1

Introduction to Federalism
If you have studied our constitution carefully, you will
see it calls India a “Union of States”. This statement is
what gives our country a federal structure. Let us learn
more about federalism and why we call India a quasi-
federal country.

What is Federalism?
Federalism is at its core a system where the dual
machinery of government functions. Generally, under
federalism, there are two levels of government. One is
a central authority which looks after the major affairs
of the country. The other is more of a local
government which looks after the day to day
functioning and activities of their particular region.

For example, our Indian Constitution says that India

too is a federal country. As you know we have two
levels of parliament, the at center the Union
government and at State level, we have the individual
State governments.

(Source:
Pinterest)
 2

Features of Federalism

The best way to comprehensively understand the

federal system is to learn about its features. These
characteristics combined to reflect the true essence of
federalism. Let us study them.

1. The essential feature, which is the definition of

federalism is that there are two levels of governance
in the country at least. There can even be more. But
the entire power is not concentrated with one
government.
2. All levels of governance will govern the same
citizens, but their jurisdiction will be different. This
means that each level of government will have a
specific power to form laws, legislate and execute
these laws. Both of the governments will have
clearly marked jurisdiction. It will not be that one
of the government is just a figurehead government.
3. Another important feature is that the constitution
must guarantee this federal system of government.
Which means the powers and duties of both or all
governments must be listed down in the
constitution of that country hence guaranteeing a
federal system of governance.
4. As stated above the federalism of a country must be
prescribed by the constitution. But it is also
important that just one level of government cannot
make unilateral changes or amendments to the
important and essential provisions of the
constitution. Such changes must be approved by all
the levels of the government to be carried through.
5. Now there are two levels of government with
separate jurisdictions and separate duties. Yet there
is still a possibility that a conflict may arise
between the two. Well in a federal state, it will fall
 3

upon the courts or rather the judiciary to resolve

this conflict. The courts must have the power to
interfere in such a situation and reach a resolution.
6. While there is power sharing between the two
levels of government, there should also be a system
in place for revenue sharing. Both levels of
government should have their own autonomous
revenue streams. Because if one such government
depends on the other for funds to carry out its
functions, it really is not autonomous in its true
nature.

India – A Federal State

India is a federal country. But not once in the
constitution is the word “federation” ever mentioned.
Instead what is said is that India is a “Union of
States’.Actually many historians believe that India is a
quasi-federal country. It means it is a federal state with
some features of a unitary government. Let us see the
reasons.

The constitution of India has essentially prescribed a

federal state of government. As you already know we
have several levels of government, The Government at
the center, which id the Lok Sabha and the Rajya
Sabha. Then the various state governments, the
Vidhan Sabhas, and the Vidhan Parishad. And finally,
we have the Municipal Corporations and the
Panchayats, which are forms of local governance.

Our constitution makes a clear demarcation about

legislative powers and jurisdictions. It is done through
the three lists.

 Union List: This includes subjects that carry

national importance, like defense, finance, railways,
 4

banking etc. So such subjects only the Central

Government is allowed to make laws.
 State List: Includes all matters important to the
functioning of a particular trade like transport,
Trade, Commerce, agriculture etc. The state
government is the deciding authority for framing
laws on these subjects
 Concurrent List: This list includes topics on which
both the Union and the state government can make
laws. These are related to education, forests, trade
unions etc. One point to be noted is if the two
governments are in conflict with these laws, the
decision of the Union Government will prevail, It is
the final authority,

Solved Question for You

Q: Which of the following country is an example of
‘coming together’ Federation?

a. Belgium
b. Spain
c. Nepal
d. Switzerland
Ans: The correct option is “D”. “Coming together”
federation is nothing but independent states coming
together on their own to form a bigger country.
Independent states pool their sovereignty but maintain
their independent status. USA, Switzerland and
Australia are examples of such type of federation.Q:
There are two or more tiers in a Unitary government.
True or False?

