Challenges to and Restoration of the Congress System | CBSE Class 12 Political Science Notes

This note covers political succession after Nehru, the economic and political background to the 1967 elections, non-Congressism, coalition governments, defections, the Syndicate, the Congress split, the privy purse controversy, the 1971 election and the changing character of Congress dominance.

How did India manage political succession after Nehru?

Why did succession raise doubts about democracy?

Jawaharlal Nehru died in May 1964, after having been unwell for more than a year. The question was not simply who would become Prime Minister. Many outsiders doubted whether a newly independent India could transfer political power democratically without him.

These doubts were linked to unresolved poverty, inequality, communal tensions and regional divisions. The 1960s were described as a dangerous decade because such pressures might undermine democracy or national unity. Some outsiders feared that an unsuccessful succession could give the army a political role.

How was Lal Bahadur Shastri chosen?

K. Kamaraj, the Congress President, consulted party leaders and Congress members of Parliament. He found agreement in favour of Lal Bahadur Shastri. The Congress parliamentary party unanimously selected Shastri as its leader, enabling a peaceful change of Prime Minister.

Shastri had served for years in Nehru’s cabinet and was regarded as a non-controversial leader from Uttar Pradesh. His simplicity and commitment to principle strengthened his reputation. Earlier, he had resigned as Railway Minister, accepting moral responsibility for a major railway accident.

What challenges did Shastri face?

During his prime ministership from 1964 to 1966, India faced drought, failed monsoons and a serious food crisis while still bearing the economic consequences of the war with China. War with Pakistan in 1965 added another major challenge.

His slogan Jai Jawan Jai Kisan connected the importance of soldiers and farmers with these immediate national needs. Defence and food production were both urgent concerns, rather than separate issues without a common political context.

Shastri died suddenly in Tashkent on 11 January 1966. He had gone there to discuss and sign an agreement with Pakistan’s President Muhammad Ayub Khan to end the war. Congress therefore faced another leadership succession within two years.

How did Indira Gandhi become Prime Minister in 1966?

Who were the competing leaders?

The succession after Shastri produced a contest between Morarji Desai and Indira Gandhi. Desai had been Chief Minister of Bombay State and a minister at the Centre. Indira Gandhi had previously been Congress President and had served as Information Minister in Shastri’s government.

Senior Congress leaders backed Indira Gandhi, but agreement was not unanimous. A secret ballot among Congress members of Parliament resolved the competition. She won the support of more than two-thirds of the party’s parliamentary members and defeated Desai.

How did this differ from the earlier succession?

Both transitions contradicted predictions that India could not manage succession democratically. The second also demonstrated that a serious leadership contest need not prevent a peaceful transfer of power. Democratic maturity was visible in the way the dispute was settled.

Why was her initial position difficult?

Indira Gandhi had long been politically active but had relatively limited ministerial experience. Senior leaders may have expected this to make her dependent on their advice. Their support for her selection did not mean that they intended to surrender their organisational influence.

She also had to lead Congress into a general election soon after becoming Prime Minister. A deteriorating economy complicated the task. Establishing her leadership therefore required her to respond to national problems while gaining greater authority within her own party.

Note: Indira Gandhi’s selection in 1966 was a contest within the Congress parliamentary party. Distinguish it from the general election of 1967, when voters elected representatives to the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies.

Why did the economic and political background make 1967 a difficult election?

How did economic problems reinforce one another?

The fourth general elections took place amid a severe economic crisis. Successive monsoon failures and drought reduced agricultural production and worsened food shortages. Foreign exchange reserves declined, while industrial production and exports also fell.

Military expenditure rose sharply. Resources were diverted away from planning and economic development, adding pressure to an already strained economy. The government had to face several difficulties together, rather than an isolated shortage that could be addressed on its own.

The Indira Gandhi government also devalued the rupee, in a move perceived as responding to pressure from the United States (US). Before this, one US dollar cost less than five rupees; afterwards, it cost more than seven rupees.

