1. (d) Assassination of Indira Gandhi — 31 October 1984
2. (b) Formation of the Janata Dal — 1988
3. (a) Implementation of the recommendation of the Mandal Commission — August 1990
4. (e) Formation of NDA government — 1998 (re-elected 1999)
5. (f) Formation of the UPA government — 2004
6. (c) Supreme Court judgment on Ram Janmabhoomi — 9 November 2019

• (a) Politics of Consensus → (iv) Agreement on Economic policies — the broad consensus on the LPG reforms.
• (b) Caste-based parties → (ii) Rise of OBCs — SP, RJD, JD(U), BSP grew on this base.
• (c) Personal Law and Gender Justice → (i) Shah Bano case — 1985 SC ruling and the 1986 Act.
• (d) Growing strength of Regional parties → (iii) Coalition government — DMK, TDP, BJD, AGP made every coalition.

Arguments supporting the statement: (i) In 1989, the BJP and the Left — diametrically opposite ideologically — both supported the National Front to keep Congress out; (ii) In 1996, the Congress and the Left supported a non-Congress government to keep the BJP out; (iii) Most parties of the NDA did not agree with the BJP's Hindutva ideology, yet they shared power for a full term; (iv) Pragmatic considerations of power-sharing have replaced strict ideological alignment.

Arguments against the statement: (i) The Left did not formally join the UPA Cabinet in 2004 because of ideological differences over privatisation; it withdrew support in 2008 over the Indo-US nuclear deal — ideology mattered. (ii) The BJP's Hindutva framework remains the cement of NDA partner choice. (iii) Ideologically opposed parties have rarely formed stable governments, suggesting ideology still defines durable alliances.

Conclusion: Pragmatism dominates short-term coalition arithmetic, but ideology still defines which alliances last and which collapse.

1. 1977 — Bharatiya Jana Sangh merges with the Janata Party after the Emergency, briefly coming to power.
2. 1980 — Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) founded from former Jana Sangh supporters; embraces 'Gandhian Socialism' along with cultural nationalism.
3. 1984 — Two Lok Sabha seats only; the Indira Gandhi sympathy wave swept the Congress.
4. 1986 onwards — Hindutva mobilisation: nationalism placed at the core of ideology; Shah Bano (1985) and Ayodhya become political catalysts.
5. 1989 — 85 seats; supports V. P. Singh's National Front from outside.
6. 1990 — L. K. Advani's Rath Yatra from Somnath to Ayodhya consolidates the Hindutva vote.
7. 1991 — 120 seats; 1996 — 161 seats, single largest party but Vajpayee falls in 13 days.
8. 1998 — NDA-I; 1999–2004 NDA-II completes a full term; Pokhran II (1998), Kargil (1999).
9. 2014 — 282 seats, single-party majority under Modi — first since 1984; 2019 — 303 seats.

1. It still rules — directly or in coalition. Congress was the lead party of the UPA government from 2004 to 2014 (Manmohan Singh PM); P. V. Narasimha Rao led a Congress government from 1991 to 1996. Even after 1989, Congress ruled the country longer than any other single party.
2. Outside support has been decisive. Congress supported the Chandrashekhar government (1990–91) and the United Front (1996–98), and was supported by the Left Front in UPA-I.
3. Vote share remains substantial. Congress polled close to or more than 20 per cent of the national vote even in losses, providing the BJP with a real electoral pole.
4. It set the policy template. The LPG reforms of 1991, MGNREGA 2005, RTI 2005, RTE 2009, Aadhaar 2010 — were all Congress-led legislation that subsequent governments continue.

Introduction: India's experience since 1989 shows that a multi-party system, far from undermining democracy, has produced 35 years of competitive politics in one of the most diverse societies on earth.

Advantage 1 — Representation of diversity: A country of 28 states and many languages, castes and communities is poorly served by only two parties. Multi-party coalitions like NDA-II (1999–2004) and UPA-I (2004–09) included partners from Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Maharashtra and the North-East.

Advantage 2 — Built-in checks: Coalitions force compromise. The Common Minimum Programme (CMP) tradition that began with the United Front of 1996 institutionalised this discipline.

Advantage 3 — Federal balance: Regional parties at the Centre give States real bargaining power, strengthening Indian federalism.

Advantage 4 — Innovation: MGNREGA, RTI, GST, Aadhaar — major reforms — were enacted by coalition governments, not single-party ones.

Caveat: The system also produces instability when discipline fails (V. P. Singh 1990, Vajpayee 1996, Deve Gowda 1997).

Conclusion: Indian experience suggests that a robust multi-party system with two large coalitions is better suited to a continental democracy than a strict two-party model.

(a) The challenges: Zoya Hasan identifies three challenges: (i) the self-destruction of the Congress system — Congress fell from 415 seats in 1984 to 197 in 1989; (ii) the fragmentation of the Congress coalition into many smaller social groups demanding self-representation (OBCs, Dalits, regional voices); (iii) the resulting capacity question — whether the new party system can hold diverse interests together.

(b) Example of failure of accommodation: The 1990 Mandal protests show what happens when accommodation breaks down — V. P. Singh's announcement of 27 per cent OBC reservation triggered violent anti-Mandal agitations because the system had not built consensus before the announcement. Another example is the Babri demolition of 6 December 1992 — failure to negotiate a political settlement before it.

(c) Why accommodation matters: Indian society is diverse along caste, religion, region, language, and class lines. A democracy that excludes any of these voices either pushes them outside democratic channels (insurgency) or into single-issue movements that fragment governance. Parties that accommodate and aggregate convert raw grievance into negotiated policy — turning conflict into law-making.