False. Under the Unitary system of government either

there is only one type of government, or there are sub-
 5

units subordinate t the central government. The central

government can pass on orders to the provincial or
local governments. The UK and Sri Lanka have
unitary governments

Concepts of Federalism
Federalism is a type of government in which the
power is divided between the national government and
other governmental units. It contrasts with a unitary
government, in which a central authority holds the
power, and a confederation, in which states, for
example, are clearly dominant.
While the Constitution addressed only the relationship
between the federal government and the states, the
American people are under multiple jurisdictions. A
person not only pays his or her federal income tax but
also may pay state and city income taxes as well.
Property taxes are collected by counties and are used
to provide law enforcement, build new schools, and
maintain local roads.
Throughout the 20th century, the power of the federal
government expanded considerably through legislation
and court decisions. While much recent political
debate has centered on returning power to the states,
the relationship between the federal government and
the states has been argued over for most of the history
of the United States.
The constitutional framework
Although the Constitution sets up a federal system,
nowhere does it define what federalism is. However,
the framers of the Constitution were determined to
create a strong national government and address the
shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation, which
allowed the states too much power. In terms of the
balance of power between the federal government and
the states, the Constitution clearly favors the federal
government.
 6

The powers specifically given to the federal

government are not as relevant to the expansion of its
authority as the Constitution's more general provisions;
that is, Congress is to provide for the general welfare
(preamble) and ". . . make all laws which shall be
necessary and proper . . ." (Article I, Section 8). In the
Constitution as ratified, there is no similar broad grant
of powers to the states. It emphasized what states
cannot do (Article I, Section 10) and gave them
authority in just a few areas — namely, establishing
voter qualifications and setting up the mechanics of
congressional elections. This reduction in power was
corrected through the Tenth Amendment, which
reserved to the states or the people all powers either
not specifically delegated to the national government
or specifically denied to the states. The language in the
general welfare and elastic clauses and the Tenth
Amendment is vague enough to allow widely different
interpretations. Because both federal and state
governments can turn to the Constitution for support, it
is not surprising that different concepts of federalism
have emerged.

Dual federalism
Dual federalism looks at the federal system as a sort
of "layer cake," with each layer of government
performing the tasks that make the most sense for that
level.
The initial framing and ratification of the Constitution
reflected this theory. Even those people supporting a
stronger national government proposed that powers in
the federal government be distinct and limited, with
certain tasks enumerated for the national government
in the Constitution and the remaining tasks left to the
state governments. Because this theory leaves each
government supreme within its own sphere of
operations, it is also sometimes called dual
sovereignty.
 7

One more-extreme outgrowth of this theory is the idea

of states' rights, which holds that, because the
national government is not allowed to infringe on
spheres left to state government, doing so violates the
states' constitutional rights (especially the Tenth
Amendment, which specifically reserves undelegated
powers for the states). Federal government action in
those spheres represents an unlawful seizure of power
by one level of government at the expense of another.
This view has historically been popular in the South,
where it was viewed as preventing national
government interference in the region's race relations,
but it has been invoked elsewhere as well.
The problem with taking dual federalism this far is
figuring out who defines where one layer ends and the
next layer starts. Before the Civil War, some voices
said that, to protect their rights, states could secede
from the Union or declare national laws that affect
them null and void — but those arguments are no
longer taken seriously. Instead, the U.S. Supreme
Court resolves disputes within the federal structure,
and because the Court is a national institution, it rarely
favors the states.

Cooperative federalism
The theory of cooperative federalism emerged during
the New Deal, when the power of the federal
government grew in response to the Great Depression.
It does not recognize a clear distinction between the
functions of the states and Washington, and it
emphasizes that there are many areas in which their
responsibilities overlap. For example, drug
enforcement involves federal agents, state troopers,
and local police. The federal government supplies
funds for education, but the state and local school
boards choose curriculum and set qualifications for
teachers. (Interestingly, attempts to set national
 8

standards for students in certain subjects have raised

concerns of federal intrusion.) The notion of
overlapping jurisdictions is expressed by the term
marble-cake federalism.
Cooperative federalism takes a very loose view of the
elastic clause that allows power to flow through
federal government. It is a more accurate model of
how the federal system has worked over much of U.S.
history.

Introduction
Federalism in India is a historical advancement. The Federal
configuration under the present constitution and its tangible
operations can be grasped only on the broad canvas of its
long expedition. This essay showcases Federalism in India in
a twofold modus: The history of Federalism in India and the
Federal Scheme under the present-day Constitution of India.
The term “federal” is derived from the Latin foedus, which
means, “covenant”. This embodies ideas of promise,
obligation, and undertaking; and consequently, the federal
idea draws on collaboration, reciprocity, and mutuality.
Federalism is a method of segregating powers so that the
central and local governments are each within a domain,
harmonizing and autonomous. To be lucid, federalism
postulates a constitutional apparatus for bringing unity in
diversity by toning the divergent forces of centripetal and
centrifugal trends in the country for the attainment of
conjoint national targets.

