The problem

IT is somewhat intriguing that despite substantial research and evidence to the contrary, most analysts continue to read the experience of Indian democracy through the prism of national political power at the Centre. While partly explicable in the early years of independent India, when a single party, the Congress, controlled both the Centre and the states, the breakdown of single party dominance has been evident since at least 1967, with different provinces and regions in the country experiencing different party configurations and seeking different paths. Even earlier, it is worth stressing that despite the presence of a galaxy of national leaders, and a shared legacy of the freedom struggle, most state level Congress parties were substantially autonomous and often reflected a conjunction of social forces and policy mix at some variance from the national party.

Today, despite a far greater integration of the national market, no one seriously contests that emerging social trends and formations in different states have irrevocably ushered in an era of coalitional politics at the Centre, with no single party in a position to come to power on its own. Given the increasing weight of state level parties in national politics, it is thus incumbent that greater analytical attention be invested in understanding state politics. To state it more sharply, more than the politics at the Centre and national issues, it is state specific concerns and leadership that will increasingly decide the fate and character of Indian democracy.

The impending elections to five state assemblies – Assam, West Bengal, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry (the results are expected in mid-May 2011) further underscore this point, not the least since the outcomes may well decide the options before the Congress-led UPA coalition at the Centre. Would, for instance, the widely expected defeat of the Left Front governments in West Bengal and Kerala, give a further boost to the economic reform programme of the UPA? Equally, how might this impact the ongoing debate on major social welfare schemes like the NREGA or enhanced food security through the public distribution system? Does another Congress victory in Assam strengthen the peace initiatives with ULFA or will it lead to escalated social tensions with groups uneasy with ULFAs support to Ahom dominance? Similarly, would the poor performance of the Congress-DMK front in Tamil Nadu force a realignment of parties at the Centre? The questions can be multiplied.

Elections provide only a small window, albeit a crucial one, to changes underway. It is thus important to go beyond the vagaries of the electoral marketplace and understand the multiple transformations marking different states to get a better grip on the Great Transformation taking place in India. We need to recognize that Indian states are quite different from each other and have often pursued different developmental trajectories with very different outcomes and implications. At one level, this is self-evident, as subcontinental economies and polities are inevitably marked by unevenness – historical, cultural, social and political. What, however, is less appreciated is that the opening up of the Indian economy in the early 1990s, often referred to as the policy of liberalization and globalization, while increasing India’s integration into the global economy simultaneously enabled different state regimes to take differential advantage of the new enabling conditions, thereby further accentuating the differences between states.

A central factor is the relative weight of different social classes and social segments in different states, deciding both the character of the regimes controlling power in different states as also the wide variations in performance, including of central schemes. We thus need to map who holds political power, their relationship with dominant economic and social groups, the choices they offer to the electorate, and finally, the degree to which the regime fulfils the minimum expectations of welfare and democracy.

How well India will handle its multiple transitions while retaining a democratic character remains an unsettled question. Unlike both the West, which made its capitalist transition before embarking on democratic reforms, and China, a single party authoritarian state, India has to meet its challenges as a democracy. It is also facing a different international environment and experiencing a profound demographic transition. At one level the high growth of the last two decades has accelerated the process of agrarian transformation and urbanization, creating opportunities for substantial poverty reduction. Simultaneously, its class character has become far more polarized with expanded opportunities differentially distributed over both space and social segments. This, alongside greater mass participation in politics, what some have called the second great democratic upsurge, has substantially increased the likelihood of social conflict.

None of the above can be understood without a deeper understanding of the dynamics of different states, the tensions they are experiencing, and the relative capacity/incapacity of regimes in power to use the enhanced opportunity for greater welfare as also democratic consolidation. This may also help us understand the resultant coalitional politics, not merely as an irritant and a roadblock as is so commonly perceived, but as presenting a new possibility of recasting the federal order.

This issue of Seminar, while focusing on the electoral-political configurations in different states, both those facing elections and others, will facilitate a better understanding of the evolving relationship between social change and political behaviour.