )::@
ffective number
of parties
).)1 ).;= ,.)> @.<) @.?, @.?@
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia an% a"thor
8he ancillary e$'lanation can be #ound also in changing electoral as well as 'arty behaviour
when the #ederal and state 'arty system has changed #rom dominant 'arty system
5res'ectively two 'arty system6 to multi'artism and 'arties wanting to #ind the ma%or su''ort
&2
) * (1+0683, 61+895
-
2
* 0+0035
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
!ear
"
i
l
l
e
#
o# voters and #ind new electorates. 8he 'arties searched #or their new 'olitical 'osition and
'ro#ile. 8he secular 'arties could not +now how to react on new situation and during the riots
they a#raid o# 'rotecting minorities due to loosing votes #rom !indu ma%ority.
Table @; +esults of the )::@ Maharashtra Assembly lection
5total seats: 2&&6
*arty Contestants .on A of votes
:haratiya ;anata 3arty 111 57 1,.=;
Indian 9ational Congress 151 ?2 )1.:=
Communist 3arty o# India 5"6 1? 3 :.=)
9ationalist Congress 3arty 127 11 1?.;<
)hivsena 1?3 ?2 1>.>;
;an )ura%ya )ha+ti 12 7 :.??
3easants And *or+ers 3arty 73 2 1.,1
Independents 6 Dthers 1)1, ), 1=.,=
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%iaK
Table @? +esults of the 1>>> Maharashtra Assembly lection
5total seats: 2&&6
*arty Contestants .on A of votes
:haratiya ;anata 3arty 111 5? 1@.<@
Indian 9ational Congress 272 15 );.):
Communist 3arty o# India 5"6 23 2 :.=@
9ationalist Congress 3arty 223 5& )).=:
)hivsena 1?1 ?2 1;.,,
;anata Dal 5)6 25 2 1.<1
)ama%wadi 3arty 15 2 :.=>
,e'ublican 3arty o# India 1( 1 :.=>
3easants And *or+ers 3arty 22 5 1.@>
:hari'a :ahu%an "ahasangha 37 3 1.?<
Independents 6 Dthers ?<> 1< 1:.1
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
&3
Table @> +esults of the 1>>< Maharashtra Assembly lection
5total seats: 2&&6
*arty Contestants .on A of votes
:haratiya ;anata 3arty 11? ?5 1).?:
Indian 9ational Congress 2&? &( ,1.::
Communist 3arty o# India 5"6 1& 3 1.::
)hivsena 1?2 13 1=.,>
;anata Dal 1&2 11 <.?=
)ama%wadi 3arty 22 3 :.>,
3easants and *or+ers 3arty 72 ? ).:<
Independents 6 Dthers ,1>> @; );.;@
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
Table <: +esults of the 1>>: Maharashtra Assembly lection
5total seats: 2&&6
*arty Contestants .on A of votes
:haratiya ;anata 3arty 1(7 72 1:.;1
Indian 9ational Congress 21? 171 ,?.1;
Communist 3arty o# India 1? 2 :.;@
Communist 3arty o# India 5"6 13 3 :.?;
Indian Congress 5)ocialist.)arat
Chandra )inha6
11 1 :.>?
;anata Dal 217 27 1).;)
"uslim eague 2 1 :.<1
)hivsena 1&3 52 1<.>@
3easants and *or+ers 3arty 7( & ).@)
Independents 6 Dthers ,::@ 1@ 1@.>:
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
&7
Table <1 +esults of the 1>?< Maharashtra Assembly lection
5total seats: 2&&6
*arty Contestants .on A of votes
:haratiya ;anata 3arty ?1 1? ;.)<
Indian 9ational Congress 2&1 1?1 @,.@1
Communist 3arty o# India 31 2 :.>)
Communist 3arty o# India 5"6 17 2 :.;>
Indian Congress 5)ocialist6 12? 57 1;.)?
;anata 3arty ?1 2( ;.,?
3easants and *or+ers 3arty 22 13 ,.;;
Independents 1<:= ): 1;.@>
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
Table <) +esults of the 1>?: Maharashtra Assembly lection
5total seats: 2&&6
*arty Contestants .on A of votes
:haratiya ;anata 3arty 175 17 >.,?
Indian 9ational Congress 5I6 2&? 1&? @@.<:
Indian 9ational Congress 546 122 71 ):.@>
Communist 3arty o# India 11 2 1.,1
Communist 3arty o# India 5"6 1( 2 :.>,
;anata 3arty 5;36 111 11 ?.=1
3easants and *or+ers 3arty 71 2 @.1@
Independents =<@ 11 >.,>
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
<.;. 8ihar case study
:ihar is an e$am'le o# a state where the riots has ha''ened in selected 'eriod during the
electoral term with higher number o# e##ective 'arties in assembly. !owever< :ihar could be
called as a relatively 'eace#ul state. *hen riots ha''ened< they were more violent than in
other Indian states but less then in >u%arat< "aharashtra or 4ttar 3radesh. :ihar-s
governments are coalition and could be describe as unstable.
