Analytical Study on Formation of Government and Importance of Coalition Government in Indian Politics

INTRODUCTION

Parliamentary democracies in India, be that as it may, contrast generally in the institutional subtleties recommending how governments are framed and how they end. A 1rst distinction, for instance, concerns whether the administration needs a real vote by parliament to legally assume office (the purported "investiture vote"), or whether it can just assume office through appointment by the head of state (e.g., a monarch or a president). A second distinction concerns whether the legislature can just be voted out of office through a no-confidence vote by the parliament, or whether it should be supplanted by an alternative government (the purported "constructive vote of no-confidence"). A third distinction concerns whether in a bicameral legislature the administration is responsible to just a single chamber, or whether it is responsible to the two chambers (the alleged "double duty"). Both constitutional researchers and reformers have contended that these institutional subtleties may effectsly affect the sort and quality of governments that structure. For instance, the German constitutional tradition made the constructive vote of no-confidence with the unequivocal plan of forestalling unsteady governments. To accomplish a similar objective, Belgium in 1995 amended its constitution to eliminate the investiture vote, adopt the constructive vote of no-confidence, and evacuate the administration's obligation to the upper chamber. In spite of more than 40 years of research in political science, nonetheless, it remains largely an open inquiry whether these instincts are sound and how extraordinary foundations influence the sort and stability of governments. One reason for this deficiency is that a significant number of these arguments depend on counter real (for instance, "Italian governments would have been increasingly steady without double obligation" or "Germany would have encountered greater minority governments without the constructive vote of no-confidence"), which are famously difficult to assess experimentally. The Lokpal Bill hosts uncovered the innerside of gathering politics in India. Amid the winter session the Lokpal and Lokayukta Bill was presented in the Lok Sabha. For the presentation of the Bill there was noticeable weight of the 'Anna Team' and the 'Quick Politics' hosted chose the get-together and general conclusion in the nation. Anna's interest was for a solid Jan Lokpal to establish out debasement in the diverse layers of the decision making framework. After delayed talk between the Standing Committee and the Anna Team the Lokpal issue turned into the most warmed and despised discussion. The Congress leadership of the UPA bunch needed a constitutional status for Lokpal for which correction of the Constitution was a necessity. The Bill likewise had a component for the organization of Lokayukta for the states, over which the coalition nature of the Indian politics discovered its bitterest outburst in both the debates held in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. The Trinamul Congress of UPA and BJD were most critical over the Indian Parliament's endeavor to subvert the federal parity in the Constitutuion. The Congress leadership took safe house under the provision accessible in the Legislative relation among Union

talked about under some other provision which was a slow move to put the Indian Federalism and Coalition Politics Prof. Surya Narayan Misra Congress into a humiliating circumstance for not passing the Lokpal Bill. The politics crossed every one of its points of confinement in Rajya Sabha and the unavoidable occurred. For the sake of Federal structure, standard and parity the coalition politics in the nation overlooked a wide range of Constitutional standards and decencies. In this foundation it has turned out to be necessary to have a crisp take a gander at the structure, nature and compulsions of the Indian federal framework. The structural characteristics for the most part normal to federations are - (a) Two requests of government each acting directly on their natives, (b) A formal Constitutional dissemination of administrative and official specialist and allotment of income assets between the requests of government guaranteeing a few regions of certified self-sufficiency for one another, (c) provision for designated representation of particular local perspectives inside the federal arrangement making establishments, more often than not given by a federal second chamber made out of representatives of the Units, (d) A Supreme Written Constitution where federal provisions are to be amended by the assent of both (critical extent of Constituent Units), (e) an Umpire (Supreme Court) to control on interpretation or valid application of the constitution; and (f) processes and organizations to facilitate between state relations. The Indian federal framework, in contrast to other real federations, is tilted towards the Union, due to the way that primacy and matchless quality was vested in the Union. This prompted the statement by couple of commentators that there is "Unionized federation" in India. The dissemination of powers between the Union and States are undemocratically done as the Union is given more load in the plan of things. The Central request is more obvious than the State picture. The provisions relating to the appointment of Governor, the revision of the Constitution, the draconian law like imposition of President's Rule in the States, the CRP, CISF and BSF matters and other monetary provisions are unfederal in nature.