The Emergence of Federalism and its

Evolution

The idea of federalism was initially a religious one and it was

from this divine perception that the up-to-the-minute
political doctrine of federalism materialized.[1] The Bible is
 9

regarded as the first book to discuss the problems of federal

polity. Ancient Israel offers the first example of a union of
constituent politics grounded on a sense of shared religion
nationality.

In India, Between 321 and 185 B.C. in Magadha, the

Mauryans for the first time assimilated a number of
kingdoms and republics[2] which might be the first sub-
continental state in Indian history India.[3] And the
Mughals, beginning with Sher Shah’s land revenue system
and taking shape with Akbar’s division of his empire into 12
Subahs or Provinces provide excellent examples of a federal
government.[4]

The turning junction in India’s federal scheme came when it

was taken over by the British forces. But where did the idea
come from?

Postmodern Philosophy in Different

Nations: Meaning, Definition, and
Features of Federalism
The classic definition of federalism is that offered by K.C.
Wheare, who described the federal principle as “the
method of dividing powers so that the general and
regional governments are each within a sphere
coordinate and independent.”[5] A similar definition of
federalism was offered by A.V. Dicey, who identified the
three leading characteristics of a “completely developed
federalism” as including the distribution of powers among
governmental bodies (each with limited and coordinate
powers), along with the supremacy of the constitution and
the authority of the courts as the interpreters of the
constitution.[6]
 10

In the modern period, the Constitution of the United States

of America, of 1787, is treated as the first experiment in
establishing a federal system of government. Subsequently,
federalism as a mode of political organization was embodied
in the Constitutions of Switzerland, the Dominion of Canada
and the Commonwealth of Australia and India.

A vital feature is the division of power between the central

government and the constituent units under a constitutional
scheme that cannot be changed legally by an ordinary
method of central legislation. It is also essential that the
arrangement assures the ability of the central government
to carry out its purposes within the scope of its authority
over the whole area. Hence in a federation, we find:

 Two sets of government constitutionally coordinate

 Division of powers between center and units.
 A federal court as a guardian of the constitution; and
 Supremacy of the constitution which is rigid.

India: A Brief History of Foundation of

today’s Federalism
The genesis of the present federal system in India lies in the
Simon Report of May 1930 which supported the idea of a
federal government in India. This support for the federal
form of government for the India of the future was further
affirmed in the in the First Round Table Conference of
1930.[7] Mr. Ramsay Mac Donald, the then Prime Minister of
Great Britain, speaking at the final plenary session of that
Second Round Table Conference said[8]:

“There is still difference of opinion, for instance as to the

composition and powers of the Federal Legislature, and I
regret that owing to the absence of a settlement of the key
questions of how to safeguard the Minorities under a
 11

responsible Central Government, the Conference has been

unable to discuss effectively the nature of the Federal
Executive and its relationship with the Legislature”.

After the Third Round Table also flopped significantly, the

British Government issued a White Paper in March 1933,
which proposed a new Indian Constitution with an
accountable government in the provinces and the principle
of dyarchy at the Centre. As a result of the publication of the
White Paper, a Joint Select Committee of both Houses of
Parliament was appointed by His Majesty’s Government in
April 1933 to evaluate and survey the proposals of the White
Papers. These proposals were enacted into law and received
the assent of the British Crown and became ultimately the
basis for the Government of India Act of 1935.

The significance of the Act of 1935 lies in the fact that the
provinces were endowed with a legal personality under a
national scheme, and that the character of the national
scheme was ultimately a federal system. This meant the
abolition of the principle of dyarchy at the provincial level
and its retention at the Centre.

But the federal construction that India follows today is poles

apart from what the British came to us with. The biggest
hint of federalism in India lies in the history of its foundation
in 1947 when after the Partition of Pakistan from the Indian
subcontinent all the provinces, presidencies, and princely
states were united under an instrument of accession that
signifies that all these previously sovereign or reliant states
came together to be called one nation-state. The
development and the journey of India as a federal country
can be broadly understood by dividing it into two parts: The
constitutional/legal provisions and the face of federalist
India brought in by the Judiciary.
 12

The Constitutional Character of

Federalism in India: Two-way Analysis
The constitution of India is unique with respect to its
extreme detail and substance. The uniqueness of the Indian
constitution is also in the fact that although it is federal in
character, it declares India to be a union of states.[9]

The constitution provides for a single citizenship like the

United Kingdom and unlike the United States America that
provides for dual citizenship. Single citizenship gives the
constitution a unitary facet where all citizens are united
under one identity as an “Indian”.

