FEDERALISM

FEDERALISM

The term "Federalism" comes from Latin word "Foedus" meaning contract in which the govt. is
established by a contract. Constitution is the contract document. To resolve the differences or disputes
federation requires a neutral arbiter that is independent judiciary.
Federalism is best understood as a method of promoting self-rule and shared rule and of balancing the
interests of a nation with that of its regions. Typically, this is done for a dual purpose—that of limiting
the possibility of a tyranny of the majority, and of generating strength through union. A durable
federal design thus aims at the contradictory goals of reconciling freedom with cohesion, and a
diversity of political cultures and identities with effective collective action.

Federalism is a system of government in which powers have been divided between the centre and its
constituent parts such as states or provinces. It is an institutional mechanism to accommodate two sets
of politics, one at the centre or national level and second at the regional or provincial level.
It is natural for the vast and diverse country like India to go for federal form of polity. The basic idea
behind federalism is that it is a political contrivance to achieve good governance when unit desires
unity without uniformity.

Scholar Definition of Federalism

K.C. Wheare, an authority on federalism says that “Federation is a

system which consists of two sets of governments which are independent,
co-ordinate and distinct.”

K.C. Wheare

Prof. A.V. Dicey, says: “Federation is a political contrivance intended to

reconcile national unity with the maintenance of State Rights.”

Prof. A.V. Dicey

Dr.B.R. Ambedkar, “The partition of legislative and executive power of

the centre and units is the main criteria of federation.”

Dr.B.R. Ambedkar

TWO TYPES OF FEDERATIONS

In a federation system, there are two seats of power that are autonomous in their own spheres. A
federal system is different from a unitary system in that sovereignty is constitutionally split between
two territorial levels so that each level can act independently of each other in some areas.
There are two kinds of federations:

For More Study Material, Visit: studyiq.com Page no.

1
 FEDERALISM

 Holding Together Federation – In this type, powers are shared between various constituent parts
to accommodate the diversity in the whole entity. Here, powers are generally tilted towards the
central authority. Example: India, Spain, Belgium.
 Coming Together Federation – In this type, independent states come together to form a larger
unit. Here, states enjoy more autonomy as compared to the holding together kind of federation.
Example: USA, Australia, Switzerland.

CHARACTERISTICS OF A FEDERATION:
A federation is traditionally constituted when two or more independent neighbouring states forge a
Union for defined purposes of common interest by divesting themselves of a measure of sovereignty
which is vested with the federal government. “The urge for union comes from the need for collective
security against aggression and economic co-ordination for protection and expansion of trade and
commerce. The federation is given only enumerated powers, the sovereignty of the states in the Union
remains otherwise unimpaired”.
“A Federation in USA is of this type. Alternatively, a federation is formed when a sovereign authority
creates autonomous units and combines them in a Union.” Once constituted, the national and state
governments possess co-ordinate authority derived from the several constitutions and enjoy
supremacy in their respective spheres of authority and jurisdiction. Canadian federation belongs to
this category. However, the differences between the two lie in the degree and extent of emphasis on
unitary features.
The characteristic features of a federal Constitution according to Prof. Dicey are:
1. Supremacy of Constitution;
2. The distribution among bodies with limited and co-ordinate authority, of different powers of
government;
3. The authority of the courts as interpreters of the Constitution;
4. Double citizenship is another characteristic of some of the Federation.
No federal Constitution can completely fulfil all these characteristics. Even the Constitution of U.S.A.
may not be completely federal in character. If, however, the Constitution predominantly fulfils the
federal characteristics, overshadowing the unitary features, it may be categorized as Federal
Constitution.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FEDERATION AND CONFEDERATION

According the US Supreme Court, federation is indestructible union.
Thus confederation is destructible. In federation units loose external
sovereignty permanently, once for all. It means
1. No right to secede from union.
2. No right to conduct independent foreign policy, e.g. As per Art
253 the division of powers between center and state would not
apply in case of international treaties or agreements. Former
USSR was confederation. Units had power to secede and power
to conduct foreign policy. It is for this reason; India had
diplomatic relations with central Asian countries like Tajikistan
even when they were part of USSR.
We can also say a confederation as a loose federation.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE US AND INDIAN FEDERALISM

Some gaps exist between US and Indian federalism. These
differences were created by the creators of the Indian Constitution.
The US federalism, as envisaged by its representatives in its Constitution, is very powerful and more
rigid. It has a regional character rather than a unitary one. Though India is unitary rather than federal,
it is a quasi-federal state.

RIGIDITY
The Constitution of the United States is very concise and compact, with just a few pages, while the

For More Study Material, Visit: studyiq.com Page no.