&5
Diagram 1: Total deaths per year in communal violence$ 8ihar
) * (1+5039, 45+341
-
2
* 0+0154
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
!ear
"
i
l
l
e
#
)ource: ?arshney 2002: 100& Times of -n%ia& a"thor
8he trend in :ihar is decreasing in last 'eriod when the e##ective number o# 'arties in the
:ihar Assembly has increased. In the year 12&2< when deaths =uantity were really high< the
e##ective number o# 'arties was 2.1&. 8he number o# 'arties has increased #rom that time and
with that also the violence has #allen down in :ihar.
Table <, ffective number of parties in 8ihar
7ear 1>?: 1>?< 1>>: 1>>< )::: )::<
ffective number
of parties
,.)@ ).;? @.@> ,.,, @.=@ <.)1
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia an% a"thor
According to this descri'tion *il+inson-s hy'othesis is con#irmed. 8he most violent riots
ha''ened in term with the lowest number o# 'arties in Assembly. !owever< the assembly was
&?
under dominancy o# I9C which has su''ort #rom minorities. I9C also is more secular than
other 'arties in :ihar assemby. 8he e$'lanation o# riots and high number o# +illed could be
described similarly as in the case o# "aharashtra. 8he electoral behaviour and 'arty system
had been under changing 'rocess and 'arties did not have e$'erience with this new situation
and wanted to #ind their 'olicy outlines and their electoral gains in ma%ority. It was
mal#unction o# Indian version o# secularism.
:ihar with its multi'artism could generate consensus among minorities according to i%'hart
theory. It is true because the number o# death in :ihar is very low in last decade. 8he
government in :ihar is not stable 5it is very wea+6< there#ore< the minority votes and voice is
stronger than in other states. 8he table 53 also shows that with increasing number o# 'arties
and decreasing o# stability< the number o# death is decreasing. Also last communal violence in
)e'tember 2((& 5@rissa6 shows that government made strict action against rioters. In
connection to !orowitz durable governments are thought to be desirable as they 'romote
'olicy consistency and res'onsibility and may avoid the instability that can result during
interregna or #rom the creation o# #ragile< un'redictable coalitions. 5)orowit* 200+a: 5-66
:ihar is o''osite e$am'le and the e$am'le o# this state su''orts more i%'hart stand'oint o#
cabinet stability 'roblem 5cabinet instability does not automatically lead to regime instability6.

Table <@ +esults of the )::< 8ihar Assembly lection
5total seats: 2736
*arty Contestants .on A of votes
:haratiya ;anata 3arty 1(3 31 1:.>;
:ahu%an )ama% 3arty 23& 2 @.@1
Indian 9ational Congress &7 1( <.::
9ationalist Congress 3arty 31 3 :.>?
Communist 3arty o# India 11 3 1.<?
Communist 3arty o# India 5"6 12 1 :.=@
;anata Dal 546 13& 55 1@.<<
,ashtriya ;anata Dal 215 15 )<.:;
Communist 3arty o# India 5"656 1(2 1 ).@>
)ama%wadi 3arty 172 7 ).=>
o+ ;an )ha+ti 3arty 11& 22 1).=)
Independents 1@>, 1; 1=.1=
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
&1
Table << +esults of the )::: 8ihar Assembly lection
5total seats: 3276
*arty Contestants .on A of votes
:haratiya ;anata 3arty 1?& ?1 1@.=@
:ahu%an )ama% 3arty 272 5 1.?>
Indian 9ational Congress 327 23 11.:=
Communist 3arty o# India 153 5 ,.=:
Communist 3arty o# India 5"6 21 2 :.>1
;anata Dal 546 &1 21 =.@;
,ashtriya ;anata Dal 223 127 )?.,@
Communist 3arty o# India 5"656 1(1 ? ).<:
)amata 3arty 12( 37 ?.=<
4nited >oans Democratic 3arty ? 2 :.)=
;har+hand "u+ti "orcha &5 12 ,.<,
Aosal 3arty 1 2 :.,=
"ar$ist Co.@rdination 2 1 :.)?
Independents 1@?) ): 11.,;
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
Table <= +esults of the 1>>< 8ihar Assembly lection
5total seats: 3276
*arty Contestants .on A of votes
:haratiya ;anata 3arty 315 71 1).>=
:ahu%an )ama% 3arty 1?1 2 1.,@
Indian 9ational Congress 32( 22 1=.);
Communist 3arty o# India ?1 2? @.;=
Communist 3arty o# India 5"6 31 ? 1.@@
;anata Dal 2?7 1?1 );.>?
;har+hand 3eo'le-s 3arty 33 2 :.,@
)ama%wadi 3arty 11? 2 1.=;
)amata 3arty 31( 1 ;.:=
Communist 3arty o# India 5"656 &2 ? ).,=
;har+hand "u+ti "orcha ?3 1( ).,)
;har+hand "u+ti "orcha 5"6 5& 3 :.>=
;har+hand "u+ti "orcha 5)6 22 ? 1.)=
"ar$ist Co.@rdination 5 2 :.)>
:hartiya 3ragatisheel 3arty 252 1 ,.:@
Independents 6 Dthers <;:? 1@ 1@.);
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
&&
Table <; +esults of the 1>>: 8ihar Assembly lection
5total seats: 3276
*arty Contestants .on A of votes
:haratiya ;anata 3arty 231 32 11.=1
Indian 9ational Congress 323 11 )@.;?