Definition: In this context, rupee devaluation meant that more rupees were required to purchase one US dollar. The change described here is approximate, so these figures do not establish an exact percentage of devaluation.

How did economic hardship become political discontent?

Rising prices of essential goods, food scarcity and unemployment encouraged widespread protests. Bandhs and hartals became frequent. The government treated these largely as problems of law and order, which increased bitterness instead of addressing the grievances behind them.

Communist and socialist parties organised struggles for greater equality. The period also saw serious Hindu-Muslim riots. Economic distress, social tensions and political mobilisation together created a difficult setting for the ruling party’s election campaign.

The leadership context mattered too. Two Prime Ministers had died in quick succession, and Indira Gandhi was still establishing herself. Congress entered the election facing both popular dissatisfaction and uncertainty about its new leadership.

What was non-Congressism, and how did local politics shape electoral competition?

Why did unlike opposition parties cooperate?

Non-Congressism was the strategy of bringing opposition parties together against Congress despite differences in their ideologies and programmes. Opposition leaders recognised that divided votes helped Congress remain in power. Cooperation offered a way to challenge its dominance more effectively.

Parties formed anti-Congress fronts in some States and made arrangements to share seats in others. They also saw opportunities in Congress factionalism and Indira Gandhi’s limited experience as Prime Minister. Opposition unity thus combined electoral calculation with criticism of Congress rule.

Socialist leader Ram Manohar Lohia gave the strategy its name. He argued that Congress rule was undemocratic and worked against ordinary poor people. In his view, cooperation among non-Congress parties was necessary to reclaim democracy for the people.

This was Lohia’s political argument for opposition unity. Cooperation against a common opponent did not establish that the participating parties agreed on every policy. That difference became especially important when they later attempted to govern together.

What happened in Devisar village?

The 1967 election in Chomu constituency, Rajasthan, illustrates how local rivalries interacted with party competition. Congress and the Swatantra Party were the main contestants. In Devisar village, the established leader Sher Singh faced a challenge from his nephew Bhim Singh.

Both were Rajputs, but Bhim Singh built support among non-Rajputs by attending to their needs as panchayat Pradhan. He also developed connections with leaders in nearby villages. His political strength depended on constructing alliances beyond an inherited social following.

Bhim Singh approached Chief Minister Mohan Lal Sukhadia about a Congress candidate. After accepting Sukhadia’s preference for another candidate, he persuaded others to support that choice. He expected victory to provide access to a minister.

Sher Singh backed the Swatantra candidate, a jagirdar, presenting him as someone who could help the village school and local development. The party contest therefore also became a struggle between uncle and nephew over village influence.

Note: The Devisar example links local leadership, social alliances and access to government. It does not reduce the election to a single caste divide, because both rival leaders were Rajputs.

Why were the 1967 results described as a political earthquake?

What changed at the national level?

The fourth general elections to the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies were held in February 1967. Congress faced the electorate without Nehru for the first time. The results exposed the extent of dissatisfaction with a party long accustomed to electoral dominance.

Congress retained a Lok Sabha majority, but its seat tally and vote share were its lowest since 1952. Half the ministers in Indira Gandhi’s cabinet lost. Defeated senior leaders included Kamaraj, S. K. Patil, Atulya Ghosh and K. B. Sahay.

Why was the State-level setback more dramatic?

Congress lost its majority in seven States. In two more, defections kept it from forming a government. It lost power across nine States: Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal, Orissa, Madras and Kerala.

In Madras, now Tamil Nadu, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) secured a clear majority. It had led a major student agitation against the imposition of Hindi as the official language. In the other eight States, combinations of non-Congress parties formed coalition governments.

C. Natarajan Annadurai, who had formed the DMK as a political party in 1949, became Chief Minister of Madras in 1967. His opposition to Hindi imposition and support for greater State autonomy were important features of his politics.