2
 FEDERALISM

Constitution of India is very dense, comprising as many as XXII sections, 395 articles, and 10
schedules. Since the US Constitution is very strict, the laws intended to amend the constitution are
also very rigid and more formal. The US Constitution has only been changed 27 times. Whereas
the Constitution of India, which entered into force in 1950, has so far been amended more than 100
times. While a federal Constitution exists in the US, all federal government states have their
Constitutions to rule themselves by their loyalty to the federal Constitution. In India, all States that are
aligned with the Indian Union have a commitment to the Indian Constitution and no constitution of
their own, but each state has the right to pass the laws of its own that are included in both the state and
the concurrent lists.

LEGISLATURE WORKING
The lower house or Lok Sabha in India is stronger and its representatives are elected directly by the
people and representatives of the upper house or Rajya Sabha are elected indirectly. The members of
Lok Sabha serve their electorate on a population basis. The House of Representatives is elected in the
US-based on the population of a state but each state in the USA has only two senate members,
totalling a hundred members in the United States, irrespective of the size of the state or population.
Whereas the Lok Sabha and lower house in India are stronger, the Senate House or the upper house is
stronger in the United States. A Rajya Sabha member in India is indirectly elected by a system of
proportional and transferable voting, while in the USA a Senate member is elected directly.

JUDICIAL WORKING
While the United States has an established
judicial system, the Indian judicial system is
rapidly evolving. An accused or a witness in the
United States will depose from his place of
incarceration, preventing the use of modern
technology and excessive trips to New York
from Chicago or Los Angeles. Such facilities in
India are yet to be built. While a judge in the
United States can hold the post for life as long as
he enjoys good health, it is slightly different in India. In India, a judge in the District retires at the age
of 60 years. The judges of Higher judiciary retires at the age of 62 years from the high court and At
age of 65 years in Supreme Court.

FORMS OF GOVERNMENT
The president is the head of the state in the U.S. and thus his administration is popularly referred to as
the presidential form of government. India, on the other hand, has a legislative system of government,
while the Prime Minister exercises real power with his cabinet, with the President being only a
nominal head. United States is following the two-party rule, India has a multi-party system and a
dynamic selection mechanism. The Indian Cabinet and the Prime Minister are accountable jointly
both directly and indirectly to the Parliament and the people, while the US President has constitutional
duties and responsibilities to the people.

CITIZENSHIP
The Indian Constitution recognizes single citizenship. On the other hand, the United States
Constitution allows for double citizenship.

Although there are quite differences, there are also some ‘similarities’ between the two countries like
both, the US and India have a written Constitution, providing for a federal constitutional system under
which both governments exercise their powers and privileges, with the right to equality, to liberty, to
the right against discrimination, to freedom of religion, to cultural and educational privileges , and the
right of constitutional remedies. The federal government functions in both countries at the core in
which different states have acceded. In both the US and the Indian Constitutions the division of
powers between three entities-administrative, legislative, and judicial-is given. Each division has a

For More Study Material, Visit: studyiq.com Page no.

3
 FEDERALISM

separate capability. While the powers between executive, legislative, and judicial officers in both
countries are explicitly divided, these powers can also overlap.A “checks and balances” mechanism
that prevails in both countries is important.

FEDERALISM IN INDIA
India is a federal system but with more tilt towards a unitary system of government. It is sometimes
considered a quasi-federal system as it has features of both a federal and a unitary system. Article 1 of
the Indian Constitution states, ‘India, that is Bharat, shall be a union of states’. The word federation is
not mentioned in the constitution.
Elements of federalism were introduced into modern India by the Government of India Act of
1919 which separated powers between the centre and the provincial legislatures.

FEDERAL PROVISIONS IN INDIAN CONSTITUTION

Constitutional Federal Description
Provision
Article 1 Article 1 of Indian constitution explicitly mentions India as union of state,
strived by Ambedkar Indestructible union and an example of holding
together model.

Seventh schedule Seventh schedule of the constitution -The Seventh Schedule to the
of the constitution Constitution of India defines and specifies allocation of powers and
functions between Union & States. It contains three lists; i.e. 1) Union
List, 2) State List and 3) Concurrent List.

Article 246 Article 246 - The Indian constitution divides legislative power between the
union and the states under Article 246. It provides the union exclusive
legislative authority over the items on list 1 and concurrent legislative
authority over the items on list 3 of Schedule 7 of the constitution.

Article 249 Article 249 -In the national interest, Article 249 of the Indian constitution
provides parliament control over matters on the state list.

Article 250 Article 250 - If a proclamation of emergency is in effect, Article 250 of the
Indian constitution grants parliament control over any matter on the state
list.

Article 252 Article 252 of the Indian constitution empowers parliament to legislate on
behalf of two or more states with their approval.

Article 352 to 360 Article 352 to 360 states about provisions for the proclamation of
emergency and the effect of such proclamation on various grounds.

REASONS FOR ADOPTING FEDERALISM IN INDIA

 A large country.
 A country with diversity.
 Feeling among people that they do have some commonality and they can be represented as a unit
in one.
 Military or security reasons.
 Economic reasons to have a bigger common market.

