THERE has been a marked upswing in research on state politics in India since 1990. This generous attention is not surprising given the far reaching political and economic transformation that has taken place. The emergence of a more competitive multiparty system and the important role that state-based parties have consequently played in federal coalitions, along with economic liberalization which boosted the role of state governments, has clearly thrown the spotlight on the states. There have been two valuable reviews of research in state politics which covered the period till the penultimate decade of the last century (Kumar 1981; Pai 1989). This essay essentially takes off from the last study, but limits its focus specifically to comparative studies.

Comparative politics as a discipline is distinguishable by both its ‘substance’, i.e. the study of states (in the context of India) and their specificities and its ‘method’, i.e. the use of standard rules and conventions of analysis when making sense of similarities and differences (Mair 1996, 310-11). Based on the blend of ‘substance’ and ‘method’, three traditions of comparative state politics research can be identified in India.

The first is, what for classificatory purposes can be called traditional studies (Narain 1967; Weiner 1968; Wood 1984; Frankel and Rao 1989). Characteristically descriptive, these are not strictly in the comparative (method) mould. The focus is primarily on individual states and the earliest studies in fact provide in-depth coverage of the history and politics of particular states. However, in these studies when comparison is attempted, it is usually by way of an introductory framework and/or a concluding summing up chapter. The single-state chapters in the study may attempt to address issues in the introduction but rarely talk to each other. More contemporary studies (Hansen and Jaffrelot 1998; Jaffrelot and Kumar 2009; Shastri, Suri and Yadav 2009), though different, follow a similar pattern. While findings from individual state chapters may allow for cross-state comparison, the studies themselves were not designed to be analytically comparative.

Though the traditional school may today appear ‘outmoded’ (Jenkins 2004, 4), it nevertheless provides the building blocks of the discipline. Descriptive studies or ‘case studies’ are the first step towards building a theoretical framework (Pai 1989, 102-3). The specific nature of these studies, therefore, must not lead us to underestimate their utility. For instance, Suri (2006) using insights from single-state studies of farmer suicides, not only points to significant similarities between states that have reported a higher numbers of suicides, but also attempts to explain the current state of agrarian distress in the country.

 

The second tradition of comparative state politics is the quantitative comparativists’ school, where ‘method’ has an edge. These studies, usually in the form of large-N type research, are aimed at establishing probabilistic relationships between variables using statistical techniques. As the federal system allows for controlled comparisons, this school has used India to test theories, models and explanations that are at times developed in other contexts. There is an attempt to cover as many states as possible and a typical study might include at least 14 to 15 states. This school of research is dominated by economists or at least those trained in economics. Consequently, for a particularly large number of studies, the political is often only an explanatory variable.

Some of themes that have been studied relate to explaining variation in fiscal policies and discipline (Khemani 2003, 2004, 2007a, 2007b; Chaudhari and Dasgupta 2006), in public policy, services and goods (Keefer and Khemani 2004; Chhibber and Nooruddin 2004; Ayyangar and Jacob 2008), and in government expenditure (Chhibber 1995; Sáez and Sinha 2010). The political variables identified as explanatory variables include among others, electoral cycles, electoral competition, margin of victory, party centralization, party ideology, party systems and locus of control of policy-making.

 

Though quantitative studies attempting to explain the political are fewer in number, they have nevertheless provided crucial insights on different aspects of Indian politics. It must be added that in this stream of comparative state politics there has been a genuine conversation among scholars which has allowed for accumulation of knowledge. This is a refreshing development given the general non-cumulative nature of studies in Indian politics.

A series of formulations and reformulations can be discerned in the research on state politics in the 1990s. Chhibber and Nooruddin (1999) found that increasing competitiveness in the 1990s was a result of the emergence of two-party competition and not because of greater mobilization of voters. In another study, Nooruddin and Chhibber (2008) discounted both the mobilization (Yadav 1999, 2000) and polarization thesis (Heath 2005) and argued that the availability of fiscal space was a better explanatory variable for electoral volatility in the states. They found that when governments had resources to meet voter expectations, incumbent governments were likely to be voted back.

