User:Fowler&fowler/Federalism in India

Originally discussed on here on Talk:India. I have added some more sources in this version

Definition of Federalism
Federalism is a "system of the government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (like states or provinces). Federalism is the system in which the power to govern is shared between the national and state governments, creating what is often called a federation." (Wikipedia page).

Is India a federation?
Whether India is a federation, however, is disputed by scholars, including the framer of the Indian constitution, B. R. Ambedkar, who said, "the Constitution of India&mdash;the present Constitution enacted in November 1949&mdash;is designed to be federal in normal times and unitary in emergencies." Here are some more scholars:


 * "the division of powers between the Union government and the States in the Indian Constitution (and that is the crux of a federation) is more apparent than real, for it is within the power of the Union government both in emergencies (articles 352-60) and in normal times (articles 200, 201, and 249) to bring the entire administration of the country under its unitary control. Thus the basic principle of the constitution is not federalism but decentralized unitarism or, in other words unitarism with a high degree of decentralization of powers in favor of the states." (Gangal, S. C. "An Approach to Indian Federalism," Political Science Quarterly, volume 77, number 2, 1962, pp. 248-253.)
 * "The roots of Indian federalism can be traced to the British colonial regime. The unsuccessful working of their unitary system led the British to introduce a federal system during the last eight decades of their rule, and ultimately, "the Act of 1935 served to perpetuate a belief in the inevitability of federalism."(Rajashekara, H. M. (1997) "The Nature of Indian Federalism: A Critque", Asian Survey, volume 37, number 2, pp.245-253.)
 * However, after the constitution was drafted in 1949, "Many members of the Constituent Assembly vociferously attacked the center-oriented federalism that was adopted. H. V. Kamath characterized it as a "centralized federation with a facade for parliamentary democracy," and Damodar Swarup called it "a unitary constitution in the name of a federation."  K. Hanumanthaiah, who represented the Princely State of Mysore, remarked: "Here is a Constitution which we say is a federal constitution but which in essence is almost a unitary Constitution ... This was not the intention with which we started constitution-making."  Leading scholars on federal government also have not regarded India's system as true federalism.  According to Ashok Chandra, it is a "unitary constitution," and various foreign scholars have called it a quasi-federation, an administrative federation, organic federalism, and a territorial federation." (ibid)
 * "Under a prefectorial federal system, the federal (central) government has overriding and enormous powers, not only to command and control states or provinces but also to stultify their autonomy and dismiss their governments. In this sense, Indian federalism may be characterized as a prefectorial federal system." (ibid)
 * "The theory and practice of Indian federalism substantiate the thesis that the Union government functions under a prefectorial federalism that gives it a commanding position and overriding powers. The existence of states and the very survival of their elected governments is dependent upon the will of the Union government.  The single Constitution for the whole country (except Jammu and Kashmir), the unilateral power of Parliament to amend it, the provision for supersession of state governments and centrally appointed state governors, the discretionary powers of governors to reserve state bills for consideration of the President and his veto power over such bills, the affluence of the Union government, the vertical planning system, and the centralized party system have been mainly responsible for the aberration, distortion, and perversion of Indian federalism." (ibid.)