Coalition is the dexterous execution of a tight-rope adjusting, including bargain between at least two removed or even opposite angles. The central factor might be the adjustments developing out of the bargaining procedure. Since each accomplice needs to take more for itself and offer less to the next accomplices in the coalition, the midway found parties are at preference in coalition bargaining. It might hypothetically be contended that bigger parties possess better bargaining power in view of their appreciate a disproportionately bigger share in the game plans. The leading party in the ruling coalition is regularly compelled to part with its most loved decision to satisfy the littler parties. What's more, a portion of the last like the AIADMK in the 1998 BJP drove government, the Trinamul Congress in the 1999 BJP drove government, or like the Muslim League and the Kerala Congress parties in Kerala which are set up for a brinkmanship diversion remove bigger pieces. Among the advantages that the parties battle for are incorporated not just the ministerial portfolios, yet participation of advisory groups, enrollment of delegations and anything that flaunts a higher status or predominance. In the present system of game plans at the inside, the BJP is at a disadvantage when compared to alternate accomplices of the coalition. Out of the eleven panel Chairmen of the Lok Sabha the BJP has just a single while the Congress(I), the leading party of the resistance, has two. What's more, out of six Rajya Sabha Committees, the BJP has two Chairmen and the Congress(I) two parliamentary delegations, the minor accomplices get more than proportionate number of representatives. It might likewise be noticed that in the seating plans of the Lok Sabha, the BJP does not have a proportionate number of seats in the first line of the chamber. It is in some cases observed that two political parties representing the same social divisions or having the same ideological roots may think that its increasingly difficult to shape a collusion or coalition than for two parties representing distinctive social bases. But it is similarly well said that similar parties, that is, parties having the same back ground or rationality are probably going to mix more effectively than parties with contrasting foundation or logic. The two arguments hold great, albeit obviously contradictory, however the achievement of coalition making relies upon the nature of bargaining conditions. What's more, when the coalition has been produced, the social cleavages and ideological closeness don't make a difference.

In this said phase called by Rajni Kothari as ―One Party Dominance System‖ or ―The Congress System‖. Since freedom, in any case, individual and internal politics have come to dominate the internal undertakings of the State Congress. As indicated by Paul R. Metal, "partial conflicts inside the Congress Party are great to the point that the State Government is in a state of loss of motion since practically any governmental activity is probably going to disturb the equalization of power among the gathering groups. Factionalism, absence of duty, and a low level of devotion overrun Congress politics in U.P." Differences

Congress in 1948 was one. This finished the ideological conflict in U.P. Congress politics. Another was the election of P. Tandon as the President of Indian National Congress encouraged another political emergency. "He was the image in his home state (U.P.) and in the nation of Hindi and Hindu culture, of Hindi revivalism that opposed to secularism. The resignation of Tandon under strain and the supposition of the seat by Jawaharlal Nehru in 1951 had noteworthy effect on the Congress in U.P." 10 Gradually without any issues left for significance in the U.P politics. Congress began revolving around factional commonwealths. Since 1955, the Congress Party has revolved around a struggle to pick up or control the workplace of Chief Minister by ruling the gathering association in the internal politics of U.P. This period incorporates the formation and Communist-drove governments contrary to the gathering in power in the Center in the State of Kerala. There were two essential perspectives, of the primary CPI-drove service in free India. As a matter of first importance the taking of power by the C.P.I. in any piece of India through the appointive process was unequivocally opposed to the Congress Party and the Central Government. Indeed, even Nehru, the boss of parliamentary democracy, was unhappy to feel that an Indian state ought to have chosen a CPI-drove government to power. This implied both the association of the Congress Party at the national dimension and the Central Government controlled by that party had excessively keen on cutting down the Kerala CPI-drove Government at the soonest conceivable opportunity. In the Communist Party National Council Meeting in 1958, the Council adopted a resolution seeing the strategies and techniques for the Congress against the Communist Ministry in Kerala as a challenge to every healthy standard of public life and to the fate of Indian democracy. It was said in the Congress Working Committee's resolution on Kerala "the risk in Kerala isn't only the directly of a non-Congress Government to exist and capacity, yet the very fundamentals of democracy and democratic organizations are challenged. By their activities, the Congress heads have put the Constitution to an extreme strain. The best damage to the Constitution and to, democracy is being caused by the expressions and demonstrations of pioneers of the Congress Party and Central Government which add up to instigation of authorities in Kerala against the State Government or generally dampen them. Another genuine expectation was with respect to C.P.I. to present the change measures of an extensive impact so as to accomplish certain targets to which the Congress Party had got into the propensities for investing in accomplish the aftereffect of rapidly polarizing politics in the state of Kerala. This implied all the reactionary and counter revolutionary forces would proclaimed: The gathering currently goes for the substitution of the present enemy of democratic and hostile to famous administration of individuals' democracy made based on a coalition of democratic and against feudal and hostile to radical forces in the nation.