 

Barring a few, most of the research where the political is the dependent variable, draws on survey research. Yogendra Yadav’s (1999, 2000) much cited ‘democratic upsurge’ thesis was the result of a comparative exercise in both time and space of participation levels in states. State comparisons have also enabled a mapping of the social profile of the support base for the two main parties, the Congress and the BJP in the post-Congress polity. Heath and Yadav’s (1999) study of Congress voters showed that the party’s support base varied from state to state depending on who its competitor was. Heath (1999) presented a ‘step-down’ hypothesis to explain variation in the support base of the BJP. While the upper caste remained its core support base in primary support states, it extended to OBC’s in secondary support states and further to Scheduled Castes and Muslims in tertiary states.

A study by Chhibber, Shastri and Sisson (2004) highlighted the importance of state level governments in India. They found that citizens give primary importance to state governments, followed by the local and finally the central government when it comes to assigning responsibility for the provision of public goods. Their other findings highlighted the potential of the 73rd and 74th amendments and the limited availability of associational life in India.

In their ‘derivative choice’ formulation, Yadav and Palshikar (2009a, 2009b) further asserted the primacy of the ‘state level’. According to them, political choices at the national level are primarily derived from the ‘competitive format, electoral cycle, political agenda, participatory pattern and social cleavages defined in state politics.’ Comparing voter perceptions across states, Chhibber (2009) in his study of the 2009 national elections nuances this formulation. He found that though ideas about the state government continued to effect votes, there are national elements, like the importance of the central government, as well as reflections on its performance which influence political preferences of the voter at the national level.

Within the large-N type research, besides economic and National Election Study (NES) data-sets, other types of data have also been used for comparison. Clots-Figueras (2005), for instance, uses panel data for the period between 1967-1999 to examine the impact of higher female representation in state legislatures on public goods, policy and expenditure. Kishore and Gupta (2004) have used data from the National Family Health Survey (NFHS) to map women’s empowerment in 26 states.

 

The availability of reliable and systematic data is crucial for quantitative comparison. The dominance of political economy here is probably because economic as compared to political and social information is systematically collected by various agencies and bodies, including those of the government at various levels. Surveys are an expensive proposition and often beyond the ken of an individual researcher. Fortunately, the formation of Lokniti in 1996 revived the lost tradition of empirical studies of elections. The collective has over the last decade and half systematically studied elections and built up an impressive data base.¹ Many of the findings discussed above have come from this collection. Yet, while electoral politics data exists and has been used extensively, data on issues like legislative business, government formation, ministry composition and so on is hard to come by. Wilkinson (2009, 589) rightly observes that reconstructing such data would require ‘massive amount of effort’. Consequently, some of the very interesting aspects of routine politics are not even researched, forget being subjected to comparative analysis.

 

Qualitative comparativists form the third tradition of comparative state politics research. Unlike the data-set dependent quantitative school, this stream relies primarily on fieldwork as well as observational data. The studies are, however, designed to be analytically comparative, thus distinguishing them from the traditional school. We can differentiate between two streams of qualitative comparative state politics enquiry. One stream is acutely conscious of issues like research design, the rules and procedures of comparative research and the levels of analysis and explanation. Like the quantitative comparativists, this method-conscious stream also attempts to provide causal explanations. The other stream of qualitative comparison is the classical strand which is not as concerned with method. The qualitative comparison tradition can, therefore, rightly claim to be the first cousin to both the traditional as well quantitative comparativists’ school.

Atul Kohli was a pioneer in the ‘methodologically minded’ (Schmitter 2009, 35) tradition of qualitative comparative state politics in India in more ways than one. Kohli (1987, 3-14) not merely recognized the potential for sub-national comparisons within India, but demonstrated effectively that explaining variations at the state level could provide clues to unravelling puzzles. Second, he also discusses the choice of cases at different levels including states, districts, blocks and villages. At the same time he also boldly states the limitations of his choice and approach.