 * "Article I of the Indian Constitution states:'India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States (emphasis added). Although the Constitution has all the features of a federal system and refers to the territories of the states (regions) and the territories of the Union, distinguishes between two tiers of government and divides the powers of the central and state governments, it does not use the term 'federation'.  This was intended to highlight one distinctive characteristic of the Indian federal structure.  As the Chairman of the Constituent Assembly (the body that formed the Constitution of independent India), Dr. Ambedkar, explained, the federal framework was not the result of an agreement by the states.  Hence, no state had a right to secede from it.  The federation was, in this sense, 'a union; it had all the features of a federal polity but it was indissoluble' (CAD, vol. VII, p.43)" (Mahajan, Gurpreet, (2007) "Federal accommodations of ethno-lingual identities in India," in Federalism in Asia (ed. Baogang He, Brian Galligan, Takashi Inoguchi), Edward Elgar Publishing.  Pp. 329. ISBN 1847201407. p. 82)
 * "Against this backdrop it is easy to understand why the nature of the Indian federal system has been a prominent subject of public debate and discussion ever since the Constitution came into effect. While the fact of India being a federation is not in doubt or dispute, there are different representations of its federal character.  Some analysts describe it as 'quasi-federal' (Wheare, 1963, p. 27), others see it as a 'quasi-federal union with several important features of a unitary government' (Munshi, 1967, p. 1), or a 'federation with strong centralizing tendency' (Jennings, 1953, p.1).  These different, though not incongruent, descriptions point to some essential differences between the Indian federal system and those of Canada or the USA, but, above all, they draw our attention to provisions of the Indian Constitution that give an edge, at times an overriding authority, to the centre within federation." (Ibid., p 82)
 * "The centre is privileged in many different ways. Among other things, it has the authority to (i) recognize the territorial boundaries of states and form new states by separating the territory from an existing state or by merging together existing states; (ii) issue administrative directives to the states to ensure compliance with the Union law(s) which apply in that state; (iii) appoint and dismiss a governor (the formal head of the executive in a state); (iv) declare a state of emergency if the President is satisfied that there is a threat to the security of the country, or to any of its territories, from external aggression or internal disturbances; (v) declare 'President's rule' (rule by the central government) if the governor reports that a constitutional crisis exists and the state cannot function in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution." (Ibid. pp. 82-83).
 * "Of all these provisions it is the authority to declare an Emergency and President's rule that has been the most controversial and indeed the most powerful instrument of central intervention. It has been used frequently to counter movements for autonomy and secession, and to protect the interests of the ruling party at the centre (see, Nakade, 1969; A. Khan, 1997).  In the recent past, however, the Supreme Court of India has asserted that the proclamation of an Emergency under Article 356 (i) is not immune from judicial review and the court can strike down the proclamation if it is found to be 'mala fide or based on wholly irrelevant or extraneous grounds' (S. R. Bommai v. Union of India, 1994)  The present debate on the use of constitutional provisions, and the manner in which centre-state relations have been redefined with the emergence of strong regional parties, is not, however, the subject of this chapter.  There are a number of studies already available on these subjects (Jain, Kashyap, and Srinivasan, 1972; Maheshwari, 1973; Dua and Singh, 2003) and they reveal thicat the presence of different parties at the national and regional level has signifantly altered centre-state relations.  It is now more difficult for the centre to dictate terms to regional governments when a different party is in power there." (Ibid., p. 83)


 * (From: Rao, M. Govinda and Nirvikar Singh. 2004.  "Asymmetric Federalism" Working Papers from National Institute of Public Finance and Policy, New Delhi, India) "There is considerable volume of literature on central domination in Indian federalism in the assignment system in the constitution and central intrusion into the states’ domains in the working of the federation.  Unlike the classical federations like the USA, Indian federation is not an ‘indestructible union of indestructible states’. Only the union is indestructible and the states are not. Article 3 of the Constitution vests the Parliament with powers to constitute new states by separating territories from the existing ones, alter their boundaries, and change their names. The only requirement for this is that the `Bill’ for the purpose will have to be placed in the Parliament on the recommendation of the President and after it has been referred to the relevant state legislature for ascertaining their views (their approval is not necessary). The federation is not founded on the principle of equality between the union and states either. The central government in India has the powers, and it actually does invade the legislative and executive domains of the states (Chanda, 1965; Rao and Sen, 1996; Rao and Singh, 2000)."


 * Encyclopaedia Britannica says in this fact sheet for India: "Form of government: multiparty federal republic with two legislative houses (Council of States [2451]; House of the People [5452])" It does call it "federal," but regards it as a "form of government."


 * Encarta, on the other hand, makes no mention of federalism or "republic" in its lead, but mentions it it in its Government section with these words, "The Republic of India is a federal republic, governed under a constitution and incorporating various features of the constitutional systems of the United Kingdom, the United States, and other democracies. The power of the government is separated into three branches: executive, parliament, and a judiciary headed by a Supreme Court. Like the United States, India is a union of states, but its federalism is slightly different. The central government has power over the states, including the power to redraw state boundaries, but the states, many of which have large populations sharing a common language, culture, and history, have an identity that is in some ways more significant than that of the country as a whole."

Lists of "federal" or "semi-federal" states

 * (From: Bakke, K., and E. Wibbels (2006): “Federalism and Intrastate Struggles: The Role of Diversity and Disparity,” Paper prepared for presentation at the workshop on "Decentralization, Federalism, and Conflict" at the Center for Research on Inequalities, Human Security and Ethnicity (CRISE), University of Oxford, October 6, 2006.) "To test the hypotheses outlined above, we conduct a time-series, cross-sectional analysis of conflict in 22 federal or semi-federal states from 1978 to 2000. ... To be included, a country must have an intermediate (between local and national) level of government with non-trivial, independent powers. The cases are Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium (federal state since 1993), Brazil, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia (federal since 1995), Germany, India, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia (federal since 1992), the Soviet Union, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, the United States, Venezuela, and Yugoslavia. These include the countries that scholars in the field have traditionally defined as federal based on Riker’s definition and add cases (Belgium and South Africa) where constitutional reforms in the 1990s introduced federalism more recently. Generally speaking, in selecting our sample we have chosen to err on the side of inclusiveness so as to maximize comparisons and approximate the universe of federal cases while avoiding arbitrary exclusion."