The constitution of India establishes a dual polity with the

jurisdiction of making laws on different subject matters is
divided between union and the state governments.[10] The
distinguishing feature here is that the residual powers lie in
the hands of the central government.[11] This attribute
which is different than other countries takes makes the
Indian federalism a bit intricate to fathom.

Another feature that marks India to be a federal country in

nature is the written constitution. Indian constitution is the
lengthiest and the bulkiest constitution in the world which
clearly defines everything from rights to remedies. This
strengthens the federal nature of the country and assures
security to the state and citizens.

The powers in the country are split amongst the three pillars
of democracy: the Legislature, the Executive, and the
Judiciary. All these three props are complementary and
supplementary to each other with an independent judiciary
which is the upholder of the supremacy of the constitution
and get to the bottom of disagreements flanked by center
and states or between 2 states. This guarantees a stringent
remedial system. But is that sufficient? The judiciary
 13

although independent is an integrated institution and thus

gives the essence of unitary government to the constitution.
Other terms of the same constitution provide for the
president to appoint the constitutional heads of all states i.e.
governors[12] and they hold their office to the desire of the
president. Doesn’t that mean that the heads of the state are
appointed to the pleasure of the central government? One
may wonder.

The constitution of India is both stern and elastic at the

same time. The rigidity of the constitution is an
indispensable feature of federalism. But the same rigid
constitution has hit a century of amendments in less than 75
years of Independence.

The Constitution provides for a bicameral legislature

consisting of an Upper House (Rajya Sabha) and a Lower
House (Lok Sabha). The Rajya Sabha is the stand-in for the
states of Indian Federation, while the Lok Sabha represents
the people of India as a whole. The Rajya Sabha (even
though a less powerful chamber) is required to conserve the
federal stability by protecting the interests of the states
against the uncalled-for interference of the Centre.

Other than the aforesaid provisions the following provisions

of the constitution clash with the federal nature of it:

 Union has the power to make new states or alter the

boundaries of existing states.[13]
 Union has the power to make laws on state matters
and if both state and union adjudicate on a certain
matter, the latter will prevail.[14]
 The emergency articles of the constitution when
conjured up, give a unitary character.[15]

Judicial Character of Federalism in India

 14

The Indian judiciary has time and again heard a number of

cases involving the issue of the federal character of the
Indian constitution. To understand what it had to say I have
collected a few cases in a chronological order that will help
in understanding the judiciary’s take on this.

State of West Bengal v. Union of

India[16]:
“The Constitution of India is not truly Federal in character.
The basis of the distribution of powers between the Union
and States is that only those powers which are concerned
with the regulation of local problems are vested in
the States and the residue, especially those which tend to
maintain the economic industrial and commercial unity of
the country are left to the Union.”

State of Rajasthan v. Union of India[17]

“In a sense, the Indian Union is federal. But the extent of
federalism in it is largely watered-down by the needs of
progress and development of the country which has to be
nationally integrated, politically and economically co-
ordinated and socially, intellectually and spiritually uplifted.
With such a system, the States cannot stand in the way of
legitimate and comprehensively planned development of the
country in the manner directed by the Central Government

State of Karnataka v. Union of India[18]

“The Indian Constitution is not federal in character
but has been characterized as quasi-federal in nature.
Even though the executive and legislative functions of the
Centre and States have been defined and distributed, there
runs through it all a thread or rein in the hands of the
Centre in both the fields. “
 15

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of

Kerala[19]
Some of the judges, in this case, held federalism to be a
part of the basic structure of the constitution which means it
can’t be tampered with.

S.R. Bommai v. Union of India[20]

In this case, 4 different opinions were given by judges

1. Justice Ahmadi: Because of no mention of the words

like ‘federal’ he declared it to be a quasi-federal constitution.

2. Justice Sawant & Kuldip Singh: Federalism is an

essential feature of the constitution.

3. Justice Ramaswamy: Declared India to be an “Organic

Federation” designed to suit the needs of the parliament.