Features of federation :A.V Dicey

 There should be set of states closely connected by location and capable of having an impression

For More Study Material, Visit: studyiq.com Page no.

4
 FEDERALISM

that they can have common nationality

 States or units must desire union but must not desire unity. They have a desire to maintain
distinct identity and retain autonomy or independence.
 A federal state is a political contrivance intended to reconcile national unity and power with the
maintenance of state rights

Federal Features of the Indian Union

 Governments at two levels –centre and states
 Division of power between the centre and states – there are three lists given in the Seventh
Schedule of the Constitution which gives the subjects each level has jurisdiction in:
o Union List
o State List
o Concurrent List
 Supremacy of the constitution – the basic structure of the constitution is indestructible as laid
out by the judiciary. The constitution is the supreme law in India.
 Independent judiciary – the constitution provides for an independent and integrated judiciary.
The lower and district courts are at the bottom levels, the high courts are at the state levels and at
the topmost position is the Supreme Court of India. All courts are subordinate to the Supreme
Court.
 Written Constitution – India has the one of the largest constitution in the world which consists
of 395 articles 22 parts and 12 schedules. Every article of Indian constitution is clearly written
down and has been discussed in full detail.
 Supreme judiciary – The Supreme Court of India is regarded as the superior court of the
country. The decision of the Supreme Court is binding upon all courts and it has the power to
interpret the articles of the constitution.
 Bicameral-legislation – In India, the legislature is bicameral. It has two houses and that are Lok
Sabha and Rajya Sabha. The upper house of the parliament which represents the states is Rajya
Sabha and the lower house of the parliament which represents the people in general is Lok Sabha.

Unitary Features of the Indian Union

 The flexibility of the constitution – the constitution is a blend of flexibility and rigidity. Certain
provisions of the constitution can be easily amended. In case the amendments seek to change
aspects of federalism in India, the provision to bring about such amendments is not easy.
 More power vests with the Centre – the constitution guarantees more powers with the Union
List. On the Concurrent List subjects, the parliament can make laws that can override the laws
made by a state legislature on some matters. The parliament can also make laws regarding certain
subjects in the State List.
 Unequal representation of states in the Rajya Sabha – the representation of the states in the
upper house is based on the state’s populations. For example, Uttar Pradesh has 31 seats and Goa,
1 in the Rajya Sabha. In an ideal federal system, all the states should have equal representation.
 The executive is a part of the legislature – in India, the executive in both the centre and the
states is a part of the legislature. This goes against the principle of division of powers between the
different organs of the government.
 Lok Sabha is more powerful than the Rajya Sabha – in our system, the Lok Sabha is more
powerful than the upper house and an unequal power to two houses is against the principle of
federalism.
 Emergency powers – the centre is provided with emergency powers. When an emergency is
imposed, the centre has increased control over states. This undermines the autonomy of the states.
 Integrated judiciary – the judiciary in India is integrated. There is no separate judiciary at the
centre and the state levels.
 Single citizenship – in India, only single citizenship is available to citizens. They cannot be
citizens of the state as well. This helps in increasing the feeling of nationality as it forges unity
amidst regional and cultural differences. It also augments fundamental rights such as the freedom
of movement and residence in any part of the nation.

For More Study Material, Visit: studyiq.com Page no.

5
 FEDERALISM

 Governor’s appointment – the governor of a state acts as the centre’s representative in the state.
The state government does not appoint the governor, the centre does.
 New states formation – the parliament has the power to alter the territory of a state by increasing
or reducing the area of the state. It can also change the name of a state.
 All India Services – through the All India Services such as the IAS, IPS, etc. the centre interferes
in the executive powers of the states. These services also offer uniformity in administration
throughout the nation.
 Integrated election machinery – the Election Commission of India is responsible for conducting
free and fair elections at both the centre and the state levels in India. The members of the EC is
appointed by the president.
 Veto over states bills – The governor of a state can reserve certain kinds of bills for the
president’s consideration. The president enjoys absolute veto on these bills. He can even reject the
bill at the second instance that is when the bill is sent after reconsideration by the state legislature.
This provision is a departure from the principles of federalism.
 Integrated audit machinery – the president of the country appoints the CAG who audits
accounts of both the centre and the states.
 Power to remove key officials – the state government or state legislature does not have the
authority to remove certain key government officials even at the state level like the election
commissioner of a state, judges of the high courts, or the chairman of the state public service
commissions.

Debate over nature of Indian Federalism: Views of Scholars

Prof. K C Wheare compared Indian model with US model
 He declared India to be quasi-federal.
 According to him, India is federal in form but unitary in sprit.
 He calls Indian constitution having subsidiary federal features
whereas prominent unitary features.
 He calls it Quasi federal because of various centralizing provisions
like Emergency powers with the centre, All India services, integrated
judiciary , residuary power with the centre etc.
Criticism of KC Wheare approach
 K C Wheare’s approach is legal constitutional.
 Hence his approach is static. He ignores the dynamic aspect of federalism
 KC Wheare is also ethnocentric. When he calls India ‘quasi-federal’ he takes US constitution as
a model.