Yellow identifies areas where Congress secured an Assembly majority; red identifies those where it did not. The legend separately notes that Congress lacked a majority in Rajasthan but formed a government with support from others.

Reference: NCERT Class 12, Chapter 5, p. 79

The map records electoral majorities, while the account of nine States concerns loss of power. Defections and support from other parties help explain why the two categories should not be treated as identical.

The phrase political earthquake captures the scale of the setback. It does not mean Congress immediately lost national office or that a stable nationwide replacement had already emerged. The results demonstrated that its dominance could be challenged through elections.

How did coalitions and defections reshape State governments?

How were coalition governments formed?

Where no single party could command a majority, non-Congress parties combined to support governments. They formed joint legislative groups called Samyukt Vidhayak Dal (SVD). The resulting administrations were often described as SVD governments.

In most of these coalitions, the participating parties were ideologically far apart. In Bihar, the Samyukta Socialist Party (SSP), Praja Socialist Party (PSP), Communist Party of India (CPI) and Jana Sangh cooperated. Their common opposition to Congress did not remove their differences between left and right.

Punjab’s Popular United Front included the Sant and Master groups of the Akali parties, the CPI, the Communist Party of India (Marxist), the SSP, the Republican Party and the Bharatiya Jana Sangh. This was a broad but politically diverse combination.

How did defection affect these arrangements?

Definition: Defection occurs when an elected representative leaves the party on whose symbol they won election and joins another party. It changes political allegiance after the voters have elected that representative.

After 1967, breakaway Congress legislators helped install non-Congress governments in Haryana, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. Shifting loyalties affected both the formation and the survival of governments. Most non-Congress coalition governments in the States did not last long.

When governments lost their majorities, politicians formed new combinations or President’s rule followed. Thus, defeating Congress did not automatically create an enduring alternative. The difficulty of sustaining a majority remained a separate political challenge.

What did “Aya Ram, Gaya Ram” mean?

Gaya Lal, a Haryana legislator, changed parties three times within a fortnight in 1967. He moved from Congress to the United Front, returned to Congress and then, within nine hours, went back to the United Front.

The phrase Aya Ram, Gaya Ram became associated with repeated floor-crossing. It is said that Rao Birendra Singh brought Gaya Lal to the Chandigarh press and declared that Gaya Ram was now Aya Ram. A later constitutional amendment sought to prevent defections.

Why did Indira Gandhi come into conflict with the Syndicate?

Who controlled the party organisation?

The Syndicate was an informal group of influential Congress leaders who controlled the party organisation. Led by K. Kamaraj, it included S. K. Patil, S. Nijalingappa, N. Sanjeeva Reddy and Atulya Ghosh, all with substantial regional political influence.

The group helped both Shastri and Indira Gandhi obtain the leadership. It also influenced the composition of Indira Gandhi’s first Council of Ministers and the formulation and implementation of policy. Organisational power therefore gave these leaders influence beyond their own States.

Kamaraj had earlier proposed, in 1963, that senior Congress leaders leave government office to make room for younger party workers. This became known as the Kamaraj Plan. His wider record included expanding education and introducing school mid-day meals in Madras.

How did a leadership struggle acquire an ideological dimension?

The Syndicate expected Indira Gandhi to follow its guidance. She instead began asserting her authority in the government and party, choosing trusted advisers from outside the party organisation and gradually reducing the Syndicate’s influence.

She faced two linked challenges: establishing independence from these leaders and recovering Congress support lost in 1967. A Left-oriented policy programme allowed her to present the conflict as a disagreement over social and economic priorities as well as leadership.

In May 1967, she secured the Congress Working Committee’s acceptance of a Ten Point Programme. Its measures included the following:

• Banking and insurance: social control of banks and nationalisation of general insurance.
• Property and income: ceilings on urban property and income.
• Food supply: public distribution of food grains.
• Rural reform: land reforms and house sites for the rural poor.