The facts previously demonstrated that Congress had been decreased to a minority in 1967, in U.P. it was as yet the largest party in the Assembly and out of 425 seats the Congress Party won 195 seats in the 1967 elections. As no gathering got majority, there was no option yet to frame a coalition government. To shape a United Front government the opposition parties combined and elected Ram Chandra Vikal as their pioneer. Be that as it may, with the help of a couple of defectors C.B. Gupta shaped a Congress Government. The administration was toppled when Charan Singh and his group deserted to the opposition after just 18 days. Charan Singh turned into the Chief Minister. The President rule was forced when he surrendered in 1968. In Kerala the climate on the eve of Fourth General Elections was not good for the Congress. A.K. Gopalan in a statement at Delhi said that C.P.I.(M) was prepared to shape an alliance with any gathering to end Congress monopoly. In Kerala a United Front government was forged. E.M.S. Nampoodiripad turned into the Chief Minister of the seven party United Front. The Marxists heads of the United Front were attempting to focus public consideration on the supposed disregard by the Center of the advancement of the State. They apply weight on the Central Government to redefine Center-State relationship in the changed circumstance. The formation of the coalition services driven by Congress just as non-Congress parties was the fundamental issue of this phase. Primary objective of non-Congress parties was to remove the Congress from power by any way. This phase was portrayed by the period of discontinuity and instability in which political parties and gatherings joined together or digressed every now and again. The primary point of this period was accomplishing or holding political power. Amid this period Regional Parties articulated the neighborhood issues to prepare the general population of their own areas. Significantly prior D.M.K. in Tamil Nadu, Muslim Conference in Jammu and Kashmi, Akali Dal in Punjab and so on wound up active. After the separation of uni-party rule in 1967 these parties challenged the Congress Party. In Tamil Nadu D.M.K. came to power followed by Akali Dal's electoral success in 1969 mid-term surveys, in Kerala Muslim League and Jan Sangh in U.P. gained success.

portrayed by charismatic leadership. Opposition parties were profoundly influenced and power of the Prime Minister was incredibly amplified. These influenced the working of the Indian Federation. Congress parties in the states have frequently left the decision 'of the Chief Minister and to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and furthermore to Rajiv Gandhi. In this period decisions with respect to states were taken in New Delhi and there was noteworthy breakdown of the federal structure. Result of election result Since 1970s gave Indira Gandhi a significant triumph. She changed gathering job and hierarchical structure and it formed into an amazingly centralized gathering. The organizations of social and casual federalism inside the Congress destroyed and statea turned out to be increasingly dependent upon the central Congress higher authority. Under the leadership of Rajiv Gandhi, Chief Ministers were nominated in New Delhi and after that they elected consistently by the Congress (I) in the State administrative parties. State-Congress (I) Chiefs are being supplanted by Congress High Command. Ramakrishna Hedge, previous Karnataka Chief Minister stated that Concerning the ruling party it remains a praetorian gatekeeper of a solitary person. Its program mirrors his evolving impulses. The Congress (I) simply does not exist as a political gathering. Boss Ministers are nominated in New Delhi. Of what benefit are the constitutional provisions for federalism if the ruling state party itself is held in bondage by the centre?

The first non-Congress government driven by the Janata Party (1977-80) was denoted the Coalition analyze at the Center. The persistent struggles made by the opposition parties host made to frame the Janata gathering to pull down the Congress from power. Amid the crisis (1975-77), certain opposition parties baffled by the tyranny of the Congress, chose to battle the following general elections under a typical pennant to from an alternative to the Congress. Jayaprakash Narayan who gave good leadership to Indian politics around then initiated to from new political outfit as 'Janata Party‟ by, the Congress (0), the Jan Sangh, the Socialist Party and the Bharatiya Lok Dal to attempt the challenge against Congress. Morarji Desai needed to advance the improvement of balance federalism. The Janata government was making more prominent uncertainty for the Chief Ministers. There were huge defections to the Janata Party in Tripura, Gujarat, Sikkim, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh; the legislatures in Goa and Mizoram surrendered. Clearly it couldn't control the fallout effects of its electoral victory on state governments, nor would it be able to keep away from the effects of the Congress split (1978). In 1977 the Janata government expelled nine Congress-ruled state gatherings (West Bengal, Orissa, Madhya benefits of Janata electoral force. The argument of Janata government was that the congregations had lost the confidence of the general population; really it was an unmistakable instance of the factional utilization of Presidential rule.