Granville Austin-
 Each federation in unique, sui-generis.
 Indian federation is the product of the unique circumstances which India
has faced. Whichever country will face secessionist trend is bound to
have a model where center is strong. Be it India or Canada.
 Granville Austin calls Indian model as example of ‘cooperative
federalism’.

Alfred Stephan
 Indian model is Demos-enabling whereas US's is Demos-constraining
because Indian model provides representation in Rajya Sabha based on
the population unlike US where the equal number of seats have been
provided to each state.
 Indian Model is better suitable for Developing countries

For More Study Material, Visit: studyiq.com Page no.

6
 FEDERALISM

According to Louise Tillin, Indian constitution is an example of great

creativity. Different parameters are followed with different regional aspirations.
The attitude of central govt. depends on multiple factors like security, political,
economic. Constitution of India provides following options:
● Union territories (UTs)
● full-fledged states
● national capital territories (NCR)
● Autonomous states.
● Autonomous regions.

Sir. Ivor. Jennings feels, that India is a federation, with a strong centralizing tendency.

W.H.Morris Jones, held the view that “Indian federalism was a kind of co- operative federalism
where bargaining took place between the centre and the states, but ultimately a solution came out
and both agreed to co-operate.”
Appleby, goes a step further to describe the Indian Constitution as “Extremely Federal.

WHAT MAKES INDIA QUASI-FEDERAL?

There are many examples which clearly show that the Indian constitution has federal features but it
also shows that it has been evident with quasi-federal features too. Some of the examples which show
that India is a quasi-federal are as follows-
 Division of power between the central and state government but the central government has been
given more powers than the state government.
 Parliament can override the laws which are passed by the states for the reason of national interest.
 Residual powers are vested with the central government.
 Major taxation powers are also vested with the central government.
 Parliament does not represent the states equally. However, in a pure federal government the upper
house of the legislature has equal representation from the constituting states. But in our Rajya
Sabha, the states do not have equal representation. The populous state has more representatives in
the Rajya Sabha that the less populous states.
 In India, citizens are allotted single citizenship which is not a feature of pure federal government.
As in true federal nation, citizens are allotted dual citizenship. First, they are the citizens of their
provinces then they are the citizens of their nation.

CONSTITUTIONAL DEBATE ON FEDERALISM

Dr. Ambedkar listed several features of the draft constitution which mitigated the rigidity and
legalism of federalism in his historic speech in the constituent assembly in November 1949. The
following features were mentioned:
1) Article 246 of Indian constitution distributes legislative power between union and states. It gives
union exclusive power to legislate in respect of matters contained in list 1 and concurrent power
to legislate in respect to matters contained in list 3 of schedule 7 of the constitution.
2) Parliament is given power to legislate on exclusively state subjects matters namely:
 Article 249 of Indian constitution gives power to parliament with respect to matter in the state list
in the national interest.
 Article 250 of Indian constitution gives power to parliament in respect of any matter in the state
list if a proclamation of emergency is in operation.
 Article 252 of Indian constitution gives power to parliament to legislate two or more states by
consent of those states.
 Article 352 and 353 states about provisions for the proclamation of emergency and the effect of
such proclamation.
 There are provisions included in the constitution which are to be operative unless parliament
made any contrary provision or word to the same effect.

For More Study Material, Visit: studyiq.com Page no.

7
 FEDERALISM

 Article 368 of Indian constitution states about provisions regarding the amendment of the
constitution.
Dr Ambedkar made it clear that these provisions make the Indian constitution both unitary as well as
federal according to the requirements of time and circumstances. He further stated that in normal
times it is framed to work as a federal system. But in times of war it is designed as to make it as
though it was a unitary system. He also made it clear that Article 250, 352, 353 of Indian constitution
can only be exercise by the President of India and requires the approval of both houses of the Indian
parliament.

