Federalism - Notes | Polity for UPSC 2024 (Pre & Mains) PDF Download

 Page 1


 
 
Federalism: 
Constitutions are divided between unitary and federal types. According to M.P. 
Singh, in a unitary constitution the totality of the powers of the State is vested in 
one government, while in a federal constitution it is divided between a government 
for the whole country and a number of governments for its different regions. 
Britain, France, Japan, China, Italy, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Spain etc have the 
unitary model of government while the US, Switzerland, Australia, Canada, 
Russia, Brazil, Argentina and so on, have the federal model of government. 
There have been numerous debates regarding India and whether it fulfils the 
credentials of a federal state. The commonly accepted features of a federal 
constitution are:  
(1) existence of two levels of government: a general government for the whole 
country and two or more regional governments for different regions within that 
country;  
(2) distribution of competence or powers—legislative, executive, judicial, and 
financial—between the general and the regional governments;  
(3) supremacy of the constitution—that is, the foregoing arrangements are not 
only incorporated in the constitution but they are also beyond the reach of either 
government to the extent that neither of them can unilaterally change nor breach 
them;  
(4) dispute resolution mechanism for determining the competence of the two 
governments for exercising any power or for performing any function. We may 
examine the federal scheme in the Constitution of India on the above parameters. 
(5) system of bicameralism is seen as representing the the federal second chamber 
for equal representation of the constituents. 
The term ‘federation’ is drived from a Latin word foedus which means ‘treaty’ or 
‘agreement’. Thus, a federation is a new state (political system) which is formed 
through a treaty or an agreement between the various units. A federation can be 
formed in two ways, that is, by way of integration or by way of disintegration. In 
the first case, a number of militarily weak or economically backward states 
Page 2


 
 
Federalism: 
Constitutions are divided between unitary and federal types. According to M.P. 
Singh, in a unitary constitution the totality of the powers of the State is vested in 
one government, while in a federal constitution it is divided between a government 
for the whole country and a number of governments for its different regions. 
Britain, France, Japan, China, Italy, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Spain etc have the 
unitary model of government while the US, Switzerland, Australia, Canada, 
Russia, Brazil, Argentina and so on, have the federal model of government. 
There have been numerous debates regarding India and whether it fulfils the 
credentials of a federal state. The commonly accepted features of a federal 
constitution are:  
(1) existence of two levels of government: a general government for the whole 
country and two or more regional governments for different regions within that 
country;  
(2) distribution of competence or powers—legislative, executive, judicial, and 
financial—between the general and the regional governments;  
(3) supremacy of the constitution—that is, the foregoing arrangements are not 
only incorporated in the constitution but they are also beyond the reach of either 
government to the extent that neither of them can unilaterally change nor breach 
them;  
(4) dispute resolution mechanism for determining the competence of the two 
governments for exercising any power or for performing any function. We may 
examine the federal scheme in the Constitution of India on the above parameters. 
(5) system of bicameralism is seen as representing the the federal second chamber 
for equal representation of the constituents. 
The term ‘federation’ is drived from a Latin word foedus which means ‘treaty’ or 
‘agreement’. Thus, a federation is a new state (political system) which is formed 
through a treaty or an agreement between the various units. A federation can be 
formed in two ways, that is, by way of integration or by way of disintegration. In 
the first case, a number of militarily weak or economically backward states 
 
 
(independent) come together to form a big and a strong union, as for example, the 
US. In the second case, a big unitary state is converted into a federation by 
granting autonomy to the provinces to promote regional interest (for example, 
Canada). 
The Indian federal system is based on the ‘Canadian model’ and not on the 
‘American model’. The ‘Canadian model’ differs fundamentally from the 
‘American model’ in so far as it establishes a very strong centre. The Indian 
federation resembles the Candian federation- 
(i) in its formation (i.e., by way of disintegration);  
(ii) in its preference to the term ‘Union’ (the Canadian federation is also called a 
‘Union’); and  
(iii) in its centralising tendency (i.e., vesting more powers in the centre 
vis-a-vis the states). 
According to Dr B R Ambedkar, the phrase ‘Union of States’ has been preferred to 
‘Federation of States’ to indicate two things:  
(i) the Indian federation is not the result of an agreement among the states like 
the American federation; and  
(ii) the states have no right to secede from the federation. The federation is 
union because it is indestructible 
Evolution of Indian Federalism: 
• The legacy of colonialism, partition, and the vision of nation building-all 
contrived to create a centralized federation. Two major constitutional inputs 
from the colonial past seem to be critical in the evolution of federalism in 
India. 
• First, the 1918 Montague-Chelmsford Report on constitutional reforms and 
later the 1929 Simon Commission Report strongly argued for 
decentralization of authorities among the constituent provinces as perhaps 
the best administrative device in politically-fragmented and strife-ridden 
India.  
Page 3