Communist 3arty o# India 1(2 23 =.<>
Communist 3arty o# India 5"6 31 ? 1.,,
;anata Dal 211 122 )<.=1
;anata 3arty 5;36 15& 3 1.<@
;har+hand "u+ti "orcha &2 12 ,.1@
Indian 3eo'le-s Bront &2 1 ).;;
;har+hand Dal 2& 1 ).;;
"ar$ist Co.@rdination 11 2 :.))
Independents 6 Dthers @,;; ,1 1?.;=
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
Table <? +esults of the 1>?< 8ihar Assembly lection
5total seats: 3276
*arty Contestants .on A of votes
:haratiya ;anata 3arty 237 32 ;.<@
Indian 9ational Congress 323 12? ,>.,:
Communist 3arty o# India 1?1 12 ?.?=
Communist 3arty o# India 5"6 77 1 1.=1
o+ Dal 2?1 7? 1@.=>
;anata 3arty 222 13 ;.)1
;har+hand "u+ti "orcha 51 2 1.?)
Indian Congress 5)ocialist6 52 1 :.==
Independents 6 Dthers )?:< ,: 1;.>=
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
&2
Table <> +esults of the 1>?: 8ihar Assembly lection
5total seats: 3276
*arty Contestants .on A of votes
:haratiya ;anata 3arty 27? 21 ?.@1
Indian 9ational Congress 5I6 311 1?2 ,@.):
Indian 9ational Congress 546 1&5 17 ;.,@
Communist 3arty o# India 135 23 >.1)
Communist 3arty o# India 5"6 21 ? 1.;<
;anata 3arty 5;36 27( 13 ;.)1
;anata 3arty 5)C6 257 72 1<.=,
;anata 3arty 5),6 153 1 1.=1
;har+hand "u+ti "orcha 31 11 1.=>
Independents 6 Dthers 1,<@ )@ 1).1?
)ource: $lection Commission of -n%ia
<.?. .il/inson0s hypothesis and its modification and alternative e!planation
*il+inson-s hy'othesis e$'lains with small modi#ication 5see #igure 36 the intensity o# riots
and the high number o# death in 'articular cases as in >u%arat 2((2 and in @rissa 2((1
res'ectively 2((&. !owever< the hy'othesis does not e$'lain why the riots ha''en in a
'articular state and 'eriod. ,egardless< *il+inson-s hy'othesis also e$'lains why the riots do
not ha''en very o#ten and with low intensity in Aerala and in @rissa in the 'ast and also in
4ttar 3radesh.
In s'ite o# it< there are some cases o# violence which had high intensity and many causes o#
+illing 'eo'le< but the hy'othesis is not strongly su''orted. @ne e$am'le is :ihar and
"aharashtra in late 12&(s and early 122(s where bloody riots ha''ened< although the
government was su''osed to be secular and had some su''ort in minorities. According to
*il+inson-s hy'othesis government should 'revent the riots and their intensity as well as
'rotect minorities. 8here could be more e$'lanation why there was o''osite situation:
( changing electoral behaviour in late 12&(s and early 122(s and due to this
'arty system changed< new sha'ing o# ma%or 'arties and their electoral 5this su''orts
*il+inson-s assum'tion< because government did not #eel the im'ortance o# minority
votes6K
2(
( increasing 'otency o# nationalist 'arties 5li+e )hiv )ena in "aharastra6 and its
e##ort to gain votes #rom growing nationalismK
( over votes and over seats gained by I9C in :ihar and its elites #elt that
minorities are not as much im'ortant #or electoral success 5this su''orts *il+inson-s
assum'tion< because government did not #eel the im'ortance o# minority votes6K
( alternative economical< demogra'hical and other e$'lanations and theories.
,a%asthan-s e$am'le shows that #or riots and their intensity must be also other 'rere=uisite.
@ne should be also a historical bac+ground and e$'erience. >u%arat has stronger tradition o#
communal clashes than ,a%asthan.
Bigure 3 shows some modi#ication o# *il+inson-s hy'othesis and try it #i$ed more on 'resent
Indian states. /s'ecially this #igure e$'lains @rissa case o# riots in 2((1 and 2((&.
2igure , The modified .il/inson0s hypothesis of relationship between party competition
and a state3s response to anti1minority polarization and violence
21
*il+inson-s hy'othesis could be veri#ied in some cases< but there should be also many other
e$'ected or une$'ected causalities which are out o# it. 8here are some historical< economical<
demogra'hical as well as other sources o# causations which are di##icult to describe and
attach. !owever< this hy'othesis could be one main source o# behaviour o# 'arties and their
electorates during any riots. "oreover< i%'hart-s and !orowitz-s ideal model #or divided
societies also gave some e$'lanation as to why riots in India ha''ened. *il+inson-s
hy'othesis does not count with #ederalism. 9evertheless< this could be one signi#icant #actor
which hel's to e$'lain relatively 'eace#ul ,a%asthan or some 'eriods o# violent >u%arat.
>u%arat riots 2((2 ha''ened in electoral term when :;3 were in 'ower in >u%arat as well as
in Indian 4nion. ,a%asthan changes 'eriods with :;3 or I9C government on #ederal and state
level. :oth 'arties do not have coe$istence o# their government on both levels in the same
time #or several electoral terms.