4. Justice Jeevan Reddy and Justice Agarwal:

Federalism in the constitution has a different meaning in
accordance with the context. This case posed
restrictions on the arbitrary use of article 356.

Challenges to Federal Character of India: 3

Recent Incidents
India’s federal experiment has undergone, over the past
sixty years, many trials and tribulations.

 Formation of Telangana under Article 3 of the

constitution raised a lot of questions against the
federal nature of the polity.
 16

 100th amendment of the constitution where land was

transferred to Bangladesh has posed as a serious
threat to federalism in India.
 Introduction of Goods & Services Tax is a moot point.
Whereas the supporters of GST argue that states too
should levy taxes under it, the naysayers argue on the
autonomy of states.

Merits and Demerits of Federalism in

India
Federalism in a diverse country like India has both merits
and its consequences. Division of power helps in the easy
governance of the 7th largest country but then a country with
the second largest population needs a united government to
govern people of almost every possible religion that exists.
The integrated and independent judiciary is definitely a
merit for the nation as it helps in proper remedy for rights.
On the other hand, a written constitution with the kind of
flexibility and rigidity possessed by the Indian constitution is
a boon when it comes to the codification of rights but the
same rigidity can stand as a bane if amendments need to be
made. However, amendments to the Indian constitution are
not that tough after all.[21]

Present and Future of Federalism in India:

Conclusion
The motto of “Unity in diversity” has always been very
important to India and a federal government helps to
establish a country with mutual tolerance and existence.
However, for a country like India which is divided on the
linguistic and communal basis, a pure federal structure
would lead to disruption and division of states. With too
much power given to a state, it will want to shift away from
the union and establish its own government. I believe that is
 17

the reason why Jammu & Kashmir’s special powers are in

question in the public time and again.[22]

To overcome all this and the aforementioned demerits we

need to strike a balance between both unitary and federal
features of the country. States should be autonomous in
their own sphere but they can’t be wholly independent to
avoid a state of tyranny in the nation. People of India need
protection and security from such things and that is what
the constitution of India with its special provisions provides.
It establishes a state which is both a union and a federation
at the same time and thus gives India a structure of a quasi-
federal government which has united the diversity of India
for past 71 years and will do the same for the centuries to
come.

Narendra Modi’s vision of

cooperative federalism
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has a unique background. No
other Indian PM served as the chief minister of a state for 12
consecutive years before moving on immediately to take on
the mantle of leadership in Delhi. This gives him a somewhat
different perspective to governance: an understanding of the
centrality, importance and needs of states where most
decisions and schemes of the government are implemented
coupled with a macro policy outlook of being at the apex at the
Centre. Modi brought this understanding to the table at the Niti
Aayog Governing Council meeting on Sunday, when he
emphasised the spirit of “cooperative federalism” and what he
calls Team India, the collective of the Centre and the states.
At the council itself, the discussions hovered on specific
points: achieving a TB-free India; export promotion; ease of
doing business; agriculture and MNREGA; kicking off
Ayushman Bharat; development of the Northeast; and more.
But the broader message in the remarks of both the PM and the
chief ministers was this: the Centre and state need to work
together, closely, if India’s development and economic goals
have to met. This is often forgotten in India’s competitive
political and polarised landscape. The constitutional scheme
 18

provides for division of responsibilities. Take law and order:

the Centre can provide broad direction, step in when required,
beef up security, but ultimately, it is a state subject. It is the
same for agriculture and health delivery. There can be broad
policy formulation in Delhi, but the room for initiative and
implementation is with state governments.

Over the past few years, Indian federalism has entered a new
phase. With a strong central government, for the most part,
Delhi has asserted its authority on issues like foreign affairs.
The fact that the BJP is in power at both the Centre and by
itself, or along with allies, in 19 states, lends greater
convergence in policy. But it also makes the Centre more
powerful in some ways. At the same time, with the
recommendation of the Fourteenth Finance Commission, states
have greater control over finances and resources which they
can allocate for service delivery. The rise of regional parties
has also given them greater political weight. Modi’s ‘Team
India’ vision rests on maintaining the right balance between
these two strands.
 19

Distribution of Powers and

Responsibilities in Federal
Countries
1. INTRODUCTION: Distribution of Powers and
Responsibilities

Distribution of Powers and Responsibilities in Federal

Countriespresents an objective and balanced description
and analysis of the distribution of powers and
responsibilities in the federal constitution and actual
federal practice of eleven countries: Australia, Belgium,
Brazil, Canada, Germany, India, Mexico, Nigeria, Spain,
Switzerland, and the United States of America. For each
federation there is an in-depth examination of such
themes as (1) the distribution of governmental, political,
monetary, fiscal, administrative, and policy
responsibilities; (2) symmetry and asymmetry in the
distribution of responsibilities; (3) the reasons and ways
in which powers and responsibilities are explicitly and
implicitly exclusive, concurrent, or...
2.