 
 
Federalism: 
Constitutions are divided between unitary and federal types. According to M.P. 
Singh, in a unitary constitution the totality of the powers of the State is vested in 
one government, while in a federal constitution it is divided between a government 
for the whole country and a number of governments for its different regions. 
Britain, France, Japan, China, Italy, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Spain etc have the 
unitary model of government while the US, Switzerland, Australia, Canada, 
Russia, Brazil, Argentina and so on, have the federal model of government. 
There have been numerous debates regarding India and whether it fulfils the 
credentials of a federal state. The commonly accepted features of a federal 
constitution are:  
(1) existence of two levels of government: a general government for the whole 
country and two or more regional governments for different regions within that 
country;  
(2) distribution of competence or powers—legislative, executive, judicial, and 
financial—between the general and the regional governments;  
(3) supremacy of the constitution—that is, the foregoing arrangements are not 
only incorporated in the constitution but they are also beyond the reach of either 
government to the extent that neither of them can unilaterally change nor breach 
them;  
(4) dispute resolution mechanism for determining the competence of the two 
governments for exercising any power or for performing any function. We may 
examine the federal scheme in the Constitution of India on the above parameters. 
(5) system of bicameralism is seen as representing the the federal second chamber 
for equal representation of the constituents. 
The term ‘federation’ is drived from a Latin word foedus which means ‘treaty’ or 
‘agreement’. Thus, a federation is a new state (political system) which is formed 
through a treaty or an agreement between the various units. A federation can be 
formed in two ways, that is, by way of integration or by way of disintegration. In 
the first case, a number of militarily weak or economically backward states 
 
 
(independent) come together to form a big and a strong union, as for example, the 
US. In the second case, a big unitary state is converted into a federation by 
granting autonomy to the provinces to promote regional interest (for example, 
Canada). 
The Indian federal system is based on the ‘Canadian model’ and not on the 
‘American model’. The ‘Canadian model’ differs fundamentally from the 
‘American model’ in so far as it establishes a very strong centre. The Indian 
federation resembles the Candian federation- 
(i) in its formation (i.e., by way of disintegration);  
(ii) in its preference to the term ‘Union’ (the Canadian federation is also called a 
‘Union’); and  
(iii) in its centralising tendency (i.e., vesting more powers in the centre 
vis-a-vis the states). 
According to Dr B R Ambedkar, the phrase ‘Union of States’ has been preferred to 
‘Federation of States’ to indicate two things:  
(i) the Indian federation is not the result of an agreement among the states like 
the American federation; and  
(ii) the states have no right to secede from the federation. The federation is 
union because it is indestructible 
Evolution of Indian Federalism: 
• The legacy of colonialism, partition, and the vision of nation building-all 
contrived to create a centralized federation. Two major constitutional inputs 
from the colonial past seem to be critical in the evolution of federalism in 
India. 
• First, the 1918 Montague-Chelmsford Report on constitutional reforms and 
later the 1929 Simon Commission Report strongly argued for 
decentralization of authorities among the constituent provinces as perhaps 
the best administrative device in politically-fragmented and strife-ridden 
India.  
 