22
Conclusion
8his wor+ #ocused on i%'hart and !orowitz- theoretical conce't o# ideal model #or divided
societies. Indian di##erences were studied through these two models. According to these two
scholars the main 'roblem #or Indian state is based on the *estminster electoral model 0
B383 and also in wea+ #ederalism 5strong centre and wea+ states6. 9o minority veto and also
lac+ o# minorities- re'resentation as well as 'ower sharing and o##ice holding gave big 'ower
the ma%ority not to care about minorities- needs. *il+inson-s hy'othesis o# the im'act o#
number o# the 'arties in the 'olitical system on India states government minorities- 'olicy
su''orts and #ollows u' i%'hart and !orowitz. 8he wor+ su''orted hy'othesis that without
minority electorates- re=uirement government do not 'rotect these minorities against violence<
riots and aggression #orm ma%ority. *il+inson-s su''ort i%'hart and !orowitz assum'tion o#
o##ice holding and 'ro'ortional re'resentation. *ithout that the riots and violence against
minorities would have bigger intensity as "aharashtra< @rissa and >u%arat e$am'le showed.
8he need o# minority su''ort 5as well as 'ro'ortional re'resentation6 #or government
increases #air behaviour and minority 'rotection #rom government as the case o# Aerala and
'artly 4ttar 3radesh and :ihar showed. 8he *il+inson-s hy'othesis does not include all
situation o# electoral and 'arty behaviour de'endence. Cha'ter 5.& enlarged the hy'othesis
and the cases o# moderate multi'artism with bi'olar s'ectrum which have been included in
*il+inson-s assum'tion.
8he answers to the =uestions #rom beginning were given by this wor+. Birst o# all this thesis
has #ound the highlighted 'oints o# i%'hart and !orowitz theoretical a''roach o# electoral
democracy in divided Indian society and #inds which o# these 'oints have any 'ractical
conservancies in India. 8he com'arison o# Indian real 'olitical system with the theoretical
a''roach o# i%'hart and !orowitz shows how and where ethnic disorder is 'roduced by the
system ga's which do not #ollow the i%'ahrt-s and !orowitz-s ideal model and
recommendation. 8here is a 'roblem o# electoral system which su''ort ma%ority and also a
lac+ o# real #ederalisation as well as segmental or cultural autonomy and multicultural and
multiethnic veto. 8he 'ower sharing and minority 'ro'ortion o# o##ice holding is also wea+.
8here has been evaluation o# the *ill+inson-s hy'othesis o# the im'act o# number o# the
'arties in the 'olitical system on India states government minorities- 'olicy. 3ractical cases
show how strong is the in#luence o# ma%oritarism election system on ethnic 'olicy. 8he lin+
between number o# 'arties in state level governments in India and number o# ethnical disorder
e$ist. !owever< there is some assum'tion which has been u'graded. 8here is no necessity o#
23
two 'arty system< but there is also im'ortance o# e$isting 'olarisation in 'arty system.
:i'olarism in multi'arty system has also im'act on intensity o# communal violence. 8he
*ill+inson-s model has been enlarged by the im'ortant role o# 'olarisation o# 'arty system.
8here is also signi#icance o# #ederal government which can bac+ u' the intensity o# violence i#
the state governments have similar 'olitical a##iliation as the main 'arties on #ederal level.
27
-ources and &iteratures
Annual re'ort o# the "inistry o# !ome A##airs 2((1< on.line te$t
5htt':QQwww.sat'.orgQsat'orgt'QcountriesQindiaQdocumentQ'a'ersQannualre'ortY2((1.(&.htm6.
Arora< :. 52((?6: Bederalisation o# Indian-s 3arty )ystem in: "ehra< A. A.< Ahanna< D. D.
and Auec+ *. >. 5eds.6: 4olitical 4arties an% 4arty ,ystems< 9ew Delhi< )age 3ublications.
:ahu%an )ama% 3arty 5www.bahu%ansama%'.com6.
:asu< A. 52((?6: 3arliamentary Communism as a !istorical 3henomenon: 8he C3I5"6 in
*est :engal in: !asan< Z. 5ed.6: 4arties an% 4arty 4olitics in -n%ia< 9ew Delhi< @$#ord
4niversity 3ress.
:asu< A. and ,oy< ). 52((76: 3rose a#ter >u%arat 0 Hiolence< )ecularism and Democracy in
India in: !asan< ". 5ed.6: 6ill ,ec"lar -n%ia ,"rieL& 9ew Delhi< im'rint@ne.
:haratiya ;anata 3arty 5www.b%'.org6.
:;3 52((76: ?ision %oc"ment 2004< on.line te$t 5htt':QQwww.b%'.orgQ3ressQmarY31(7a.htm6.
:rass< 3. ,. 52((36: The pro%"ction of )in%"-9"slim ?iolence in Contemporary -n%ia< 9ew
Delhi< @$#ord 4niversity 3ress.
Census o# India 2((15htt':QQwww.censusindia.net6.
Chandho+e< 9. 52((76: ,e.'resenting the )ecular Agenda #or India in: !asan< ". 5ed.6: 6ill
,ec"lar -n%ia ,"rieL& 9ew Delhi< im'rint@ne.
Chandra< A. 52((76: 6hy $thnic 4arties ,"ccee% - 4atronage an% $thnic )ea% Co"nts in
-n%ia< Cambridge< Cambridge 4niversity 3ress.
Chatter%i< 3. C. 512256: ,ec"lar ?al"es for ,ec"lar -n%ia< 9ew Delhi< "anohar 3ublishers.
