Class 11 Political Science Chapter 7 Federalism Notes in English

1 What is Federalism?

Comparing India’s political maps of 1947 and 2017 shows that State boundaries, names and numbers have all changed a great deal over time. At independence there were provinces the British had organised for administrative convenience, then a number of princely states merged into the new Indian union. State boundaries have been reorganised many times since, sometimes with name changes too, such as Mysore becoming Karnataka and Madras becoming Tamil Nadu. This entire history is itself the story of how federalism has worked in India.

1.1 World Examples: When Federalism Breaks Down

After 1989, the USSR broke up into several independent countries, one major reason being excessive centralisation and Russia’s domination over other regions with their own languages and cultures, such as Uzbekistan. Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Pakistan also had to face a division of the country, and Canada came very close to a break-up between its English-speaking and French-speaking regions. India, which emerged as an independent nation-state in 1947 after a painful partition, has remained united over seven decades, while the other federations named above either broke apart or, like Canada, came close to it. So apart from adopting a federal constitution, the nature of that federal system and the actual practice of federalism matter just as much.

1.2 Federalism’s Key Ideas

India is a land of continental proportions and immense diversities, with more than 20 major languages and several hundred minor ones, several major religions, and several million indigenous peoples living across the country. Yet we share a common land mass, a common history, especially the struggle for independence, so India is often described as a country of “unity in diversity”.

Federalism does not consist of a fixed set of principles applied identically everywhere, it evolves differently in different situations (American federalism differs from German or Indian federalism), but a few key ideas recur:

• Federalism is essentially an institutional mechanism to accommodate two sets of polities, one regional and one national, each autonomous in its own sphere; some federal countries even have dual citizenship, India has only a single citizenship
• People likewise have two sets of identities and loyalties, belonging to the region as well as the nation (e.g. being Gujarati or Jharkhandi as well as Indian)
• The details of this dual system are generally spelt out in a written constitution, considered supreme and the source of both governments’ power; national subjects like defence or currency belong to the Union, regional or local matters to the State
• An independent judiciary settles disputes between the centre and the States on legal matters about the division of power

2 Federalism in the Indian Constitution

Even before Independence, national leaders were aware that governing a large country like ours would require dividing powers between provinces and the centre. After Partition, the Constituent Assembly decided to frame a government based on the principles of unity and cooperation between the centre and the States, while also giving States separate powers. While recognising diversity, the Constitution emphasised unity. Interestingly, the Constitution’s English text never uses the word “federation” at all, Article 1 instead describes India as a “Union of States”.

The Constitution creates two sets of government, one for the entire nation (the Union or central government) and one for each State, both having constitutional status and a clearly identified area of activity. Any dispute over which powers belong to the Union and which to the States is resolved by the judiciary on constitutional grounds. Notably, economic and financial powers are centralised in the hands of the Union government, States carry immense responsibilities but have very meagre revenue sources.

2.1 The Three Lists and Residuary Powers

3 Federalism with a Strong Central Government

It is generally accepted that the Indian Constitution has created a strong central government. The framers wanted a federal constitution that could accommodate India’s diversities, but also a strong centre to stem disintegration and bring about social and political change. This was necessary because at independence India had to integrate over 500 princely states and create or reorganise States, while poverty, illiteracy and inequality of wealth demanded centrally coordinated planning.

3.1 Provisions That Create a Strong Centre

• The very existence of a State, including its territorial integrity, is in Parliament’s hands, Parliament can form a new State by separating or uniting States, and can alter any State’s boundary or name, with the safeguard of seeking the concerned State legislature’s view
• Powerful emergency provisions can turn the federal polity highly centralised, during an emergency Parliament can also legislate on subjects within the States’ jurisdiction
• Even in normal times the central government has strong financial powers, most revenue-generating items are under central control and States mostly depend on central grants; the Planning Commission (appointed by the Union government) coordinates and supervises the States’ resource management, and the Union’s discretionary grants and loans have at times been called lopsided and discriminatory against opposition-ruled States
• The Governor has the power to recommend dismissal of the State government and dissolution of the Assembly, and can reserve a State bill for the President’s assent, giving the centre a chance to delay or completely veto State legislation
• The centre can legislate on State List matters if the Rajya Sabha ratifies the move, and the Constitution makes the Union’s executive power superior to that of the States