Gathering coalitions in India dependably attempt to grow their base by attracting a greater number of parties than required for keeping them receptacle power. That is, at the end of the day expansive estimated coalitions involve fascination in the Indian circumstance. Following the tradition of the Indian National Congress in pleasing an extensive number of gatherings and interests, the gathering coalitions will in general make themselves Mahaucoaltions for winning the largest number of seats for themselves and decrease the opposition to nil so the ruling coalition‘s appear to be a consistent hunt to pick and swallow from the opposition. At the Center, an administration can work effectively just in the event that it is assured of two third majorities to make constitutional revisions conceivable. At the State level even a base majority can bolster the administration in power and make it effective. Albeit least winning coalitions are material to State Governments, and not to the Central Government, the general tendency is to suit extensive estimated coalitions in the States moreover. This is a trademark intelligent of the political culture of the nation. Parties contemplate the outcomes of their participation as respects the anticipated elections to Parliament or local elections to the State Assembly just as about different reactions in State politics. Furthermore, in the event that they discover the compensation offs from immediate power lesser than the dormant pay offs in store for them; they naturally want to remain off from immediate power. This has been the policy of TDP and Trinamul Congress towards the NDA government. Anyway TDP was set up to have an insignificant participation by accepting the Speakership of Lok Sabha. This policy may result additionally from other secret considerations of the gathering chief, for example, stifling the development of rival individuals in the gathering by obstructing their entrance into power positions. This further makes them don't hesitate to pronounce their autonomy of the routine at slight equivocations. The political culture-coalitional politics linkage in the Indian circumstance is obvious from the perceptions made in the above pages. What might be known as the Indian political culture is a composite of heterogencous, State based political societies further broadened by ethno driven variables and developmental phases. The coalitional setup is a political power

one gathering dominance and Marxian change of frame of mind towards parliamentary palliative. However, the normal cultural elements may contribute to the emergence of stable political arrangement. In many States of the nation, if not is all.

Burke respected the constitution. Jones (1967:341) cites Burke as saying 'our constitution remains on a decent equipoise with soak cliffs and deep waters upon all sides of it. In removing it from a dangerous inclining towards one side, there might be a danger of oversetting it on the other.' He was valuing that a constitution can never be the most ideal yet was against changing the constitution. Burke was stressed over the danger of 'oversetting' the constitution on the opposite side. This has been apparent particularly in the constitution making process in India. The ZANU-PF party was increasingly keen on preserving it as it was while the MDC-T, MDC-M and most affable gatherings pushed constitution making process. Jones (1967:360) argues that Burke admonished about this, 'We may see some "crying malevolence" in existing conditions and want to take care of business. What we don't see is that any fundamental change in this single appreciation will have repercussions, for example, mutually dependant nature of the world-up and down the line.' In India's constitution making process the new issues moved toward becoming obstacles leading to a lengthy, difficult experience of pull of war in the constitution making process. The issue of homosexuality, devolution of powers, and running mate among others stood up as the staying points in the constitution. Burke was worried about the possibility that that changing the constitution will prompt a few furthest points coming in. Because of the drive towards democracy, more prominent resistance and winds of globalization, 'unIndian' issues sneaked their way into the proposed Indian constitution. This will prompt an intense change of the constitution as well as. Thusly these adventures of the coalition governments with parties established on various ideologies lead to the dangers that Burke predicted. The danger is real accordingly coalition governments turned into a 'major no' to Burke. Jones (1967:341) expresses Burke's in this citation: 'Each task of a material change in a legislature so complicated as our own, joined at the same time with outside circumstances still progressively complicated as our own, is an issue loaded with difficulties: in which a chivalrous man won't be too prepared to even think about deciding; a judicious man too prepared to even consider undertaking; or a legit man too prepared to even think about promising.' Thus these obstacles in the constitution making process wound up imminent in light of these entanglements.