 
• The second serious intervention happened to be the Government of India 
Act, 1935 that provided for the distribution of legislative jurisdictions with 
the three-fold division of powers into federal, provincial, and concurrent 
Lists.  
• The Act also led to the establishment of a federal court to adjudicate the 
disputes among units of the federation and also the appellate court to decide 
on the constitutional questions. On the fiscal front, the Act provided a 
detailed scheme of sharing of revenue that, in fact, laid the foundation of 
fiscal federalism in independent India. 
• The Congress developed its own federal scheme, being organized on 
linguistic lines. As early as 1928, the Indian National Congress 
unanimously thus decided for regrouping of provinces on a linguistic basis 
corresponding with culture of traditions and literature.  
• What probably conditioned the choice of those who presided over free 
India’s destiny was a pragmatic consideration of transforming India into “a 
Union out of the patch work quilt of [British Indian] Provinces and Princely 
States.” Moreover, the decision of the Muslim majority provinces of British 
India to constitute themselves into Pakistan aroused the apprehension in the 
minds of the nationalist leadership in India that they might have to face 
further attempts at secession from a future Indian union- Bidyut Chakravarty  
• Subrata K. Mitra and Matte Pehl divide India’s experience of Federalisation 
into 3 main phases post-independence (Oxford Companion to Politics): 
• The first phase of federalization of the political process extended from the 
time of Independence to the mid- 1960s under Prime Minister Jawaharlal 
Nehru. The INC, which had already embraced the federal principle back in 
the 1920’s by organizing itself on the basis of Provincial Congress 
Committees based on linguistic regions, institutionalized the principle of 
consultation, accommodation, and consensus through a delicate balancing 
of the factions within the 'Congress System.’ It also practised the 
co-optation of local and regional leaders in the national power.  
Page 4


 
 
Federalism: 
Constitutions are divided between unitary and federal types. According to M.P. 
Singh, in a unitary constitution the totality of the powers of the State is vested in 
one government, while in a federal constitution it is divided between a government 
for the whole country and a number of governments for its different regions. 
Britain, France, Japan, China, Italy, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Spain etc have the 
unitary model of government while the US, Switzerland, Australia, Canada, 
Russia, Brazil, Argentina and so on, have the federal model of government. 
There have been numerous debates regarding India and whether it fulfils the 
credentials of a federal state. The commonly accepted features of a federal 
constitution are:  
(1) existence of two levels of government: a general government for the whole 
country and two or more regional governments for different regions within that 
country;  
(2) distribution of competence or powers—legislative, executive, judicial, and 
financial—between the general and the regional governments;  
(3) supremacy of the constitution—that is, the foregoing arrangements are not 
only incorporated in the constitution but they are also beyond the reach of either 
government to the extent that neither of them can unilaterally change nor breach 
them;  
(4) dispute resolution mechanism for determining the competence of the two 
governments for exercising any power or for performing any function. We may 
examine the federal scheme in the Constitution of India on the above parameters. 
(5) system of bicameralism is seen as representing the the federal second chamber 
for equal representation of the constituents. 
The term ‘federation’ is drived from a Latin word foedus which means ‘treaty’ or 
‘agreement’. Thus, a federation is a new state (political system) which is formed 
through a treaty or an agreement between the various units. A federation can be 
formed in two ways, that is, by way of integration or by way of disintegration. In 
the first case, a number of militarily weak or economically backward states 
 
 
(independent) come together to form a big and a strong union, as for example, the 
US. In the second case, a big unitary state is converted into a federation by 
granting autonomy to the provinces to promote regional interest (for example, 
Canada). 
The Indian federal system is based on the ‘Canadian model’ and not on the 
‘American model’. The ‘Canadian model’ differs fundamentally from the 
‘American model’ in so far as it establishes a very strong centre. The Indian 
federation resembles the Candian federation- 
(i) in its formation (i.e., by way of disintegration);  
(ii) in its preference to the term ‘Union’ (the Canadian federation is also called a 
‘Union’); and  
(iii) in its centralising tendency (i.e., vesting more powers in the centre 
vis-a-vis the states). 
According to Dr B R Ambedkar, the phrase ‘Union of States’ has been preferred to 
‘Federation of States’ to indicate two things:  
(i) the Indian federation is not the result of an agreement among the states like 
the American federation; and  
(ii) the states have no right to secede from the federation. The federation is 
union because it is indestructible 
Evolution of Indian Federalism: 
• The legacy of colonialism, partition, and the vision of nation building-all 
contrived to create a centralized federation. Two major constitutional inputs 
from the colonial past seem to be critical in the evolution of federalism in 
India. 
• First, the 1918 Montague-Chelmsford Report on constitutional reforms and 
later the 1929 Simon Commission Report strongly argued for 
decentralization of authorities among the constituent provinces as perhaps 
the best administrative device in politically-fragmented and strife-ridden 
India.  
 