• India has an integrated administrative system, the All-India Services are common to the entire country, an IAS officer who becomes a district collector or an IPS officer serving as a Police Commissioner remains under the control of the central government, States can neither discipline nor remove them
• Articles 33 and 34 authorise Parliament to protect persons in Union or State service for actions taken during martial law to maintain or restore order, this is the basis of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), which has on occasion created tensions between people and the armed forces

4 Three Phases of Centre-State Relations

The Constitution is only a framework, its flesh and blood come from the actual practice of politics. Federalism in India has therefore been shaped considerably by changing political conditions.

5 Demands for Autonomy

Many States and parties have, from time to time, demanded greater autonomy from the central government, though ‘autonomy’ means different things to different States and parties.

5.1 Four Types of Autonomy Demands

6 Role of Governors and President’s Rule

The role of the Governor has always been a controversial issue between the States and the centre. The Governor is not an elected office-holder, often a retired military officer, civil servant or politician, and is appointed by the central government, so the Governor’s actions are often viewed as central interference, especially when different parties are in power at the centre and in the State.

In some cases State governments were dismissed even while holding a majority in the legislature, as happened in Kerala in 1959, or without their majority being tested at all, as happened in several States after 1967. Some cases reached the Supreme Court, which has ruled that the constitutional validity of a decision to impose President’s Rule can be examined by the judiciary. Article 356 was very sparingly used till 1967, but after 1967, when many States had non-Congress governments while Congress held the centre, the provision was often used to dismiss State governments or to prevent a majority party or coalition from assuming office, for instance the central government removed elected governments in Andhra Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir in the 1980s.

7 Demands for New States and Interstate Conflicts

The national movement created both pan-Indian unity and a distinct unity around common language, region and culture, and it was itself a movement for democracy, so it was decided early on that States would as far as possible be created on the basis of common cultural and linguistic identity. The States Reorganisation Commission was set up in December 1953 and recommended the creation of linguistic States for the major linguistic groups; 1956 saw the first major reorganisation.

Some regions, such as Vidarbha in Maharashtra, still struggle for separate statehood.

7.1 Interstate Conflicts: Two Main Types

The judiciary acts as the arbitration mechanism for legal disputes, but in reality these disputes are political as well, so they are best resolved only through negotiation and mutual understanding.

8 Special Provisions, Jammu & Kashmir and Conclusion

Because States differ so much in size and population, the Rajya Sabha has asymmetrical representation, ensuring minimum representation for smaller States while giving larger States more seats. Most special provisions in the division of powers apply to the north-eastern States (Assam, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, etc.), largely due to their sizeable indigenous tribal populations with a distinct history and culture, though these provisions have not been able to fully stem alienation and insurgency in parts of the region. Special provisions also exist for hill States like Himachal Pradesh and some other States like Andhra Pradesh, Goa, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Sikkim and Telangana.

8.1 Jammu and Kashmir: The History of Article 370

Jammu and Kashmir was one of the large princely States, with the option of joining India, joining Pakistan, or remaining independent. After Pakistan’s tribal infiltration in October 1947, Maharaja Hari Singh sought India’s help and acceded to the Indian Union. Unlike other Muslim-majority areas that joined Pakistan, J&K was an exception, and under Article 370 it was given much greater autonomy: the State’s concurrence was required to make laws on Union and Concurrent list matters, unlike the automatic application of laws in other States. The President could, with the State government’s concurrence, specify which parts of the Union List should apply, and two Constitutional orders were issued this way. J&K had its own constitution and flag, but Parliament’s power to make laws on Union List subjects was fully accepted.

Other differences included that no emergency due to internal disturbances could be declared in J&K without the State’s concurrence, the Union could not impose a financial emergency there, the Directive Principles did not apply, and Constitution amendments (under Article 368) required the J&K government’s concurrence.

8.2 Conclusion