Commonwealth of Australia
(pp. 9-33)
JOHN M. WILLIAMS and CLEMENT MACINTYRE
The constitutional distribution of powers and
responsibilities in the Australian federation has proved to
be exceptionally flexible. Originally conceived as a
decentralized federation with the bulk of powers
remaining in the hands of the states, in fact there has
been a steady accretion of power to the Commonwealth
government since shortly after federation in 1901.
Although formal amendment of the constitution has been
limited, changing interpretation by the High Court and the
exercise of financial control by the Commonwealth¹ have
resulted in growing power and responsibility being
exercised by the Commonwealth government.
The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia
came...
3. Kingdom of Belgium
 20

Kingdom of Belgium
(pp. 35-65)
HUGUES DUMONT, NICOLAS LAGASSE, MARC VAN
DER HULST and SÉBASTIEN VAN
DROOGHENBROECK
It is not easy to use simple language to describe
something that is not simple, and Belgian federalism is
far from simple. Built without preconceived ideas or an
overarching doctrine, it accumulates original –
sometimes labyrinthine – solutions as it goes along. In
this chapter we attempt to describe the distribution of
powers in Belgium as briefly as we can, without doing
violence to its richness and complexity – concentrating
on major characteristics rather than on an exhaustive
inventory of rules. After reviewing the evolution of
Belgian federalism along with its social and historical
context, our chapter examines the, principles that govern
the...
4. The Federal Republic of Brazil
The Federal Republic of Brazil
(pp. 67-90)
MARCELO PIANCASTELLI
This chapter provides an overview of the distribution of
powers and responsibilities in Brazil’s federal
Constitution, tracing its historical development and
describing how it works in practice. Brazil has a vast
territory and a complex federal system. Its economy, in
terms of gross domestic product (GDP) in U.S. dollars, is
among the ten largest in the world. Attempts to
implement a federal form of government can be traced
back to 1831. It was in 1891 that the first republican
federal constitution was promulgated. The present
Constitution has been in operation since 1988, when
democracy was re-established. It demonstrates a clear...
5. Canada
Canada
(pp. 92-122)
RICHARD SIMEON and MARTIN PAPILLON
The division of powers and responsibilities in Canada
reflects the country’s unique history, social and economic
makeup, and institutional design. Canada is one of the
world’s most decentralized federations. This is a result
both of the federal character of Canadian society and of
 21

the design of its institutions. “Functional” criteria for the

division of powers are deeply affected by alternative
criteria rooted in the tensions between Canadian nation-
building, Quebec nation-building, and “province-building”
elsewhere. Canada is also an example of “dual” (or
“divided”) federalism rather than “shared” (or
“integrated”) federalism.¹ The logic is based on separate
lists of powers, but the...
6. The Federal Republic of Germany
The Federal Republic of Germany
(pp. 124-154)
HANS- PETER SCHNEIDER
Like every federal order the German system is
characterized by the principle of “strict separation” of
powers and functions between the federal gov ernment
(Bund) and the states (Länder). Both are vested with the
three branches of public power: the legislative, the
executive, and the judiciary. And each is responsible and
accountable for its own acts and decisions, even if a
federal law delegates legislative power to state
parliaments. However, unlike the federal system in the
United States, the German federal system is not based
on two completely distinct and separate columns of
federal and state powers with no connections...
7. Republic of India
Republic of India
(pp. 156-180)
GEORGE MATHEW
India became independent from British colonial rule on
15 August 1947. Besides the British-Indian provinces,
562 princely states became part of independent India.
The Constitution of India was adopted by the Constituent
Assembly on 26 November 1949, and it came into force
on 26 January 1950. At the time the Constitution was
adopted, India had 14 states and six union territories.
Beginning in 1956, and after several reorganizations of
the states (the latest in November 2000), India now has
twenty-eight states and seven union territories.
When, in 1858, the British Crown took over the
administration of India after a century...
8. United Mexican States
United Mexican States
(pp. 182-206)
 22