Chhibber< A< 3. 512226: 3emocracy witho"t 7ssociations M Transformation of the 4arty
,ystem an% ,ocial Cleaages in -n%ia< "ichigan< 4niversity "ichigan 3ress.
Chhibber< 3. A. and Aollman< A. 52((76: The Iormation of 8ational 4arty ,ystems#
Ie%eralism an% 4arty Competition in Cana%a& Dreat >ritain& -n%ia an% the Hnite% ,tates.
3rinceton. @$#ord: 3rinceton 4niversity 3ress.
Cho'ra< 3. 52((?6: !ow "any 3arties are too "anyO in: "ehra< A. A.< Ahanna< D. D. and
Auec+ *. >. 5eds.6: 4olitical 4arties an% 4arty ,ystems< 9ew Delhi< )age 3ublications.
Constitution o# India 5htt':QQindiacode.nic.inQcoiwebQwelcome.html6.
C3I5"6 52((?6: C4- E9C 4rogramme< on.line te$t
5htt':QQc'im.orgQdocumentsQ'rogramme.htm[I6.
Dahl< ,. A. 5122&6: Gn 3emocracy< 9ew !avan< Tale 4niversity 3ress.
Desh'ande< , 52((76: )ocial "ovement in Crisis in ,a%andra< H and )uhas< 3. 5eds.6: -n%ian
3emocracy 9eanings an% 4ractices< 9ew Delhi< )aga 3ublications.
De)ouza 3. ,. and )ridharan /. 52((?6: -n%iaNs 4olitical 4arties< 9ew Delhi< )age
3ublications.
Diamond . and 3lattner ". 52((?6: $lectoral ,ystems an% 3emocracy. :altimore< ;ohn
!o'+ins 4niversity 3ress.
Dr. >o'al )ingh ,e'ort on "inorities 512&36< 9ew Delhi.
Duverger< ". 512576: 4olitical 4arties. ondon< "ethuen.
25
/isenberg< A. 52((?6: 4l"ralism& Consociationalism& Dro"p 3ifferentiate% Citi*enship an%
the 4ro(lem of ,ocial Cohesion< on.line te$t 5htt':QQwww2.arts.ubc.caQcres'Q'lur'a'.'d#6.
/lection Commission o# India 5htt':QQwww.eci.gov.in6.
>anguly< ). 52((36: The Crisis of -n%ian ,ec"larism< on.line ;ournal o# Democracy< Holume
17< 9o 7< @ctober 2((3< on.line te$t 5htt':QQmuse.%hu.eduQ%ournalsQ%ournalYo#YdemocracyQtocQ
%od17.7.html6.
>hosh< ). 3. 52(((6: >@4 an% the $ol"tion of )in%" 8ationalism M from 4eriphery to Centre<
9ew Delhi< "anohar 3ublishers.
>odbol< ". 52((?6: The )oloca"st of -n%ian 4artition< 9ew Delhi< ,u'a 3ublishing.
!ansen< 8. :. 52((56 ?iolence in Hr(an -n%ia M -%entity 4olitics& O9"m(aiN& an% the
4ostcolonial City& Delhi< 3ermanent :lac+.
!eath< A. and Tadav< T. 52((?6: 8he 4nited Colours o# Congress: )ocial 3ro#ile o# Congress
Hoters< 122? and 122& in: !asan< Z. 5ed.6: 4arties an% 4arty 4olitics in -n%ia< 9ew Delhi<
@$#ord 4niversity 3ress.
!orowitz< D.. 512&56: $thnic Dro"ps in Conflict< os Angeles< 4niversity o# Cali#ornia
3ress.
!orowitz< D.. 5122(6: Comm"nity Conflict: 4olicy an% 4ossi(ilities< Centre #or Con#lict
)tudies< 4niversity o# 4lster< Coleraine< "onogra'h )eries< number one 122(.
!orowitz< D.. 52((3a6: $lectoral ,ystems: 7 4rimer for 3ecision 9akers< ;ournal o#
Democracy< vol. 17 no. 7 5@ctober< 2((36< ''. 115.121.
!orowitz< D.. 52((3b6: Iorewar%: Compare% to 6hatL Du+e ;ournal o# Com'arative W
International aw< vol. 13 5@ctober< 2((36< ''. 1.?.
!orowitz< D.. 52((76: ,ome 2ealism 7(o"t Constit"tional $ngineering< in Bacing /thnic
Con#licts: 8owards a 9ew ,ealism< edited by Andreas *immer< ''. 275.51< anham< "d.:
,owman W ittle#ield .
!uman ,ights *atch 52((76: 3isco"raging 3issent: -ntimi%ation an% )arassment of
6itnesses& )"man 2ights 7ctiists& an% .awyers 4"rs"ing 7cco"nta(ility for the 2002
Comm"nal ?iolence in D"/arat< on.line te$t 5htt':QQhrw.orgQbac+grounderQasiaQindiaQgu%arat6.
I9C 52((76: 9anifest 2004< on.line te$t 5htt':QQaicc.org.inQmani#esto.detail.'h'OidP316.
Indian elections web 5htt':QQwww.indian.elections.com6.