Importance of Cooperative Federalism:-

 Federalism is the most relevant factor of modern
constitutionalism. The core objectives of Indian federalism
are unity in diversity, devolution in authority, and
decentralization in administration. Through federalism, the
State pursues the goal of common welfare in the midst of
wide diversity in socio-cultural, economic spheres.
 Cooperative federalism is the concept which reflects the relationship between centre and state
where they both come together and resolve the common problems with each other’s cooperation.
With the collaborative efforts and cooperation, different level of governments in an amicable
manner, contributes towards the growth of the country.
 It shows the horizontal relationship between union and states and shows neither is above the
other. To ensure this relationship between centre and state, Indian constitution has incorporated
certain instruments like inter-state council, Zonal council, 7th schedule etc. Indian model of
federalism is called quasi-federal system as it contains major features of both: federation and
union. Federalism is a system of government in which power is divided between a central
authority and constituent political units. The Constitution of India establishes a federal structure to
the Indian government, declaring it to be a “Union of States”.
 In 1974, when the Supreme Court commented on the Constitution envisaging a cooperative
federal structure, federalism has come a long way in India. In relation to the imposition of
President’s rule under Article 356 of the Constitution, federalism is far more mature.
 Between 1947 and 1977, there were 44 instances when the power to impose President’s rule was
exercised. Between 1977 and 1996, the power was exercised almost 59 times. Prime Minister
Indira Gandhi’s cabinet resorted to the power an estimated 50 times in her 14 years.
 From 1991 till 2016, there have been 32 instances of the exercise of this power compared to 92
instances in the preceding period. In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the limitation laid
down by the Supreme Court might have placed gentle breaks on exercise of this power
(President’s Rule), but the Centre continues to wield superior legislative powers, including
residuary powers and legislative precedence.
 Taxation powers are contentious issue and the Central government has won most of the disputes
purely due to express provisions in the Constitution. In the Goods and Services Tax (GST)
scenario, States have foregone some taxation powers (octroi, entry tax, luxury and entertainment
taxes, etc.) but have powers to levy taxes through panchayats and municipalities.
 Such powers can result in an anomalous situation of a transaction being taxed under GST laws
and a local law, and this is yet to be tested in court. After the GST amendments to the
Constitution, States have power to levy tax on sale of petrol, diesel, etc. and these would be
revenues of the respective States. However, the GST Council is yet to recommend inclusion of
these items under GST.
 The southern States have been vocal about the false positives and negatives from tax sharing and
this mechanism is largely subject to the recommendations of the Finance Commission (FC) and
action by Parliament. State levies and State GST form part of a State’s revenue. Under Article
269A(1) the GST Council and not the FC has the powers to make recommendations in relation to
sharing of taxes from inter-State trade.

Important Cases

For More Study Material, Visit: studyiq.com Page no.

8
 FEDERALISM

State of Rajasthan v Union of India, 1977

In State of Rajasthan v Union of India, 1977 former Chief Justice Beg,
called the constitution of India as “amphibian” he further stated that our
constitution creates a central government which is amphibian in the
sense that it can be either federal or unitary according to the need of the
situation and the circumstance of the case.

S.R. Bommai vs Union of India

In this case the court stated that the president should exercise his powers only after his proclamation is
approved by both houses of parliament. The power of president to dismiss a state government is not
absolute.
Haryana vs State of Punjab
In State of Haryana v State of Punjab the term semi-federal was used for India and in Shamsher Singh
v State of Punjab the constitution was called more unitary than federal.

State of West Bengal vs Union of India

This case dealt with the issue of the exercise of sovereign powers by Indian states. In this case, the
Supreme Court held that the Indian constitution does not promote a principle of absolute federalism.
The court further states 4 characteristics highlighting the facts that the Indian constitution is not a
traditional federal constitution.
 The first characteristic is highlighted by the court is
that constitution of India is the supreme document
which governs all states and there is no provision of
separate constitutions for each state as required in
the federal state.
 The second characteristic is highlighted by the court
is that the states have no power to alter the
constitution but only central government has the
power to alter the constitution of India.
 The third characteristic is highlighted by the court is
that the Indian constitution renders supreme power
upon the courts to invalidate any
action which violates the constitution.
 The fourth characteristic is highlighted by the court is that the distribution of powers facilitates
national policies matter by central government and local governance by the state government.
 The Supreme Court further held that the central government is the final authority for any issue.
The political power distributed between both union and state government with greater weight
given to union government.
 Another thing which is against the pure form of federalism is there is concept of single citizenship
in India.
 The learned judges finally concluded that the structure of India as provided by the constitution is
centralized, with the states occupying a secondary position vis-à-vis the Centre.

Federalism at the time of COVID

COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare the strengths and weaknesses of all forms of political systems
and structures: democratic and authoritarian; unitary and federal.
The pandemic put both the unitary strengths and the federal assets of India’s political structure to
serious test, befitting the nation from one extreme to the other.
Louise Tillin, a known scholar on federalism captures this trend succinctly when she says: “India
has moved from unilateral centralized decision-making in the first wave to something that
approximates unilateral decentralized decision-making by default—in the second wave.
Other factors like The complete domination of the states through the NDM Act along with the use
of the levers of finance to twist the tails of the states clearly hurt the quality of federalism and
heavily tilted the balance in favour of the Centre.

For More Study Material, Visit: studyiq.com Page no.