Over the years, besides Kohli (1989), other scholars who have travelled on the same path include Varshney (2003), Sinha (2005), Mitra (2006), Desai (2007) and Chandra (2007). The method-conscious tradition has been particularly useful in constructing concepts that are useful for comparative analysis in the context of India. Some of these include, regime types (Kohli 1987), inter- and intra-communal engagement (Varshney 2003), polycentric hierarchy (Sinha 2005), rational protest (Mitra 1991), and governability/governance (Kohli 1989; Mitra 2006).

 

The classical stream, though analytically comparative, does not emphasize the methodological element. More contemporary studies, however, implicitly acknowledge the advantages of a more in-depth engagement with the subject of study. Manor (2000, 2004a, 2004b, 2007, 2010) has often used comparison as a tool to make sense of different aspects of Indian politics. Sridharan’s (2003) comparison of the coalition strategies of different parties across states showed how the BJP was able to expand and consolidate itself. Similarly examining the Congress victory in 2004, Sridharan (2004) found that state level electoral coalitions played an important role. Pai (2004) has compared the mobilization strategies of the BSP and the Congress in two states, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh on the issue of what she calls the ‘Dalit question’. In a subsequent work, which is implicitly comparative, Pai (2010) studies the role of the Congress Party in Madhya Pradesh in more detail. Palshikar’s (2006) study of caste through the prism of region compares similarities and differences in the role played by different caste clusters across regions. Despite not being methodologically fixated, these studies have not only given us fascinating results but have also thrown up valuable hypotheses for further research.

 

It must, however, be noted that not all qualitative comparison research is based on fieldwork. Older studies in classical stream like the study of coalition politics in states by Brass (1968), comparison of defections across states by Kashyap (1970) and the study of President’s Rule and chief minister selection by Dua (1979, 1985) were based on inferences from large amounts of data collected around specific themes. Such themes seem to have fallen out of favour in contemporary research, probably because of the ‘effort’ involved in data collection.

Pai (1989, 102) in her review had lamented that earlier empirical studies on elections had not been followed up in the 1980s. The formation of Lokniti reversed this trend and the study of state politics through elections has now become one of the most happening areas of inquiry within Indian political science. An examination of themes in comparative state politics reveals that electoral politics has by and large received greater attention (Nigam and Yadav 1999; Roy and Wallace 1999, 2007; Wallace and Roy 2003; Shastri, Suri and Yadav, 2009; Lefebvre and Robin 2009). Other areas that have been studied include political parties and party systems (Yadav and Palshikar 2003; Kumar 2004; Heath 2005); leadership (Banerjee 2004), governance (Kohli 1989; Corbridge, Williams, Srivastava and Véron 2005; Mitra 2006), ethnic nationalism (Kohli 1997), caste (Varshney 2000; Jaffrelot 2000; Chandra 2007; Pai 2004; Palshikar 2006), local government (Heller 2001; Ghosh and Kumar 2003; Kumar 2006), communal riots and violence (Varshney 2003, Wilkinson 2004), and economic policies and liberalization (Jenkins 1999; Sinha 2005; Manor 2004b, 2006).

Ever since state politics became an object of systematic inquiry there have been regular attempts to develop a theoretical framework to study state politics and also draw up the contours for future research (Narain 1967; Weiner 1968; Rai and Pandey 1979; Wood 1980; Pai 1989; Harris 1999; Yadav and Palshikar 2008). Besides this, typologies of particular themes have also been developed – these include party systems (Yadav and Palshikar 2003; Palshikar 2004; Jaffrelot and Kumar 2009) and assembly elections (Yadav and Palshikar 2009b).