Aatzenstein< ". B.< "ehta 4. ). and 8ha++ar< 4. 52((?6: 8he ,ebirth o# the )hiv )ena: 8he
)ymbiosis o# Discursive and @rganizational 3ower in: !asan< Z. 5ed.6: 4arties an% 4arty
4olitics in -n%ia< 9ew Delhi< @$#ord 4niversity 3ress.
Aerala Assembly 5htt':QQwww.+eralaassembly.org6.
AudlFCe+< . 52((?6: The 2eligio"s Clashes in -n%ia an% Their -mpact on $lection 2es"lts<
bachelor-s thesis. :rno< "asary+ 4niversity.
Aumar< ,. 512276: Congress an% Congressism in -n%ian 4olitics< 9ew Delhi< Dee' and Dee'
3ublications.
i%'hart< A. 512116: 3emocracy in 4l"ral ,ocieties: 7 Comparatie $!ploration. 9ew !aven<
Tale 4niversity 3ress.
i%'hart< A. 512276: 3emocracies: Iorms& 4erformance& an% Constit"tional $ngineering<
/uro'ean ;ournal o# 3olitical ,esearch< vol. 25< ''. 1.11.
2?
i%'hart< A. 5122?6: The 4"**le of -n%ian 3emocracy: 7 Consociational -nterpretation< 8he
American 3olitical )cience ,eview< Hol. 2(< 9o. 2 5;un.< 122?6< ''. 25&.2?&.
i%'hart< A. 5122&6: Consens"s an% Consens"s 3emocracy C"lt"ral& ,tr"ct"ral& I"nctional&
an% 2ational-Choice& /$'lanations ecture given by the *inner o# the ;ohan )+ytte 3rize in
3olitical )cience< 4''sala& Gcto(er 4& 1007< )candinavian 3olitical )tudies< Hol. 21 . 9o. 2<
''. 22.1(1.
i%'hart< A. 51222a6: 4atterns of 3emocracy: Doernment Iorms P 4erformance in Thirty-
si! Co"ntries# 9ew !aven< Tale 4niversity 3ress.
i%'hart< A. 51222b6: 4ower ,haring an% Dro"p 7"tonomy in the 1000s an% the 21
st
Cent"ry<
on.line te$t 5htt':QQwww.tamilnation.orgQcon#lictresolutionQconsociationalismQi%'hart.'d#6.
i%'hart< A. 52((26: 8egotiation %emocracy ers"s consens"s %emocracy: 4arallel
concl"sions an% recommen%ations< /uro'ean ;ournal o# 3olitical ,esearch< vol. 71< ''. 1(1.
113.
i%'hart< A. 52((76: Constit"tional 3esign for 3ii%e% ,ocieties< ;ournal o# Democracy< vol.
15 5A'ril< 2((76< ''. 2?.1(2.
"a%ere< A. 52((56: 6orking of the -n%ian Ie%eral ,ystem< 9ew Delhi< Centre #or Bederal
)tudies< !amdard 4niversity.
"ehta< :. 3. 52((76: )ecularism and the Identity 8ra' in: !asan< ". 5ed.6: 6ill ,ec"lar -n%ia
,"rieL& 9ew Delhi< im'rint@ne.
9a%iullah< ). 52((&6: The ,tat"s of 9"slims in -n%ia< on.line te$t
5htt':QQwww.indianmuslims.in#oQboo+Qe$'ortQhtmlQ126.
@lza+< ). 512226: The 3ynamics of $thnic Competition an% Conflict< )tan#ord< )tan#ord
4niversity 3ress.
3ra+ash< A. 52((?6: )ocial< Cultural and /conomic Dimension o# the 3arty )ystem in: "ehra<
A. A.< Ahanna< D. D. and Auec+ *. >. 5eds.6: 4olitical 4arties an% 4arty ,ystems< 9ew
Delhi< )age 3ublications.
,a%ago'al< A. 52((?6: D"/aratNs Os"ccessf"l e!perimentN< on.line te$t
5htt':QQwww.o'endemocracy.netQcontentQarticlesQ3DBQ1(5?.'d#6.
,eynolds< A. 52((26: The 7rchitect"re of 3emocracy: Constit"tional 3esign& Conflict
9anagement& an% 3emocracy< @$#ord< @$#ord 4niversity 3ress.
,eynolds< A.< ,eilly< :.< and /llis< A. 512216: $lectoral ,ystem 3esign: The 8ew
-nternational -3$7 )an%(ook< )toc+holm< ID/A< on.line te$t 5htt':QQwww.idea.intQ
'ublicationsQesdQinde$.c#m6.
)ama%wadi 3arty 5www.sama%wadi'artyindia.com6.
)ama%wadi 3arty "umbai web 5www.sama%wadi'artymumbai.org6.
)artori< >. 52((56: ,trany a stranickQ systQmy M ,chQma pro analR*"< :rno< Centrum 'ro
studium demo+racie a +ultury.
)a$ena< ,. 512276: -n%ian 4olitics in Transition M Irom 3ominance to Chaos< 9ew Delhi<
Dee' and Dee' 3ublications.
)ingh< >. 52(((6: $thnic Conflict in -n%ia M 7 Case-,t"%y of 4"n/a(< ondon< "ac"illan
3ress td.
21
)ingh< A. A. 52((56: Hnion 9o%el of -n%ian Ie%eralism M ,tr"ct"ral Ieat"res an%
Competence 3imensions< 9ew Delhi< Centre #or Bederal )tudies< !amdard 4niversity.