9
 FEDERALISM

The federal response to the pandemic has evolved in a number of ways

Unilateral centralized:
 The Centre took over many responsibilities which otherwise fall within the domain of the
state.
 The Centre assumed the role of anchor and led from the front in managing the pandemic,
particularly during the periods involving national lockdowns.
Unilateral Decentralized
 The Centre frequently emphasised the involvement of third tier institutions similarly various
states delegated substantial powers and responsibilities to these bodies in managing the
pandemic.
o For instance, the Odisha government delegated the sarpanch with the powers of a
magistrate to control the movement of migrants and oversee physical-distancing norms.
o Similarly, the Kerala government allowed local bodies to do contact-tracing, conduct
health camps and sanitation drives, and sensitise people on health protocols.
Thus the COVID pandemic proved that the Centre and states have different roles but need to work
closely during a crisis, instead of adopting a centralised approach.

CONCLUSION
The Indian government is quasi-federal in nature as it contains features of single citizenship, a single
constitution, and flexibility of constitution which are not the features of a pure federal government
which are followed in the United States of America. Although the Indian government contains
features of federal government such as division of power, partial rigidity of constitution, it cannot be
consider as pure federal government but as quasi-federal government.

THE DYNAMICS BETWEEN PARTY SYSTEM AND FEDERAL SYSTEM

Federalism does not operate in vacuum. It gets affected by other factors in the environment. Since
it gets impacted by environment we cannot call it as static idea. It is a dynamic concept. It evolves
with time. The most prominent factors that shape the functioning of federalism is the nature of
party system.
Ideally federal system requires presidential form of government. Parliamentary form of government is
based on party system and party system distorts federalism. On the other hand, presidential system
does not depend on party system.
It is now an explicit fact that in India, there is no centre and state dispute; there are only party to party
disputes. Indian model works properly in a frictionless manner when same party is ruling at the centre
and the state. However once the combination differs, friction emerges and cooperative federalism
becomes bargaining.
Prof. M. P. Singh points that federalism is a dynamic concept, it needs to be understood in the socio-
cultural context. According to Prof. M P Singh, there are two axis of Indian political system.
1. Parliamentary axis.
2. Federal axis.
Parliamentary axis denotes strong center, federal axis denotes strong states. When single party has
absolute majority at the center, parliamentary axis becomes prominent, e.g. Under Pandit Nehru,
Indira Gandhi and now under Modi government. On the other hand, when there is a coalition politics,
which represent regionalization, federal axis becomes dominant.
Thus the nature of federalism has been evolving with the changing nature of party system in India.
Besides party system, economic policy/political economy of the state will also impact. Position of
states will be stronger if the developmental model is neo-liberal and that of centre will be stronger if
the developmental model is based on welfare.

Federalism ideally requires Presidential form because Party system distorts federalism
1. If both centre and state have same party
It results into co-operative federalism and federalism works smoothly
2. If centre and state have different party

For More Study Material, Visit: studyiq.com Page no.

10
 FEDERALISM

Scholars like Granville Austin and Morris Jones held that the states where ruling party was
different with the ruling party at Centre appeared disadvantaged considering the greater
bargaining power of the state government with the same party at state and center.

EVOLUTION OF FEDERALISM WITH PARTY SYSTEM IN INDIA

Stage of Party System State of Indian Federation
Stage 1 (since 1967) One party dominant system- called Congress System
 As India adopted Centralize planning and begin with one party
dominant system federalism was in its ideal form.In 1967 we
saw the breakdown of congress system and the rise of regional
parties in the states.
 Federalism worked smoothly till the breakdown of congress
system

Stage 2 (1967- 1989 ) Rise of regional parties

 India’s cooperative federalism started showing strains and fault
lines.
 Along with cooperative federalism emerged bargaining
federalism.
 Misuse of Governor’s post.
 Frequent misuse of President’s rule.

Stage 3 (1989 onwards )
Quasi-Confederal stage
 In 1990 not only party system and the governments at centre
changed (i.e.beginning of the coalition system), even the
political economy changed from state controlled to LPG model.
 In this phase the bargaining power of the state government has
increased due to the presence of regional parties, LPG model also
reduced the dependence on the central government.
 The bargaining power of state governments increased to an extent
that scholars like Balvir Arora described that India is moving
from quasi-federal to quasi-confederal.

Stage 4(Since 2014 ) BJP System

 Since 2014 onwards we see that the centralizing trend may be
strengthened due to the emergence of another dominant party
system.
 As the ruling party has got absolute majority and a sort of one
party dominant system, to quote Suhas Palashikar, ‘BJP system
is emerging’.

Globalisation and Indian federation

The Globalisation has both strengthened and weakened the role of centre in India
Strengthening role of Centre by globalisation
 Emergence of global security threat -more space for centre
 Growth of transnational actors
Weakening role of Centre by globalisation
 Rolling back of the state with market taking the central role.
 State government taking interest in economic policies
 State government attracting FDI
 Structural adjustment programme – No good governance possible without power
devolution which resulted into devolution of more power to state government.

For More Study Material, Visit: studyiq.com Page no.