 
• The second serious intervention happened to be the Government of India 
Act, 1935 that provided for the distribution of legislative jurisdictions with 
the three-fold division of powers into federal, provincial, and concurrent 
Lists.  
• The Act also led to the establishment of a federal court to adjudicate the 
disputes among units of the federation and also the appellate court to decide 
on the constitutional questions. On the fiscal front, the Act provided a 
detailed scheme of sharing of revenue that, in fact, laid the foundation of 
fiscal federalism in independent India. 
• The Congress developed its own federal scheme, being organized on 
linguistic lines. As early as 1928, the Indian National Congress 
unanimously thus decided for regrouping of provinces on a linguistic basis 
corresponding with culture of traditions and literature.  
• What probably conditioned the choice of those who presided over free 
India’s destiny was a pragmatic consideration of transforming India into “a 
Union out of the patch work quilt of [British Indian] Provinces and Princely 
States.” Moreover, the decision of the Muslim majority provinces of British 
India to constitute themselves into Pakistan aroused the apprehension in the 
minds of the nationalist leadership in India that they might have to face 
further attempts at secession from a future Indian union- Bidyut Chakravarty  
• Subrata K. Mitra and Matte Pehl divide India’s experience of Federalisation 
into 3 main phases post-independence (Oxford Companion to Politics): 
• The first phase of federalization of the political process extended from the 
time of Independence to the mid- 1960s under Prime Minister Jawaharlal 
Nehru. The INC, which had already embraced the federal principle back in 
the 1920’s by organizing itself on the basis of Provincial Congress 
Committees based on linguistic regions, institutionalized the principle of 
consultation, accommodation, and consensus through a delicate balancing 
of the factions within the 'Congress System.’ It also practised the 
co-optation of local and regional leaders in the national power.  
 
 
• The second phase of the development of Indian federalism began with the 
fourth general elections (1967) which saw nearly half the states moving out 
of Congress control. With the Congress split of 1969, Prime Minister Indira 
Gandhi took to the strategy of radical rhetoric and strong centralized 
personal leadership leading to erosion of Congress’ internal 
federalization. 
• However, after the authoritarian interlude of 1975-7, which reduced India's 
federal system to pretty much a unitary state, the system reverted to the 
earlier stage of tenuous cooperation between the Centre and the states. 
• This was followed by third phase of federalisation which began at the end of 
1980’s. Regional parties, such as the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) 
of Tamil Nadu or the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) of Bihar, have asserted 
their interests more openly in coalition and minority governments. It also 
encouraged both cooperative federalism (vertical level) and bargaining 
federalism (at horizontal level). 2014 onwards have witnessed the return of 
one-party dominance with most states under the rule of the same party. It has 
raised questions regarding functioning of federalism.  
• Indian federalism is a case of ‘asymmetrical’ federalism. One comes across 
four kinds of asymmetries in Indian federation: 
1. There is universal asymmetry with regard to the constituent provinces 
because they are represented in Rajya Sabha on the basis of their 
demographic strength. 
2. There are specific asymmetries as regards administration of tribal areas, 
intra-state regional disparities, law and order situation and fixing the number 
of seats, as per Article 371 of the Constitution, in states like Maharashtra, 
Gujarat, Manipur, Assam, Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim, and 
Goa. 
3. The areas identified as union territories, altogether seven in 2006, enjoy 
special constitutional status. 
4. There is a stark asymmetry vis-à-vis Jammu and Kashmir, Nagaland, and 
Mizoram. While Article 370 accords ‘special status’ to Jammu and Kashmir, 
Page 5


 
 