Syndicate leaders formally accepted the programme while retaining serious reservations. Their approval did not end the internal dispute. The conflict increasingly concerned who would direct Congress and what kind of social programme it would represent.

Note: Social control of banks in the 1967 programme and the nationalisation of fourteen leading private banks announced in 1969 belong to different stages of the policy struggle. Do not collapse them into one event.

How did the 1969 presidential election lead to the Congress split?

Why did rival presidential candidates matter?

President Zakir Hussain’s death in 1969 created a presidential vacancy. Despite Indira Gandhi’s reservations, the Syndicate secured the nomination of N. Sanjeeva Reddy, then Speaker of the Lok Sabha, as the official Congress candidate.

Indira Gandhi encouraged Vice-President V. V. Giri to contest independently. The presidential election therefore became a test of strength between the Prime Minister and the party organisation. Agreement on the party’s official nominee broke down.

At this stage, she announced the nationalisation of fourteen leading private banks and moves against the former princes’ privy purses. Morarji Desai, who was Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, disagreed seriously with her on these issues and left the government.

What was the sequence of the confrontation?

1. Official nomination: The Syndicate backed Sanjeeva Reddy as the Congress presidential candidate despite the Prime Minister’s objections.
2. Independent challenge: Indira Gandhi supported Giri’s candidature, placing her political weight behind a rival to the official nominee.
3. Party instruction: Congress President S. Nijalingappa asked Congress members of Parliament and State legislatures to vote for Reddy.
4. Conscience vote: Indira Gandhi publicly urged these representatives to vote according to their own judgement rather than follow the party instruction.
5. Electoral outcome: Giri won and Reddy lost, demonstrating the failure of the organisational leadership to secure the official candidate’s election.
6. Formal break: The Congress President expelled Indira Gandhi, while she asserted that her supporters represented the real Congress.

Nijalingappa’s expulsion letter was dated 11 November 1969. Her supporters had sought a special party meeting but were refused. Their demand helped give rise to the name Requisitionists. By November 1969, the two sides had become distinct Congress groups.

Indira Gandhi presented the split as a conflict between socialist and conservative positions, and between support for the poor and support for the rich. This was her political interpretation of a dispute that also involved control of the organisation.

Cartoon: The Left Hook (NCERT Class 12, Chapter 5, p. 83). Published after Giri’s victory, the cartoon shows the garlanded V. V. Giri raising both his gloved hands together above his head, with Indira Gandhi standing beside him. Nijalingappa is on his knees beside a bullock labelled CONGRESS. Giri’s boxing victory represents the defeat of the Syndicate-backed presidential nominee.

Why did the abolition of privy purses become a major political issue?

What were privy purses?

During the integration of the princely States, former ruling families received assurances about retaining certain private property and receiving hereditary government allowances. These allowances were called privy purses. Their size reflected the territory, revenue and potential of the State being integrated.

Initially, there was limited criticism because national integration and consolidation took priority. Hereditary privileges were inconsistent with constitutional commitments to equality and social and economic justice. Nehru repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction with them.

Why did political leaders disagree?

After the 1967 elections, Indira Gandhi supported abolishing privy purses. Morarji Desai opposed the move as morally wrong because he regarded it as breaking the assurances given to the princes. The issue therefore involved both equality and the status of earlier commitments.

It was also part of Indira Gandhi’s attempt to establish a pro-poor political identity. The dispute with Desai cannot be understood simply as a personal quarrel: they disagreed over the justification for ending these hereditary arrangements.

How did the effort proceed?

1. Political support: Indira Gandhi backed abolition after the 1967 election.
2. Parliamentary obstacle: The government’s attempted constitutional amendment in 1970 failed to pass the Rajya Sabha.
3. Judicial obstacle: The government then issued an ordinance, which the Supreme Court struck down.
4. Electoral appeal: Abolition became a prominent issue in the 1971 campaign and attracted considerable public support.
5. Constitutional change: After the government’s large electoral victory, the Constitution was amended to remove the legal obstacles to abolition.