11
 FEDERALISM

COOPERATIVE AND COMPETITIVE FEDERALISM IN INDIA

Co-operative federalism in India
 Indian model of federalism is an example of co-operative federalism. In dual federation, the
two governments acts as the two completely independent entities; they are like two water
tight compartments.
 India is also seen as an example of ‘Executive federalism’, rather than legislative
federation like USA. In India, the importance of state arises in context of administration
Cooperative Federalism is based on the philosophy of interdependence and in which centre acts
as an elder brother. Cooperative federalism is adopted in countries which:
 Suffers from regional imbalance.
 Suffers from secessionist trends like Canada & India
 When center and states, and states work with each other for a common cause
Features of cooperative federalism in India
 Cooperative federalism is based on the concept of interdependence rather than independence.
The two governments are not two water tight compartments, there is interlocking.
 It means both are made dependent on each other. If states are dependent on union financially,
union is dependent on state for execution of union laws and policies.

How co-operative federalism changes into bargaining federalism

 According to Prof. M P Singh, in most of the scenarios, cooperative federalism remains an
idea whereas in practice, it becomes bargaining federalism.
 A thin line between co-operative and bargaining
 Co-operative federalism denotes the existence of the trust between the two levels of
govt. It represents the consultation, cooperation, mutual trust. In the words of Prime
Minister Modi, ‘Team India’ approach. In cooperative federalism, centre acts as a
friend, philosopher and guide.
 On the other hand, bargaining federalism represents a situation where center acts as a big
bullying brother or a patriarch. Since bargaining power of center is more, bargaining
federalism show the disadvantaged position of the states. However, regionalization of
party system has enhanced the bargaining powers of state governments.

Competitive federalism
It is a framework in which states and centre compete to provide best services to the citizens at
lowest cost .It encourages bottom up planning where tailor made policies replace one size fits all
policies to fulfill different priorities.
Features of competitive federalism
Competitive federalism is a neo-liberal idea based on ‘minimum government, maximum
governance’. It denotes rolling back of the state. When the developmental functions of the states
are rolled back, the vaccuum is filled by private sector. Hence the policy of the state governments
should be such that they are able to attract private investments.
Examples of Competitive federalism in India
 NITI Aayog replaced Planning Commission. Hence states are no longer bound by
centre’s policy guidelines.
 41% of shareable pool of funds is assigned to states for providing untied funds for
bottom up planning
 Number of compulsory CSS (centrally sponsored schemes )has also reduced. Only
core of the core CSS will remain
 States are improving ease of doing business to attract private investors. e.g. Rajasthan’s
land and labour reforms.
 Even funding for centre’s schemes is based on competition e.g. Smart City Mission
selection of cities.
 Centre has proposed Swiss challenge method based bidding for selecting location for IITs,

For More Study Material, Visit: studyiq.com Page no.

12
 FEDERALISM

IIMs, AIIMS, ports, national games, ports, refineries etc. This will not only allow merit based
decision making but state’s cooperation will be generated through means of competition rather
than direction.
Criticism of competitive federalism in India
 Based on neo-liberal vision and hence can accentuate inter-state disparities or regional
imbalance
 Regional imbalance has always been a cause of concern as it strengthens the separatist trend
 The regional imbalance may also create more intra-state dispute
 Hence whatever idea is introduced it must not ignore the
dimension of equity and justice
 It is necessary that union govt. should help in capacity
building of weaker states so that there is a level playing field
 According to Prof. Balveer Arora in his book “India’s
Beleaguered Federalism: The Pluralist Challenge"
competitive federalism in Indian context may not be
adequate because the situation of different states varies. It
will create unfair competition, will lead to the lack of
balanced development.

NATURE OF POLITICS INVOLVED IN STATES FORMATION IN INDIA (ARTICLE 3).

Article 3 is often suggested as a non federal feature of Indian Constitution.
However, it is not. Every federation is unique/sui-generis. It is not correct to
take USA as an ideal type. Indian model is cooperative federation, logically
driven by the historical situations. Ambedkar has clearly mentioned that
India is indestructible union of destructible states. India is holding together
model of federation. According to Louise Tillin (Book-REMAPPING
INDIA), the internal territorial map of India is still not settled. It is to be
noted that boundaries in India have been colonial boundaries rather than
natural boundaries. Gandhi himself accepted and advocated the
reorganization of India on linguistic lines. Even for administrative purposes, Louise Tillin
some sort of homogenization is required. Hence it was natural that
constitution makes flexible provision for formation of states. Had Article 3 not been there, and the
process of alteration had been made rigid, India would not have survived its ‘dangerous decades’.

THEORETICAL ANALYSIS OF STATE FORMATION IN INDIA

Approach Scholars Analysis
Political economy approach – Atul The economic policies of the state dictated the creation of
Kohli. smaller states e.g. The main consideration behind creation of
Chhattisgarh was government’s neo-liberal approach to
mining. Once Chhattisgarh becomes state, it will have no
option but to open its mines and minerals.