Federalism: 
Constitutions are divided between unitary and federal types. According to M.P. 
Singh, in a unitary constitution the totality of the powers of the State is vested in 
one government, while in a federal constitution it is divided between a government 
for the whole country and a number of governments for its different regions. 
Britain, France, Japan, China, Italy, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Spain etc have the 
unitary model of government while the US, Switzerland, Australia, Canada, 
Russia, Brazil, Argentina and so on, have the federal model of government. 
There have been numerous debates regarding India and whether it fulfils the 
credentials of a federal state. The commonly accepted features of a federal 
constitution are:  
(1) existence of two levels of government: a general government for the whole 
country and two or more regional governments for different regions within that 
country;  
(2) distribution of competence or powers—legislative, executive, judicial, and 
financial—between the general and the regional governments;  
(3) supremacy of the constitution—that is, the foregoing arrangements are not 
only incorporated in the constitution but they are also beyond the reach of either 
government to the extent that neither of them can unilaterally change nor breach 
them;  
(4) dispute resolution mechanism for determining the competence of the two 
governments for exercising any power or for performing any function. We may 
examine the federal scheme in the Constitution of India on the above parameters. 
(5) system of bicameralism is seen as representing the the federal second chamber 
for equal representation of the constituents. 
The term ‘federation’ is drived from a Latin word foedus which means ‘treaty’ or 
‘agreement’. Thus, a federation is a new state (political system) which is formed 
through a treaty or an agreement between the various units. A federation can be 
formed in two ways, that is, by way of integration or by way of disintegration. In 
the first case, a number of militarily weak or economically backward states 
 
 
(independent) come together to form a big and a strong union, as for example, the 
US. In the second case, a big unitary state is converted into a federation by 
granting autonomy to the provinces to promote regional interest (for example, 
Canada). 
The Indian federal system is based on the ‘Canadian model’ and not on the 
‘American model’. The ‘Canadian model’ differs fundamentally from the 
‘American model’ in so far as it establishes a very strong centre. The Indian 
federation resembles the Candian federation- 
(i) in its formation (i.e., by way of disintegration);  
(ii) in its preference to the term ‘Union’ (the Canadian federation is also called a 
‘Union’); and  
(iii) in its centralising tendency (i.e., vesting more powers in the centre 
vis-a-vis the states). 
According to Dr B R Ambedkar, the phrase ‘Union of States’ has been preferred to 
‘Federation of States’ to indicate two things:  
(i) the Indian federation is not the result of an agreement among the states like 
the American federation; and  
(ii) the states have no right to secede from the federation. The federation is 
union because it is indestructible 
Evolution of Indian Federalism: 
• The legacy of colonialism, partition, and the vision of nation building-all 
contrived to create a centralized federation. Two major constitutional inputs 
from the colonial past seem to be critical in the evolution of federalism in 
India. 
• First, the 1918 Montague-Chelmsford Report on constitutional reforms and 
later the 1929 Simon Commission Report strongly argued for 
decentralization of authorities among the constituent provinces as perhaps 
the best administrative device in politically-fragmented and strife-ridden 
India.  
 
 
• The second serious intervention happened to be the Government of India 
Act, 1935 that provided for the distribution of legislative jurisdictions with 
the three-fold division of powers into federal, provincial, and concurrent 
Lists.  
• The Act also led to the establishment of a federal court to adjudicate the 
disputes among units of the federation and also the appellate court to decide 
on the constitutional questions. On the fiscal front, the Act provided a 
detailed scheme of sharing of revenue that, in fact, laid the foundation of 
fiscal federalism in independent India. 
• The Congress developed its own federal scheme, being organized on 
linguistic lines. As early as 1928, the Indian National Congress 
unanimously thus decided for regrouping of provinces on a linguistic basis 
corresponding with culture of traditions and literature.  
• What probably conditioned the choice of those who presided over free 
India’s destiny was a pragmatic consideration of transforming India into “a 
Union out of the patch work quilt of [British Indian] Provinces and Princely 
States.” Moreover, the decision of the Muslim majority provinces of British 
India to constitute themselves into Pakistan aroused the apprehension in the 
minds of the nationalist leadership in India that they might have to face 
further attempts at secession from a future Indian union- Bidyut Chakravarty  
• Subrata K. Mitra and Matte Pehl divide India’s experience of Federalisation 
into 3 main phases post-independence (Oxford Companion to Politics): 
• The first phase of federalization of the political process extended from the 
time of Independence to the mid- 1960s under Prime Minister Jawaharlal 
Nehru. The INC, which had already embraced the federal principle back in 
the 1920’s by organizing itself on the basis of Provincial Congress 
Committees based on linguistic regions, institutionalized the principle of 
consultation, accommodation, and consensus through a delicate balancing 
of the factions within the 'Congress System.’ It also practised the 
co-optation of local and regional leaders in the national power.  
 