The sequence distinguishes announcing an objective from completing the legal change. The policy was promoted before the 1971 election, but parliamentary and judicial obstacles had to be overcome. Electoral popularity alone did not remove those obstacles.

How did Indira Gandhi turn the 1971 election into a contest over poverty?

Why was an early election called?

The Congress split left Indira Gandhi’s government in a minority. It continued with issue-based support from parties including the CPI and DMK. During this period, it emphasised socialist policies, implementation of existing land reforms and further land ceiling legislation.

In December 1970, the government recommended dissolution of the Lok Sabha. Indira Gandhi sought to reduce dependence on other parties, strengthen her parliamentary position and secure popular backing for her programme. The fifth general election followed in 1971.

What was the Grand Alliance?

Congress (R) appeared vulnerable because it was a faction of a weakened party. Congress (O) was widely believed to command the older party’s organisational strength. Major non-communist opposition parties also came together in the Grand Alliance.

These parties included the SSP, PSP, Bharatiya Jana Sangh, Swatantra Party and Bharatiya Kranti Dal. Congress (R), by contrast, had an electoral alliance with the CPI. The contest was therefore not a simple division between Congress and every other party.

What did Garibi Hatao offer?

The Grand Alliance lacked a coherent common programme. Indira Gandhi characterised its shared objective as Indira Hatao, or removing Indira. Her own slogan, Garibi Hatao, or removing poverty, connected the campaign to a positive social and economic agenda.

• Public sector: expansion of its role in the economy.
• Property ceilings: limits on rural landholdings and urban property.
• Reduced inequality: action against disparities of income and opportunity.
• Princely privileges: abolition of privileges inherited by former rulers.

She sought support especially among landless labourers, Dalits, Adivasis, minorities, women and unemployed young people. The slogan and associated programme helped her attempt to build a nationwide political following independent of the old organisation.

Garibi Hatao was a political strategy and programme, not evidence that poverty had already disappeared. Its significance lay in the link it created between leadership, social disadvantage and electoral mobilisation.

What did the 1971 and 1972 election outcomes establish?

How large was the victory?

The Congress (R)-CPI alliance won 375 Lok Sabha seats and secured 48.4 per cent of the votes in 1971. Congress (R) alone won 352 seats with about 44 per cent of the popular vote. The distinction between party and alliance totals is essential.

The outcome strengthened Indira Gandhi’s claim that her party represented the real Congress. Congress (O)’s prominent leaders could not convert their organisational reputation into comparable electoral success. The Syndicate lost much of its earlier power and prestige.

How did the Bangladesh crisis affect her standing?

After the Lok Sabha election, the crisis in East Pakistan and the Indo-Pak war led to the establishment of Bangladesh. These events increased Indira Gandhi’s popularity. Even opposition leaders admired her statesmanship, strengthening her reputation as a nationalist leader.

Her party then achieved sweeping success in the State Assembly elections held in 1972. The central and State victories together restored Congress dominance. The party was again in power in almost all States and had support across different social sections.

Note: The 1971 Lok Sabha election came before the Bangladesh crisis and war. The war increased Indira Gandhi’s subsequent popularity; it should not be used as a cause of an election victory that had already occurred.

Within four years of the 1967 setback, Indira Gandhi had overcome major challenges to her leadership and her party’s dominance. The restoration was clear electorally. Whether the earlier Congress system had returned unchanged was a different question.

How did the restored Congress differ from the older Congress system?

What was restored, and what changed?

Congress dominance returned, but the organisation and its relationship with society changed. The new Congress depended entirely on Indira Gandhi’s personal popularity. Its organisational structure was somewhat weak, and it did not have many factions.