)ingh< ".3. and )a$ena ,. 52((&6: -n%ian 4olitics: Contemporary -ss"es an% Concerns< 9ew
Delhi< 3rentice.!all o# India 3rivate imited.
)trmis+a< ". 512216: ,o"stay politickRch stran -n%ii: o% SkongresoQho systQm"S k
m"ltipartism". :rno< "asary+ova univerzita.
8aage'era< ,. 52((16: 4re%icting 4arty ,i*es# The .ogic of ,imple $lectoral ,ystems< @$#ord<
@$#ord 4niversity 3ress.
8imes o# India 5htt': QQwww.timeso#india.com6.
4)CI,B 52((&6: H,C-2I 7nn"al 2eport 2001 M -n%ia< on.line te$t
5htt':QQwww.unhcr.orgQre#worldQdocidQ7&55?2a(c.html6.
Harshney< A. 52((26: $thnic conflict an% ciic life& )in%"s an% 9"slims in -n%ia< 9ew !avan<
Tale 4niversity 3ress.
*il+inson< I. ). 52((76: ?otes an% ?iolence M $lectoral Competition an% $thnic 2iots in
-n%ia& Cambridge< Cambridge 4niversity 3ress.
2&
&ist of Tables
8able 1 "odels o# democracy #or divided societies...................................................................1
8able 2 "uslims in >u%arat Assembly elections 5winnersQcandidates6....................................12
8able 3 /lection results #or o+ )abha in 1222........................................................................71
8able 7 /lection results #or o+ )abha in 2((7........................................................................72
8able 5 Indian Administrative )ervice #rom 1211 till 12&(.....................................................75
8able ? "uslims in Indian Administrative )ervices since 12&1..............................................7?
8able 1 ,e'resentation o# @:CsQ)CsQ)8s in the )ervice o# the Central >overnment in 1212
...................................................................................................................................................7?
8able & 8otal ,iots and Deaths by )tates and /##ective 9umber o# 3arties............................5?
8able 2 /##ective number o# 'arties in >u%arat........................................................................5&
8able 1( 8he >u%arat Assembly /lection ,esults in 2((1
5total seats: 1&26........................................................................................................................?(
8able 11 8he >u%arat Assembly /lection ,esults in 2((2
5total seats: 1&26........................................................................................................................?(
8able 12 8he >u%arat Assembly /lection ,esults in 122&
5total seats: 1&26........................................................................................................................?(
8able 13 8he >u%arat Assembly /lection ,esults in 1225
5total seats: 1&26........................................................................................................................?(
8able 17 8he >u%arat Assembly /lection ,esults in 122(
5total seats: 1&26........................................................................................................................?(
8able 15 8he >u%arat Assembly /lection ,esults in 12&5
5total seats: 1&26........................................................................................................................?1
8able 1? 8he >u%arat Assembly /lection ,esults in 12&(
5total seats: 1&26........................................................................................................................?1
8able 11 /##ective number o# 'arties in @rissa........................................................................?2
8able 1& ,esults o# the 2((7 @rissa Assembly /lection..........................................................?3
8able 12 ,esults o# the 2((( @rissa Assembly /lection..........................................................?3
8able 2( ,esults o# the 1225 @rissa Assembly /lection..........................................................?7
8able 21 ,esults o# the 122( @rissa Assembly /lection..........................................................?7
8able 22 ,esults o# the 12&5 @rissa Assembly /lection..........................................................?7
8able 23 /##ective number o# 'arties in 4ttar 3radesh.............................................................??
8able 27 ,esults o# the 2((1 4ttar 3radesh Assembly /lection..............................................?1
8able 25 ,esults o# the 2((2 4ttar 3radesh Assembly /lection..............................................?&
8able 2? ,esults o# the 122? 4ttar 3radesh Assembly /lection..............................................?&
8able 21 ,esults o# the 1223 4ttar 3radesh Assembly /lection..............................................?2
8able 2& ,esults o# the 1221 4ttar 3radesh Assembly /lection..............................................?2
8able 22 ,esults o# the 12&2 4ttar 3radesh Assembly /lection..............................................?2
8able 3( ,esults o# the 12&5 4ttar 3radesh Assembly /lection..............................................1(
8able 31 ,esults o# the 12&( 4ttar 3radesh Assembly /lection..............................................1(
8able 32 /##ective number o# 'arties in Aerala........................................................................12
8able 33 ,esults o# the 2((? Aerala Assembly /lection.........................................................13
8able 37 ,esults o# the 2((1 Aerala Assembly /lection.........................................................13
8able 35 ,esults o# the 122? Aerala Assembly /lection.........................................................17
8able 3? ,esults o# the 1221 Aerala Assembly /lection.........................................................15
8able 31 ,esults o# the 12&1 Aerala Assembly /lection.........................................................15
8able 3& ,esults o# the 12&2 Aerala Assembly /lection.........................................................1?
8able 32 ,esults o# the 12&( Aerala Assembly /lection.........................................................1?