 

There have also been significant innovations in the study of comparative state politics in the last two decades. The Jenkins (2004) collection was a novel attempt at two-state comparison within a single nation state. Each contributor compared two states on one of the four identified themes. Palshikar and Deshpande (2009) modified the two-state comparison model wherein the comparison was between two states, but Maharashtra was constant in all comparisons. When the ‘axis of comparison changed from one theme to another’, the state compared also changed. This approach gives due regard to the strength of the traditional comparative enquiry, which had emphasized on in-depth knowledge of the history, language and culture of the state being studied. At the same time, it opens up a window of opportunity for the students of single-state politics to ‘graduate to comparative state politics.’ Kumar (2011) uses the concept of ‘regions within regions’ as a tool for comparison, with regions within regions being interpreted quite broadly to include both regions within a single state as well as regions within the nation state.

 

The varieties of comparative state politics research in India are clearly an indicator of a lively discipline. This development is undoubtedly because of the emergence of states both as important players as well as sites of political activity. However, most of such research is by scholars based or trained abroad. Students of state politics based in India have yet to adopt the theoretical advancements and methodological sophistication of comparative politics. A reorientation of both the substance and method of the subject of comparative politics in our curriculum may not only remove this imbalance but also encourage richer contributions from India based students (Yadav 2010). On a more positive note, we must acknowledge the steady accumulation of knowledge in the last two decades which has enabled comparative state politics to occupy a distinct place.

 

Footnote:

1. For more details regarding the holdings of the CSDS-Lokniti data archive see <http://www.lokniti.org/dataunit_data_archive.htm>

 

References:

Ayyangar, Srikrishna and Suraj Jacob. 2008. ‘Does Party Centralization Affect Public Policy? Evidence from Indian States’, Paper presented at the Annual APSA 2008 Meeting, Hynes Convention Center, Boston, Massachusetts, August 28, 2008. <http://www. allacademic.com/meta/p278611_index.html> (accessed 10, March 2011).

Brass, Paul R. 1968. ‘Coalition Politics in North India’, American Political Science Review 62(4):1174-1191.

Chandra, Kanchan. 2007. Why Ethnic Parties Succeed: Patronage and Ethnic Head Counts in India. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Chaudhuri, Kausik, and Sugato Dasgupta. 2006. ‘The Political Determinants of Fiscal Policies in the States of India: An Empirical Investigation’, Journal of Development Studies 42(4): 640-61.

Chhibber, Pradeep, and Irfan Nooruddin. 1999. Party Competition and Fragmentation in Indian Elections: 1957-1998. In Ramshray Roy and Paul Wallace (eds.), Indian Politics and the 1998 Election: Regionalism, Hindutva and State Politics. Sage, New Delhi, 36-54.

Chhibber, Pradeep, and Irfan Nooruddin. 2004. ‘Do Party Systems Count? The Number of Parties and Government Performance in the Indian States’, Comparative Political Studies 37(2):152-187.

Chhibber, Pradeep, Sandeep Shastri and Richard Sisson. 2004. ‘Federal Arrangements and the Provision of Public Goods in India’, Asian Survey 44(3): 339-52.

Chhibber, Pradeep. 1995. ‘Political Parties, Electoral Competition, Government Expenditures and Economic Reform in India’, Journal of Development Studies 32(1): 74-96.

Chhibber, Pradeep. 2009. ‘Are National Elections Any More Than Aggregations of State-Level Verdicts?’ Economic and Political Weekly 44(39): 58-63.

Clots-Figueras, Irma. 2005. Women in Politics: Evidence From the Indian States. PEPP, Suntory and Toyota Centre, London. <http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/19294/1/Women_in_ Politics_Evidence_from_the_Indian_states.pdf> (accessed March 10, 2011).

Corbridge, Stuart, Glyn Williams, Manoj Srivastava and Réne Véron. 2005. Seeing the State: Governance and Governmentality in India. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Dua, Bhagwan D. 1979. ‘Presidential Rule in India: A Study in Crisis Politics’, Asian Survey 19(6): 611-626.