Burke adored the constitution. Jones (1967:341) cites Burke as saying 'our constitution remains on a pleasant equipoise with soak slopes and deep waters upon all sides of it. In removing it from a dangerous leaning towards one side, there might be a danger of oversetting it on the other.' He was valuing that a constitution can never be the most ideal however was against changing the constitution. Burke was stressed over the danger of 'oversetting' the constitution on the opposite side. This has been evident particularly in the constitution making process in India. The ZANU-PF party was progressively keen on preserving it as it was while the MDC-T, MDC-M and most thoughtful gatherings pushed for the democratization of the constitution. New issues that were already unfathomable in the history of India wound up topical during in the constitution making process. Jones (1967:360) argues that Burke admonished

change in this single appreciation will have repercussions, for example, mutually dependant nature of the world-up and down the line.' In India's constitution making process the new issues progressed toward becoming obstacles leading to a lengthy, difficult experience of pull of war in the constitution making process. The issue of homosexuality, devolution of powers, and running mate among others stood up as the staying points in the constitution. Burke was anxious about the possibility that that changing the constitution will lead to a few extremities coming in. Because of the drive towards democracy, more prominent resistance and winds of globalization, 'unIndian' issues sneaked their way into the proposed Indian constitution. This will lead to an extraordinary charge of the constitution as well as. All things considered these endeavors of the coalition governments with parties established on various ideologies lead to the dangers that Burke predicted. The danger is real subsequently coalition governments turned into a 'major no' to Burke. Jones (1967:341) expresses Burke's in this citation: 'Each task of a material change in an administration so complicated as our own, joined at the same time with outside circumstances still progressively complicated as our own, is an issue loaded with difficulties: in which an accommodating man won't be too prepared to even think about deciding; a reasonable man too prepared to even think about undertaking; or a fair man too prepared to even think about promising.' Thus these obstacles in the constitution making process ended up imminent as a result of these inconveniences.

Coalition involves a dedication with respect to the political parties concerned to execute a realistic normal program, nonetheless, much ideologically at shafts they are Partners ought to concur on a typical minimum program of activity, the implementation of which turns into the objective of sharing power. This involves ideological compromises with respect to radical and fundamentalist parties. Now and again rightist and radical parties meet up to slow down a shared adversary. Or then again it might be a coalition of secularists and communalists of even of Marxists and enemies of marxists. In either case there must develop a typical projects for positive activity. The negative objective of pulling down a legislature or keeping a gathering from coming to power can't prevail with regards to achieving a coalition. At the point when 'similarly invested parties‟ or parties with comparative ideological objectives make a coalitions, the making of a typical program might not have genuine difficulties. Major problems happen when ideologically enraptured parties are compelled to cooperate. The basic minimum program ends up a typical declaration for all parties that join the coalition. It can't be the (CMP) manifests compromise and the minimum that the accomplices concur upon. With the end goal of obliging the ideologically removed parties, numerous ideological or 'fundamentalist‟ penances should be made by the leading parties. Long standing coalitions will perceive the importance of CMPs and set them up adequately right on time to confront the elections. Hastily fixed up coalitions frequently make hotch-potch assentions, without deep comprehension between them, to produce a typical program like the National Agenda of the UF of 1996 or of the BJP-drove coalition of 1998. As indicated by Ajay K. Mehra, the Dave Gowda government had built up a CMP which was put together not just with respect to the declarations of the coalition accomplices, yet additionally incorporated the political plan of those parties which had not taken an interest in the government. The CMP was just a wide statement of approaches to manage India‟s problems. The BJP-drove coalition of 1998 elections thought of surrounding a CMP after the elections and set-up a drafting board of trustees with George Fernandez as convener for the purpose. The document, called the National Agenda and arranged by Govindacharya, a General Secretary of the BJP, under direct contributions from Vajpayee, Advani and Fernandez, looked to avoid the countries of encounter and introduce a time of national compromise and consensus. The BJP detected the growing comes back from seeming moderate and obliging. In a solitary part constituency various gathering system, little parties are not ready to attain power by themselves and in this way they endeavor to hook on to greater gathering for the reason. In a solitary part constituency system especially, little parties neglect to grow past their pockets of influence and their appeal is limited to their vote banks. In this way, so as to expand their range of authority or power they host to align with different gatherings. At the same time each gathering is constrained by alternate parties from growing into the zones of the last mentioned. Hence coalition gives an opportunity for growth just as the it put points of confinement to growth. One gathering may attempt to break the points of confinement by empowering parts in different parties and debilitating them. Internal parts decimate the parties themselves over the long haul, yet the split groups are suited for the time without destroying the coalition. The internal split of a coalition party, notwithstanding when advanced by other coalition accomplices, might be dealt with apparently as an internal matter of the gathering concerned. The tendency to suit split group‘s help the littler parties flourish in a coalition at the expense of the parent