8able 7( /##ective number o# 'arties in ,a%asthan...................................................................1&
22
8able 71 ,esults o# the 2((3 ,a%asthan Assembly /lection....................................................12
8able 72 ,esults o# the 122& ,a%asthan Assembly /lection....................................................12
8able 73 ,esults o# the 1223 ,a%asthan Assembly /lection....................................................&(
8able 77 ,esults o# the 12&5 ,a%asthan Assembly /lection....................................................&(
8able 75 ,esults o# the 12&( ,a%asthan Assembly /lection....................................................&(
8able 7? /##ective number o# 'arties in "aharashtra..............................................................&2
8able 71 ,esults o# the 2((7 "aharashtra Assembly /lection................................................&3
8able 7& ,esults o# the 1222 "aharashtra Assembly /lection................................................&3
8able 72 ,esults o# the 1225 "aharashtra Assembly /lection................................................&7
8able 5( ,esults o# the 122( "aharashtra Assembly /lection................................................&7
8able 51 ,esults o# the 12&5 "aharashtra Assembly /lection................................................&5
8able 52 ,esults o# the 12&( "aharashtra Assembly /lection................................................&5
8able 53 /##ective number o# 'arties in :ihar..........................................................................&?
8able 57 ,esults o# the 2((5 :ihar Assembly /lection...........................................................&1
8able 55 ,esults o# the 2((( :ihar Assembly /lection...........................................................&&
8able 5? ,esults o# the 1225 :ihar Assembly /lection...........................................................&&
8able 51 ,esults o# the 122( :ihar Assembly /lection...........................................................&2
8able 5& ,esults o# the 12&5 :ihar Assembly /lection...........................................................&2
8able 52 ,esults o# the 12&( :ihar Assembly /lection...........................................................2(
1((
&ist of 2igures
Bigure 1 8he theoretical relationshi' between 'arty com'etition and a stateGs res'onse to
antiminority 'olarization and violence 5/9H3 P e##ective number o# 'arties6........................15
Bigure 2 8erritorial election results #or the o+ )abha election in 2((7..................................73
Bigure 3 8he modi#ied *il+inson-s hy'othesis o# relationshi' between 'arty com'etition and
a stateGs res'onse to anti.minority 'olarization and violence....................................................21
1(1
&ist of Diagrams
Diagram 1 )u''ort #or main 'olitical 'arties in 122? election according to religion..............2?
Diagram 2 )u''ort #or main 'olitical 'arties in 122& election according to religion..............21
Diagram 3 Communal Hiolence and ,iots in 125(.1225 and 2((1.2((& ...............................55
Diagram 7 8otal deaths 'er year in communal violence< >u%arat............................................51
Diagram 5 8otal deaths 'er year in communal violence< @rissa..............................................?2
Diagram ? 8otal deaths 'er year in communal violence< 4ttar 3radesh..................................??
Diagram 1 8otal deaths 'er year in communal violence< Aerala..............................................12
Diagram & 8otal deaths 'er year in communal violence< ,a%asthan.........................................1&
Diagram 2 8otal deaths 'er year in communal violence< "aharashtra....................................&2
Diagram 1( 8otal deaths 'er year in communal violence< :ihar.............................................&?
1(2
&ist of Abbreviation
AI"I" 0 All India "a%lis.e.Ittehadul "uslimen
AH 0 alternative vote
:;D 0 :i%u ;anata Dal
:;3 0 :haratiya ;anata 3arty
:)3 0 :ahu%an )ama% 3arty
C3I 0 Communist 3arty o# India
C3I 5"6 0 Communist 3aty o# India 5"6
D"A 0 Dravida "unnetra Aazhagam
/9H3 0 e##ective number o# 'arties
B383 0 #irst 'ast the 'ost electoral system
I9C 0 Indian 9ational Congress
;D546 0 ;anata Dal 546
B 0 e#t Bront
;9)3 0 o+ ;an )ha+ti 3arty
"3 0 "ember o# 3arliament
9 0 /##ective number o# 'arties in assembly
9C" 0 9ational Commission #or "inorities
9C3 0 9ationalist Congress 3arty
9DA 0 9ational Democratic Alliance
9!,C 0 9ational !uman ,ights Commission
@:Cs 0 @ther :ac+ward Classes
3, 0 'ro'ortional re'resentation
,;D 0 ,ashtriya ;anata Dal
)AD 0 )hiromani A+ali Dal
)C 0 )chedule Caste
)!) 0 )hivsena
)3 0 )ama%wadi 3arty
)8 0 )chedule 8ribe
)8H 0 single trans#erable vote
43A 0 4nited 3rogressive Alliance
4)A 0 4nited )tates o# America
4)CI,B 0 4nited )tates Commission on International ,eligious Breedom
1(3
Appendi! 1 Political map of India Union States and Territories

)ource: 9aps of -n%ia
1(7
Appendi! ) 4 -tructure of Indian population
*ercentage distribution of population by religious communities India 1 1>=1 to )::1
Census
5without e$cluding Assam and ;WA6
)ource: Cens"s of -n%ia 2001
Decadal growth rates of religious communities$ India 4 1>=1 to )::1 Census
5without e$cluding Assam and ;WA6
)ource: Cens"s of -n%ia 2001
*ercentage of population by religious communities and their residence$ India 1 )::1
)ource: Cens"s of -n%ia 2001
1(5
*opulation by religious communities and residence$ India 1 )::1
)ource: Cens"s of -n%ia 2001
&iteracy rate #*ersons% by religious communities and residence$ India1 )::1
)ource: Cens"s of -n%ia 2001
1(?