 
• The second phase of the development of Indian federalism began with the 
fourth general elections (1967) which saw nearly half the states moving out 
of Congress control. With the Congress split of 1969, Prime Minister Indira 
Gandhi took to the strategy of radical rhetoric and strong centralized 
personal leadership leading to erosion of Congress’ internal 
federalization. 
• However, after the authoritarian interlude of 1975-7, which reduced India's 
federal system to pretty much a unitary state, the system reverted to the 
earlier stage of tenuous cooperation between the Centre and the states. 
• This was followed by third phase of federalisation which began at the end of 
1980’s. Regional parties, such as the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) 
of Tamil Nadu or the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) of Bihar, have asserted 
their interests more openly in coalition and minority governments. It also 
encouraged both cooperative federalism (vertical level) and bargaining 
federalism (at horizontal level). 2014 onwards have witnessed the return of 
one-party dominance with most states under the rule of the same party. It has 
raised questions regarding functioning of federalism.  
• Indian federalism is a case of ‘asymmetrical’ federalism. One comes across 
four kinds of asymmetries in Indian federation: 
1. There is universal asymmetry with regard to the constituent provinces 
because they are represented in Rajya Sabha on the basis of their 
demographic strength. 
2. There are specific asymmetries as regards administration of tribal areas, 
intra-state regional disparities, law and order situation and fixing the number 
of seats, as per Article 371 of the Constitution, in states like Maharashtra, 
Gujarat, Manipur, Assam, Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim, and 
Goa. 
3. The areas identified as union territories, altogether seven in 2006, enjoy 
special constitutional status. 
4. There is a stark asymmetry vis-à-vis Jammu and Kashmir, Nagaland, and 
Mizoram. While Article 370 accords ‘special status’ to Jammu and Kashmir, 
 
 
Article 371 guarantees special privileges to Nagaland and Mizoram. Article 
370 with respect to J&K was scrapped as per a Presidential notification in 
August 2019.  
M.P. Singh designates certain features as characteristic of federalism existing in 
India: - 
1. Dual Polity and local government- The Constitution designates the Union 
government as the Union of India and the regional governments as States, each 
one of the latter having a name. Initially they were divided into three 
categories—Part A, Part B, and Part C States—according to their historical 
antecedents. But with the reorganisation of the States in 1956 the entire territory 
of India was divided into States and the Union Territories. They are all named 
along with their territorial dimensions in Schedule I of the Constitution. Their 
number changes with the reorganisation of States from time to time. Presently, 
there are twenty-nine States and seven Union Territories. With the removal of 
Article 370, all parts of the Constitution are applicable to all states and UTs.  
However, in view of the special features of some of the States, the Constitution 
makes special provisions for them not applicable to other States. Such an 
approach may be termed as asymmetric federalism. As regards the Union 
Territories, though all of them are expected to be subject to the direct 
administration of the Union of India, the Constitution also makes special 
provisions for some of them. Special arrangements are also made separately for 
the Scheduled and Tribal Areas as per the Vth and VIth schedules of Indian 
Constitution.   
A third level of governments at the village and municipal levels has also been 
introduced into the Constitution by way of the Seventy-third and Seventy-fourth 
Amendments. This level was already envisaged in one of the Directive 
Principles of State Policy, and was within the jurisdiction of the States under 
Entry 5 of List II of Schedule VII to the Constitution. While these Amendments 
had hoped to strengthen local government in India, strictly speaking, local 
government bodies remain within the competence of the States for devolution 
of powers and functions.