Dua, Bhagwan D. 1985. ‘Federalism or Patrimonialism: The Making and Unmaking of Chief Ministers in India’, Asian Survey 25(8): 793-804.

Ghosh, Buddhadeb and Girish Kumar. 2003. State Politics and Panchayats in India. Manohar, New Delhi.

Hansen, Thomas Blom and Christophe Jaffrelot. 1998. The BJP and the Compulsions of Politics in India. Oxford University Press, Delhi.

Frankel, Francine R., and M. S. A. Rao. 1989. Dominance and State Power in Modern India: Decline of a Social Order. Oxford University Press, Delhi.

Harris, John. 1999. ‘Comparing Political Regimes Across Indian States: A Preliminary Essay’, Economic and Political Weekly 34(48): 3367-77.

Heath, Anthony. 1999. ‘Anatomy of BJP’s Rise to Power: Social, Regional and Political Expansion in 1990s’, Economic and Political Weekly 34(34/35): 2511-2517.

Heath, Anthony and Yogendra Yadav. 1999. ‘The United Colours of Congress: Social Profile of Congress Voters, 1996 and 1998’, Economic and Political Weekly 34(34/35): 2518-28.

Heath, Oliver. 2005. ‘Party Systems, Political Cleavages, and Electoral Volatility in India: A State-Wise Analysis, 1998-1999, Electoral Studies 24: 177-99.

Heller, Patrick. 2001. ‘Moving the State: The Politics of Democratic Decentralization in Kerala, South Africa, and Porto Alegre’, Politics and Society 29(1): 131-163.

Jaffrelot, Christophe. 2000. ‘The Rise of the Other Backward Classes in the Hindi Belt’, Journal of Asian Studies 59(1): 86-108.

Jenkins, Rob. 1999. Democratic Politics and Economic Reform in India. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Jenkins, Rob. (ed.) 2004. Regional Reflections: Comparing Politics Across India’s States. Oxford University Press, New Delhi.

Kashyap, Subhash C. 1970. ‘The Politics of Defection: The Changing Contours of the Political Power Structure in State Politics in India’, Asian Survey 10(3):195-208.

Keefer, Philip and Stuti Khemani. 2004. ‘Why do the Poor Receive Poor Services?’ Economic and Political Weekly 39(9): 935-43.

Khemani, Stuti. 2003. Partisan Politics and Intergovernmental Transfers in India. Policy Research Working Paper No. 3016, Development Research Group, The World Bank, <http://elibrary.worldbank.org/content/workingpaper/10.1596/1813-9450-3016> (accessed 1 March 2011)

Khemani, Stuti. 2004. ‘Political Cycles in a Developing Economy: Effect of Elections in the Indian States’, Journal of Development Economics 73(1): 125-154.

Khemani, Stuti. 2007a. ‘Does Delegation of Fiscal Policy to an Independent Agency Make a Difference? Evidence From Inter-governmental Transfers in India’, Journal of Development Economics 82(2): March, 464-484.

Khemani, Stuti. 2007b. Party Politics and Fiscal Discipline in a Federation: Evidence from the States of India’, Comparative Political Studies 40(6): June, 691-712.

Kishor, Sunita and Kamla Gupta. 2004. ‘Women’s Empowerment in India and Its States: Evidence from the NFHS’, Economic and Political Weekly 39(7): 694-712.

Kohli, Atul. 1987. The State and Poverty in India: The Politics of Reform. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kohli, Atul. 1989. Democracy and Discontent: India’s Growing Crisis of Governability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kohli, Atul. 1997. ‘Can Democracies Accommodate Ethnic Nationalism? Rise and Decline of Self-determination Movements in India’, Journal of Asian Studies 56(2): 325-44.

Kumar, Ashutosh. 2011. Rethinking State Politics in India: Regions Within Regions. Routledge, New Delhi.