Sociological theory -Ramchandra The demands represent the assertion by the marginalized
Guha and Yogendra Yadav. sections. To assert their share in power and development.

For More Study Material, Visit: studyiq.com Page no.

13

Political analysis of state
formation - Louis Tillin
Christophe Jaffrelot’s Analysis
For More Study Material, Visit: studyiq.com
FEDERALISM
The main consideration behind state formations has been
political. The timing, the possibility of formation is
primarily dictated by the interest of the ruling party at
center.
For example:
 Congress kept on postponing the creation of Telangana
and made announcement just before elections.
 Similarly, BJP created Uttarakhand to consolidate its
position.
 Lalu Prasad Yadav agreed for bifurcation of Bihar
because it consolidates the position of RJD.
Christophe Jaffrelot also considered state formations in
India including linguistic reorganization as purely political
phenomenon and primarily based on caste.
 Pandit Nehru opposed linguistic states because he was
concerned about the future of Congress system.
However, he held that multilingual states are showcases
of India’s unity in diversity.
 Despite SRC (State Reorganization Commission)
accepted need to create Telangana, Pandit Nehru
rejected it. Instead of state, he offered ‘gentleman’s
promise’. But the real reason for not creating Telangana
was that, Telangana was dominated by communists.
 Linguistic reorganization was an aspiration of certain
castes to consolidate their political power. It led to the
emergence of dominant castes in different states who
could form their governments. For example, Yadav
emerged as the dominant caste in UP and Bihar; Jats are
the dominant castes in Haryana and western UP;
Marathas are dominant caste in Maharashtra; Reddis,
Kammas and Kapus in Andhra Pradesh; Lingayats and
Page no.
14
 FEDERALISM

Vokkaligas in Karnataka.

FACTORS BEHIND STATE FORMATION

Louise Tillin in her recent book REMAPPING INDIA has given the exhaustive analysis of the
process of state formation. New states have been formed in different phases with different
logic/reasons.
Phase State Reorganisation
1st phase: 50s and 60s Reorganization of peninsula. Main concern was linguistic.
2nd phase: 60s and 70s Reorganization of western and North Eastern part. As far as North
East is concerned, ethnicity was the criteria.
3rd phase: 21st century Reorganization of Hindi heartland besides Telangana. The logic has
been ‘good governance’ and development.

Do you support smaller states?

There has been a consistent demand for creation of new states. There is a lack of consensus among the
political scholars.

In favour of smaller states 2nd school of thought

Ramchandra Guha, Bibek Debroy, Political Prof. M. P. Singh and Sudha Pai
leaders like Advani and Mayavati

For More Study Material, Visit: studyiq.com Page no.

15
 FEDERALISM

Their core argument is logic of good Prof. M. P. Singh and Sudha Pai agrue that:
governance. Smaller states are easy to govern 1. There is no relation between size and good
and good governance translates into governance e.g. Despite being large, Tamil
development, inclusive growth. There should Nadu is well governed and despite being
be a rationalization between the strength of small, neither Jharkhand nor Chhattisgarh
administration and the population of the state. can be seen as examples of good
According to Bibek Debroy, there should be at governance.
least 50 states in India. USA with 1/4th of 2. No relation between size and development.
Indian population has 50 states but India has The growth story of Punjab is over;
only 28 states. If we take UP as a country, in Chhattisgarh shines on mines (the
terms of population, it will be the 5th largest in unsustainable approach). Maharashtra,
terms of population. despite being large, continues to be more
developed.
3. New states means new ministries, new
infrastructure for government institutions,
unnecessary expenditure.
4. More states means more interstate disputes.
5. Smaller states – politically unstable,
defection is easy e.g. Goa.
6. The economic viability of many new states
being demanded is questionable. They will
depend on grants of union, as good as union
territories.
7. The impact on mother state will also have
to be taken in consideration.
8. Some demands may create strategic
concerns like Gorkhaland in India. It will
give weightage to the Nepal’s allegations
that India has captured its territories during
colonial times.
9. When govt. has introduced 73rd
amendment act, the logic for smaller states
goes. Good governance and development
requires the strengthening of Panchayati
Raj.
10. The use of information and communication
technology (e-governance) can bring
government at the doorstep.
11. This does not mean that no demand for
smaller states to be accepted. Wherever
there is a genuine aspiration of the people,

For More Study Material, Visit: studyiq.com Page no.

16
 FEDERALISM

the demand can be considered. However, it

should not be purely political.

Practice Questions
Q) Does the functioning of federalism in India tend to make it appear as a unitary state in practice?
Q) Discuss asymmetrical federalism in India.
Q) Indian federation has moved from cooperative federalism to competitive federalism.

REFERENCES
 B.L.FADIA-INDIAN GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS
 IGNOU NOTES

For More Study Material, Visit: studyiq.com Page no.

17