The new party’s support among disadvantaged groups was politically significant. Yet a strong social following and large electoral victories did not automatically reproduce the old organisation’s ability to reconcile differences. Electoral success and institutional accommodation need to be examined separately.

Why did tensions persist?

Indira Gandhi acquired exceptional political authority, but space for democratic expression of popular aspirations narrowed. Mobilisation over economic deprivation and development continued to grow. Winning elections had not removed the social and economic grievances that generated unrest.

The central conclusion is therefore a qualified one: Indira Gandhi restored the Congress system by changing its character. A similarly dominant electoral position rested on a different leadership structure and a different relationship between the party and its supporters.

How does the cultural example reflect public frustration?

The film Zanjeer (1973), directed by Prakash Mehra, presents Vijay, a police officer who is falsely charged while fighting gangsters. After imprisonment, he pursues revenge and continues confronting anti-social forces, receiving tacit support from others within the system.

The story portrays declining moral values, institutional indifference and intense frustration. Its angry young man figure offers a cultural expression of discontent during the period. This example helps distinguish a leader’s political popularity from the wider tensions that remained in society.

Glossary

• Political succession — The transfer of political leadership, illustrated by the selection of Prime Ministers after Nehru and Shastri.
• Congress system — Congress dominance associated with a broad party organisation capable of accommodating different groups, opinions and interests.
• Non-Congressism — Cooperation among otherwise different opposition parties to challenge Congress and reduce the disadvantage caused by divided opposition votes.
• Coalition government — A government supported by a combination of parties rather than a single party acting alone.
• Samyukt Vidhayak Dal — A joint legislative group formed by non-Congress parties to support State governments after the 1967 elections.
• Defection — The departure of an elected representative from the party on whose symbol they were elected to join another party.
• Syndicate — The informal group of influential Congress leaders controlling the organisation and expecting influence over leadership and policy.
• Conscience vote — Indira Gandhi’s appeal for Congress representatives to exercise their own judgement in the 1969 presidential election.
• Congress (O) — Congress (Organisation), the group associated with the Syndicate after the formal Congress split in 1969.
• Congress (R) — Congress (Requisitionists), the group led by Indira Gandhi that emerged from the Congress split in 1969.
• Privy purse — A hereditary government allowance assured to former princely ruling families as part of the arrangements for integration.
• Grand Alliance — The electoral combination of major non-communist opposition parties formed to challenge Indira Gandhi in the 1971 election.
• Garibi Hatao — Indira Gandhi’s poverty-removal slogan, linked to a positive programme and an attempt to build an independent nationwide following.

Common errors and misconceptions

• Misconception: Congress lost its Lok Sabha majority in 1967. Correct: It retained a reduced majority at the Centre while suffering major setbacks in the States.
• Misconception: The formal Congress split caused the 1967 election setback. Correct: Internal divisions existed earlier, but the formal split occurred in 1969.
• Misconception: The Syndicate was an opposition alliance outside Congress. Correct: It was an influential leadership group within the Congress organisation.
• Misconception: Sanjeeva Reddy was Indira Gandhi’s preferred candidate in 1969. Correct: Reddy was the official Congress nominee backed by the Syndicate; Indira Gandhi supported the independent candidate Giri.
• Misconception: All opponents of Congress (R), including the communists, joined the Grand Alliance. Correct: The Grand Alliance was non-communist, while Congress (R) allied with the CPI.
• Misconception: Congress (R) alone won 375 seats in 1971. Correct: Its own tally was 352; 375 was the Congress (R)-CPI alliance total.
• Misconception: The Bangladesh war caused Congress (R)’s 1971 Lok Sabha victory. Correct: That election preceded the war, which increased Indira Gandhi’s popularity afterwards.
• Misconception: Restoration meant a complete return to the earlier Congress organisation. Correct: Dominance returned through a party more dependent on its leader and less able to accommodate competing interests.