In the general elections to the Lok Sabha in 1996 there was a multi-cornered contest, with no strongly fabricated alliance on the national scene. The BJP had a similarity to an alliance with three minor parties; the Congress (I) nearly fought only it; and the National Front and the Left Front couldn't concede to a Third Front. The result was a divided Parliament with none having the capacity to frame its very own administration. The BJP being the largest party was given an opportunity however they couldn't master enough help. The post election efforts brought the NF and the LF together to shape a United Front and state claim to frame a legislature with the outside help of the Congress (I). This United Front driven by Deve Gowda comprising of thirteen parties was a post election coalition framed briefly to keep the BJP out of power. The UF-Congress (I) collaboration couldn't last past one 18 months as there was no normal enthusiasm among them, and they before long fell as under. In the following, Lok Sabha elections of 1998, the BJP alliance had expanded, its base to incorporate sixteen parties, a large portion of them area based. The UF comprising of thirteen parties while in power lost its union and had no acknowledged leader. The Congress(I) was as yet hesitant about a national dimension alliance, yet was a bit revived attributable to the "Sonia factor", Comparatively, the BJP-drove alliance was more strongly joined together and more locally based than the other two, and the election results demonstrated the same. The BJP was resolved to proceed with the alliance, with necessary modifications, regardless of internal inconsistencies. The National Democratic Alliance was forged sufficiently ahead of schedule to plan for the electoral confrontations in 1999. It is evident that in the present vortex of political relations in India coalitions are unavoidable.

In Indian political system, coalition politics involves fact. Today every native of Indian will undoubtedly acknowledge that period of coalition politics has now completely unfolded. All the National parties are currently completely realized the fact that none of them can separately get a majority in any event sooner rather than later. India's mom political gathering Congress which is in power at center almost 40 years likewise now completely mindful of the fact that they have to frame a type of coalition group to involve the power at the center and states. The most recent couple of decades we are seen that how the hung parliaments move toward becoming as lasting component of the largest democracy with enduring impact. Our approach can be stretched out in various directions went for investigating the European square, are currently confronting these issues. A portion of the "more seasoned" democracies, as for instance Belgium, Italy and Sweden, have additionally as of late explored different avenues regarding changes in their constitution. Besides, the process of European uni1cation may lead to the formation of an "European state" whose constitution probably would draw from the existing constitutions of its part states. These considerations feature the importance of developing a sound framework to evaluate and decipher the impact of constitutional analyses.

1. W.H. Morris (1974). Jones - The Government and Politics of India. 2. Surjit Mansingh (1984). India's Search for Power. 3. Diermeier, D., Merlo, A. (2000). Government turnover in parliamentary democracies. Journal of Economic Theory 94, pp. 46–79. 4. Baron, D.P., Diermeier, D. (2011). Elections, governments, and parliaments in proportional representation systems. Quarterly Journal of Economics 116, pp. 933–967. 5. Laver, M., Shepsle, K. (1990). Coalitions and cabinet government. American Political Science Review 84, pp. 873–890. 6. King, G., Alt, J., Burns, N., Laver, M., 1990. A uni1ed model of cabinet dissolution in parliamentary democracies. American Journal of Political Science 34, pp. 846–871. 7. ICJ (2013). ‗Coalition Governments Anathema to Democracy.‘ Available on http://www.theIndiaan.co.uk/humanrights/16501/coalition-governments-aanathema-to-democracy-icj.html Accessed 17/01/13 8. Boucher, D. & Kelly P. (Ed) (2009). Political Thinkers: From Socrates to the Present. (2nd Ed). New York: Oxford University Press. 9. ―The Cabinet system in a Coalition Situation‖, in Subhash C, Kashyap (ed.), Coalition Government and Politics in India (New Delhi, 1997), p. 98.

11. Anthony Downs (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy, Harper Row (New York, 1957), p. 28. 12. Akhtar Majeed (2000). ―Coalitions as Power Sharing Arrangements‖, in Akhtar Majeed (ed.), Coalition Politics and power sharing, Manak (New Delhi, 2000), p.7. 13. D. Sunder Ram (ed.) (2000). Coalition Poltices in India NPH (Jaipur, 2000), pp. 253-54. 14. The Statement of Policy of C.P.I. ,Bombay, November, 1950. 15. Indian Express, Bangalore, 30 November 1987.

Sunflower Public School, Nandganj, Ghazipur, UP