Kumar, Girish. 2006. Local Government in India: Interpreting Decentralization. Sage, New Delhi.

Kumar, Sanjay. 2004. Janata Regionalized: Contrasting Bases of Electoral Support in Bihar and Orissa. In Rob Jenkins (ed.), Regional Reflections: Comparing Politics Across India’s States. Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 111-138.

Kumar, Sushil. 1981. State Politics: A Trend Report. In Survey of Research in Political Science: Political Process. vol. 2, ICSSR project. 93-110. Allied Publishers, New Delhi.

Lefebvre, Bertrand and Cyril Robin. 2009. ‘Pre-electoral Coalitions, Party System and Electoral Geography: A Decade of General Elections in India (1999–2009)’, South Asia Multidisciplinary Academic Journal [Online]3 <http://samaj.revues.org/index2795.html>, (accessed 10, March 2011).

Mair, Peter. 1996. Comparative Politics: An Overview. In R.E. Goodin and H.D. Klingemann (eds.), A New Handbook of Political Science. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 309-335.

Manor, James. 2000. ‘Towel Over Armpit: Small Time Political Fixers in India’s States’, Asian Survey 40(5): 816-35.

Manor, James. 2004a. ‘User Committees: A Potentially Damaging Second Wave of Decentralization?, European Journal of Development Research 16(1):192-213.

Manor, James. 2004b. Explaining Political Trajectories in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. In Rob Jenkins (ed.), Regional Reflections: Comparing Politics Across India’s States. Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 255-284.

Manor, James. 2007. ‘Successful Governance Reforms in Two Indian States: Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh’, Commonwealth and Comparative Politics 45 (4): 425-451.

Manor, James. 2010. ‘What Do They Know of India Who Only India Know? The Uses of Comparative Politics’, Commonwealth and Comparative Politics 48(4): 505-16.

Mitra, Subrata. 1991. ‘Room to Maneuver in the Middle: Local Elites, Political Action, and the State in India’, World Politics 43(3): 390-413.

Mitra, Subrata. 2006. The Puzzle of India’s Governance: Culture, Context and Comparative Theory. Routledge, London.

Narain, Iqbal. (ed). 1967. State Politics in India. Meenakshi Prakashan, Jaipur.

Nigam, Aditya and Yogendra Yadav. 1999. ‘Electoral Politics in Indian States, 1989-99’, Economic and Political Weekly, 34(34/35): 2391-92.

Pai, Sudha. 1989. ‘Towards a Theoretical Framework for the Study of State Politics in India: Some Observations’, Indian Journal of Political Science 50(1): 94-109.

Pai, Sudha. 2004. ‘Dalit Question and Political Response: Comparative Study of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh’, Economic and Political Weekly 39(11): 1141-1150.

Pai, Sudha. 2010. Developmental State and the Dalit Question in Madhya Pradesh: Congress Response. Routledge, New Delhi.

Palshikar, Suhas. 2004. ‘Revisiting State Level Parties’, Economic and Political Weekly 39(14/15): 1477-79.

Palshikar, Suhas. 2006. Caste Politics through the Prism of Region. In Rajendra Vora and Anne Feldhaus (eds.), Region, Culture and Politics in India. Manohar, New Delhi, 278-91.

Palshikar, Suhas and Rajeshwari Deshpande. 2009. ‘Redefining State Politics in India: Shift towards Comparisons’. < http://www. lokniti.org/newsletter/theme_note.pdf> (accessed 1 March 2011).

Roy, Ramashray and Paul Wallace. (eds.) 1999. Indian Politics and the 1998 Election: Regionalism, Hindutva, and State Politics. Sage, New Delhi.

Roy, Ramashray and Paul Wallace. (eds.) 2007. India’s 2004 Elections: Grassroots and National Perspectives. Sage, New Delhi.

