— Dileep P Chandran 

(The Indian Express has launched a new series of articles for UPSC aspirants written by seasoned writers and erudite scholars on issues and concepts spanning History, Polity, International Relations, Art, Culture and Heritage, Environment, Geography, Science and Technology, and so on. Read and reflect with subject experts and boost your chance of cracking the much-coveted UPSC CSE. In the following article, Dr. Dileep P Chandran analyses the rise of regional political parties on India’s political landscape alongside the dynamic nature of the country’s federal structure.)

Regionalism in India that primarily emerges from the diversity of the country manifests itself through demand for preserving cultural identity, political and administrative autonomy, and economic development. The regional aspirations have the potential for both divisive and uniting impacts on the fabric of centre-state relations in India. 

The newly elected Jammu and Kashmir Assembly passed a resolution on 6 November, urging the Union government to initiate dialogue with the Union Territory’s elected representatives for the restoration of special status. Does the Constitution of India provide the flexibility to accommodate the concerns of federal units? It can be better explained by taking into account the rise of regional political parties on India’s political landscape and the dynamic nature of India’s federal structure. 

Although regional parties existed in India since independence, they largely remained dormant in electoral politics because of the dominance of the Indian National Congress (INC). The 1967 General Election marked a turning point as states began veering away from the one-party system or the ‘Congress system’. The shift gave momentum to state politics and elevated the role of regional political parties. However, given India’s heterogeneity, this was not a surprising development and rather reflected the country’s diverse social and political landscape. 

The rise of regional political parties became evident with the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) of Tamil Nadu capturing power in 1967, marking the first instance of a regional party successfully challenging the Congress’s dominance at the state level. The growing electoral influence of parties like Akali Dal in Punjab, Bangla Congress in West Bengal, and Bharatiya Kranti Dal in Uttar Pradesh reinforced this trend.

After the 1971 General Election, parties such as Shiv Sena in Maharashtra and Socialist parties in Bihar emerged as powerful regional forces.  Despite their declared national goals, most of these political parties were labeled as ‘chauvinistic’ for prioritising regional interests. 

There were several factors that contributed to the rise of regional political parties in post-independent India, including growing regional consciousness, the democratic federal polity, uneven development, linguistic reorganisation of states, caste-based political mobilisation, the “sons of the soil” movement, and ethnic differences. 

The paradigm shift in the party system from one party to the multiparty system coincided with the growing significance of regional parties in electoral politics. Political scientist Paul Brass argued that most of the national parties are regional parties spread over a few states. Hence, he called the party system in India an ‘unstable fragmented multiparty system’. 

For instance, some scholars consider national parties like CPI(M) as ‘cross-regional parties’ because such parties have a presence in multiple states but don’t identify with specific regional cultures, languages, religions, etc. 

State assembly elections in the 1980s elevated the electoral presence and influence of regional parties. These parties which became coalition partners of national parties started to determine the electoral agenda and negotiated to adjust national politics with regional aspirations. The recent Lok Sabha election also proved that no single party can secure a majority without the support of regional parties. 

Even national parties have to address regional political dynamics for electoral gains at the national level. Hence, representation and attention to local issues by national parties blur the boundary between national and local issues in electoral politics in India.

It is often observed that electoral victories of national parties usually centralise power, while regional parties tend to work towards decentralisation of power in national politics. However, the experiences of federal functioning do not offer a simplistic picture of the nuanced interplay between regional party growth and centre-state relations.

The rise of regional parties loosened the constitutional framework in which federalism leaned towards a powerful centre. This shift marked a tilt in the balance of power between the centre and the states, oscillating across different phases. 

Following the defeat of the INC in some states in the 1967 elections, central dominance started to weaken and tensions arose between the centre and states. However, the 1970s saw a reversal, with power consolidating at the centre, culminating in the declaration of the national emergency in 1975 under Article 352. 

In 1983, four Chief Ministers of southern states formed a council of southern Chief Ministers. They demanded changes in the Constitution and equitable distribution of financial resources. A conclave of nine opposition parties at Suraj Kund urged for the restoration of cooperative federalism. All these factors led the central government to constitute the Sarkaria Commission. 

The loosening of India’s centralised federal structure helped to address economic disparities across regions and other local issues. Coalition politics facilitated political inclusiveness, allowing regional parties to represent their constituencies effectively at the national level.

However, the post-economic reform period witnessed competition among states for attracting foreign direct investments, further widening the existing income and consumption gap between states. This disparity led to grievances among rich states as they began resenting their disproportionate contributions to central assistance for underdeveloped states, often labelling it as ‘reverse discrimination’. 

In order to review the working of centre-state relations in the changing socio-economic context, the central government constituted the Sarkaria Commission, chaired by Justice R S Sarkaria (B Sivaraman and S R Sen were other members) in 1983. The commission submitted its report in 1988 and made 247 recommendations.

Among its most important recommendations was the establishment of a standing Inter-State Council under Article 263 of the Constitution to facilitate coordination of relations between the centre and states. The commission also underlined the significance of cooperative federalism and non-partisan governors. 

In 2007, the Union Government appointed the second commission on centre-state relations under the chairmanship of Madan Mohan Punchhi, along with four other members. The Punchhi Commission submitted its report in 2010 and made 273 recommendations.

It recommended the creation of a national integration council, amendments to state emergency provisions (Articles 355 and 356), non-partisan appointment of governors, and consultation with states before legislating on matters in the Concurrent List. However, opposition parties have questioned successive governments for delaying the report’s implementation.  

Some of the recent initiatives by the central government have contributed to rebuilding trust between the Union and state governments. For example, the extension of the GST compensation cess until March 2026 is one of the recent positive gestures in centre-state relations. The organisational structure of NITI Aayog provides a deliberative platform for states, strengthening the ideals of both cooperative and competitive federalism in India.

In addition, federal constitutional mechanisms for accommodating regional aspirations work as safety valves to accommodate regional aspirations and prevent tensions. The legislative framework for the pandemic response also signified the responsible role of the centre during an emergency.  

Some regional parties, especially those in power in states have voiced concerns about discrimination and limitations on state autonomy. Such issues often influence their mode of political mobilisation both at the state and national levels. For instance, ruling parties at the state and central levels accuse each other of delays in welfare service delivery or development projects.

Moreover, issues such as tensions between the office of the Governor and state governments, central legislation on matters in the Concurrent List, and delays in the allocation of disaster relief funds to states etc. exacerbate the trust deficit in centre-state relations. 

To sum up, it can be said that regionalism in India is a multi-dimensional phenomenon, and has the potential for both strengthening centre-state relations and challenging national unity.

How did the shift to a multiparty system impact governance in India after the 1967 elections?

What challenges and opportunities arose from the emergence of regional parties in India’s political system?

What was the primary objective of the Sarkaria Commission in reviewing centre-state relations? What were the main recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission?

In what ways do federal mechanisms help prevent tensions between the centre and regional units?

(Dileep P Chandran is an Assistant Professor at the department of Political Science in University of Calicut, Kerala.)

Share your thoughts and ideas on UPSC Special articles with ashiya.parveen@indianexpress.com.

Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week.

Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.