Exam-style questions with model answers

Q1. Define defection and distinguish it from a coalition government. [2 marks]

1. Defection occurs when an elected representative leaves the party on whose symbol they were elected and joins another party.
2. A coalition government rests on support from a combination of parties; it does not itself mean that individual legislators have changed parties.

Q2. Identify the Syndicate and state one way it influenced Indira Gandhi’s early government. [2 marks]

1. The Syndicate was an informal group of influential Congress leaders controlling the party organisation, led by K. Kamaraj.
2. It played a decisive role in the composition of Indira Gandhi’s first Council of Ministers and sought influence over government policy.

Q3. Explain four pressures that made the political situation difficult before the 1967 general elections. [4 marks]

1. Repeated monsoon failure and drought reduced agricultural production and created serious food shortages, placing everyday needs at the centre of political dissatisfaction.
2. Falling foreign exchange reserves, industrial production and exports weakened the economy, while increased military spending diverted resources from development.
3. Rising prices and unemployment encouraged protests, bandhs and hartals. Treating these mainly as law-and-order problems deepened popular bitterness.
4. Congress faced a leadership transition after the deaths of Nehru and Shastri, internal factionalism and opposition parties increasingly willing to cooperate against it.

Q4. Explain non-Congressism and give two State-level examples showing why anti-Congress coalitions could contain ideological differences. [4 marks]

1. Non-Congressism brought opposition parties together against Congress despite differences in their programmes. They believed division of their votes helped Congress retain power.
2. Ram Manohar Lohia defended this cooperation as necessary to reclaim democracy for ordinary people, arguing that Congress rule worked against their interests.
3. In Bihar, the coalition included socialist parties, the Communist Party of India and Jana Sangh, bringing left and right together.
4. In Punjab, the Popular United Front included rival Akali groups, both communist parties, socialists, the Republican Party and Bharatiya Jana Sangh. A shared opponent did not create a uniform ideology.

Q5. Explain the disagreement over privy purses and trace the obstacles to their abolition before the 1971 electoral victory. [4 marks]

1. Privy purses were hereditary government allowances assured to former princely ruling families during integration. Critics considered these privileges inconsistent with equality and social and economic justice.
2. Indira Gandhi supported abolition after 1967, while Morarji Desai regarded it as morally wrong because it broke assurances to the princes.
3. The government attempted a constitutional amendment in 1970, but it failed to pass the Rajya Sabha.
4. The government then issued an ordinance, which the Supreme Court struck down. Indira Gandhi consequently made abolition a major electoral issue in 1971.

Q6. Trace the events that turned the 1969 presidential election into a formal Congress split. [6 marks]

1. President Zakir Hussain’s death created a vacancy. The Syndicate selected N. Sanjeeva Reddy as the official Congress nominee despite Indira Gandhi’s reservations.
2. Indira Gandhi encouraged Vice-President V. V. Giri to contest independently, making the election a test of competing leadership claims within Congress.
3. Congress President S. Nijalingappa instructed Congress parliamentarians and State legislators to support Reddy. A request by Indira Gandhi’s supporters for a special party meeting was refused.
4. Indira Gandhi publicly called for a conscience vote, asking representatives to decide for themselves rather than follow the organisational leadership’s instruction.
5. Giri won and Reddy lost. Nijalingappa expelled Indira Gandhi, while she claimed that her group represented the real Congress.
6. By November 1969, the Syndicate’s group was Congress (Organisation), while her group was Congress (Requisitionists). She portrayed the division as one between conservative and socialist political priorities.