Sáez, Lawrence and Aseema Sinha. 2010. ‘Political Cycles, Political Institutions and Public Expenditure in India, 1980-2000’, British Journal of Political Science 40(1): 91-113.

Schmitter, Philippe C. 2009. ‘The Nature and Future of Comparative Politics’, European Political Science Review 1(1): 33-61.

Shastri, Sandeep, K.C. Suri and Yogendra Yadav. (eds.) 2009. Electoral Politics in Indian States: Lok Sabha Elections in 2004 and Beyond. Oxford University Press, New Delhi.

Sinha, Aseema. 2004. ‘Ideas, Interests and Institutions in Policy Change: A Comparison of West Bengal and Gujarat. In Rob Jenkins (ed.), Regional Reflections: Comparing Politics Across India’s States. Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 66-108.

Sinha, Aseema. 2005. The Regional Roots of Developmental Politics in India: A Divided Leviathan. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Ind. [u.a.].

Sridharan, E. 2003. ‘Coalitions and Party Strategies in India’s Parliamentary Federation’, Publius 33(4): 135-152.

Sridharan, E. 2004. ‘Electoral Coalitions in 2004 General Elections: Theory and Evidence’, Economic and Political Weekly, 39(51):5418-5425.

Stuart, Corbridge, Glyn Williams, Manoj Srivastava and René Véron. 2005. Seeing the State: Governance and Governmentality in India. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Suri, K.C. 2006. ‘Political Economy of Agrarian Distress’, Economic and Political Weekly. 41(16): 1523-1529.

Varshney, Ashutosh. 2000. ‘Is India Becoming More Democratic?’, Journal of Asian Studies 59(1): 3-25.

Varshney, Ashutosh. 2002. Ethnic Conflict and Civic Life: Hindus and Muslims in India. Yale University Press, New Haven.

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

Wilkinson, Steven. 2004. Votes and Violence: Electoral Competition and Ethnic Riots in India. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Wilkinson, Steven. 2009. Data and the Study of Indian Politics. In Niraja Gopal Jayal and Pratap Bhanu Mehta (eds.), The Oxford Companion to Politics in India. Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 587-599.

Wallace, Paul and Ramashray Roy. (eds.) 2003. India’s 1999 Elections and 20th Century Politics. Sage, New Delhi.

Wood, John R. 1984. State Politics in Contemporary India: Crisis or Continuity? Westview Press, Boulder.

Yadav, Yogendra. 1999. ‘Electoral Politics in the Time of Change: India’s Third Electoral System, 1989-1999’, Economic and Political Weekly 34(34/35): 2393-99.

Yadav, Yogendra. 2000. Understanding the Second Democratic Upsurge: Trends of Bahujan Participation in Electoral Politics in the 1990s. In Francine R. Frankel et al. (eds.), Transforming India: Social and Political Dynamics of Democracy. Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 120-145.

Yadav, Yogendra, and Suhas Palshikar. 2003. From Hegemony to Convergence: Party System and Electoral Politics in the Indian States’, Journal of Indian School of Political Economy 15 (1&2): 5-45.

Yadav, Yogendra, and Suhas Palshikar. 2008. ‘Ten Theses on State Politics in India’, Seminar 591: 14-22.

Yadav, Yogendra, and Suhas Palshikar. 2009a. ‘Principal State Level Contests and Derivative National Choices: Electoral Trends in 2004-09’, Economic and Political Weekly 7: 55-62.

Yadav, Yogendra, and Suhas Palshikar. 2009b. Revisiting ‘Third Electoral System’: Mapping Electoral Trends in India, 2004-9. In Sandeep Shastri et al. (eds.), Electoral Politics in Indian States: Lok Sabha Elections in 2004 and Beyond. Oxford University Press, New Delhi: 393-429.

Yadav, Yogendra. 2010. ‘Rethinking the Curriculum of Comparative Politics’, Editorial, Lokniti Newsletter, August.

< http://www.lokniti.org/newsletter/index. htm> (accessed 10, March 2011).