Q7. Explain how Indira Gandhi rebuilt electoral support, and why restoration did not recreate the old Congress system unchanged. [6 marks]

1. Indira Gandhi used a Left-oriented programme to establish independence from the Syndicate and recover support lost in 1967.
2. Garibi Hatao connected her leadership to poverty removal, public sector growth, property ceilings, reduced inequality and abolition of princely privileges.
3. She sought a nationwide following among disadvantaged groups, including landless labourers, Dalits, Adivasis, minorities, women and unemployed youth.
4. The 1971 Lok Sabha victory strengthened her authority. The Bangladesh war subsequently increased her popularity, followed by major State-level successes in 1972.
5. However, the restored Congress relied entirely on her personal popularity, had a somewhat weak organisation and did not have many internal factions.
6. It therefore had less capacity to accommodate competing opinions and absorb social tensions. Electoral dominance returned, but the party’s internal character and its relationship with society had changed.

Q8. In 1971, Congress (R) won 352 seats and about 44 per cent of votes. Its alliance with the CPI won 375 seats and 48.4 per cent. Congress (O) won 16 seats, while the Grand Alliance won fewer than 60. Interpret these results, distinguishing party from alliance performance and explaining their political significance. [6 marks]

1. The figure of 352 seats belongs to Congress (R) alone. Its vote share of about 44 per cent indicates substantial support for Indira Gandhi’s party.
2. The larger total of 375 seats and 48.4 per cent belongs to the Congress (R)-CPI alliance. It should not be attributed entirely to Congress (R).
3. Congress (O)’s 16 seats show that the old organisational leadership failed to match the electoral appeal of Indira Gandhi’s group.
4. The Grand Alliance’s total of fewer than 60 seats demonstrates the failure of the opposition combination to overcome the ruling party.
5. These results strengthened Congress (R)’s claim to represent the real Congress and restored its dominant national position.
6. Electoral success did not mean that the older party organisation or its capacity to accommodate conflicts had been restored.

Key takeaways

• Peaceful successions after Nehru and Shastri demonstrated India’s ability to manage leadership change through democratic political processes.
• Economic hardship, public protests, opposition cooperation and Congress factionalism combined to weaken Congress before the 1967 elections.
• Congress retained a Lok Sabha majority in 1967 while losing power across nine States through electoral setbacks and defections.
• Non-Congress coalitions brought different ideological groups together, but frequent realignments often prevented stable State governments.
• The 1969 presidential contest transformed conflict between Indira Gandhi and the Syndicate into a formal party split.
• Garibi Hatao and a programme addressing inequality helped Indira Gandhi seek an independent nationwide base among disadvantaged groups.
• The 1971 Lok Sabha victory and 1972 State-level successes restored Congress dominance and strengthened Indira Gandhi’s authority.
• The restored Congress depended more on its leader and had less capacity to accommodate diverse interests than the older Congress system.

Test yourself

How did the Congress choose Shastri after Nehru’s death?

Kamaraj consulted party leaders and Congress parliamentarians, found a consensus for Shastri, and the parliamentary party chose him unanimously.

What connected Jai Jawan Jai Kisan with Shastri’s major challenges?

The slogan linked soldiers and farmers with the country’s defence needs during war and its urgent food-production difficulties.

Why did Lohia support cooperation between ideologically different parties?

He advocated non-Congressism to overcome divided opposition votes and argued that cooperation could reclaim democracy for ordinary poor people.

What distinguishes the DMK’s 1967 victory from the other non-Congress State governments discussed here?

The DMK secured its own clear majority in Madras, while the other eight non-Congress State governments were coalitions.

Who won the presidential election that intensified the Congress split?

V. V. Giri, an independent supported by Indira Gandhi, defeated the official Congress candidate N. Sanjeeva Reddy in 1969.

Why did Indira Gandhi seek dissolution of the Lok Sabha in December 1970?

She wanted to reduce dependence on other parties, strengthen her parliamentary position and obtain popular support for her programme.

In the 1971 results, whose totals were 375 seats and 48.4 per cent of votes?

These were the combined totals for the Congress (R)-CPI alliance, rather than those of Congress (R) alone.

Why is restoration an incomplete description of the Congress after 1971?

Dominance returned, but the party became more dependent on Indira Gandhi and less able to accommodate diverse factions, interests and social tensions.