MANUEL GONZÁLEZ OROPEZA

The current and most pressing problem in the Mexican
federal system is how to organize the distribution of
powers. Since 1847 Mexico has had a type of distribution
of powers in which the federal government may only
exercise those powers grantedexpresslyin the
Constitution; no other country in North America has this
type of rigid distribution. Not even Canada (which has a
dual catalogue of powers granted to both federal and
provincial governments) or the United States (with the
all-encompassing “necessary and proper clause”) are the
same as Mexico in this respect. In those countries
judicial interpretation has played...
9. The Federal Republic of Nigeria
The Federal Republic of Nigeria
(pp. 208-237)
J. ISAWA ELAIGWU
Nigeria became independent of British colonial rule on 1
October 1960. Except for a brief period (May-September,
1966) it has practised one form or another of federalism,
even under military rule. The geographic and
demographic size of the country and its communal
heterogeneity and complexity have made federal
compromise both attractive and a political imperative for
Nigeria. Even within the context of authoritarian military
rule, with its hierarchical structure, a decentralized
administration based on relatively autonomous
subnational states and local governments has operated.
Successive military regimes amended the Constitution to
suit their modes of governance and often referred to
themselves...
10. Kingdom of Spain
Kingdom of Spain
(pp. 239-264)
ENRIC ARGULLOL and XAVIER BERNADÍ
The Spanish Constitution of 1978 committed Spain to a
form of territorial state organization (later referred to as
“state of the autonomies”) that, despite not having a
federal name or nature, has allowed a decentralization of
political responsibilities that is far superior to that of
some nominally federal countries.¹ This peculiar model of
political organization has probably not favoured the
development of an authentic federal culture, nor has it
 23

sufficiently extended the value of territorial pluralism as a

commodity to be protected and promoted. But it has
made possible the greatest period in Spain’s history, at
least with regard to...


11. Swiss Confederation

Swiss Confederation
(pp. 266-294)
THOMAS FLEINER
Switzerland’s federal constitution, adopted in 1848 after
a civil war, was a compromise that sought to
accommodate both the liberals (mainly Protestants)
promoting a unitary state and the conservatives (mainly
Roman Catholics) defending the former Confederation.
In addition, the Constitution had to accommodate the
linguistic diversity among the four official language
groups.¹ Based on a highly decentralized federalism, the
Cantons (the constituent units of the federation)
maintained their far-reaching original autonomy, now as
self-rule within a federation, and continued to share their
sovereignty with the federation. The constitutional
concept of Switzerland’s distribution of powers reflects a
“bottom-up” construction of the...
12. United States of America
United States of America
(pp. 296-321)
ELLIS KATZ
In the United States the distribution of powers and
responsibilities is better understood as a delegation of
powers by the Constitution to the federal government
than as a full distribution of powers between the federal
government and the states. Rather than listing and
separating the powers of the national and state
governments, the Constitution of the United States
delegates certain specified powers to the federal
government and reserves all other powers, unless
prohibited, to the states. This approach to the distribution
of powers and responsibilities reflects the peculiar
historical circumstances that led to the writing of the
Constitution, the framers’...


13. Comparative Conclusions

Comparative Conclusions
 24

(pp. 322-350)
RONALD L. WATTS
The essential characteristic of federations is that they are
composed of two (or more) orders of government
operating within a constitutional framework, with one
order providingshared rulethrough common institutions
for certain specified purposes and with the other order
(or orders) providing regional or localself-rulethrough the
governments of the constituent units for certain specified
purposes. Thus, as the foregoing chapters in this volume
make clear, a constitutional distribution of legislative and
executive authority, responsibilities, and finances among
the general and constituent unit governments constitutes
a fundamental, indeed defining, aspect in the design and
operation of all these...
 25

COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM IN
INDIA
The Federal character of the Indian Constitution is one of its
salient features, however the term ‘Federation’ has nowhere
been used in the Constitution.
Constitution has provided for a structure of governance which
is essentially federal in nature
It contains all the usual features of a federation, i.e. two
government, division of powers, written Constitution,
supremacy of Constitution, rigidity of Constitution,
independent judiciary and bicameralism. However, the Indian
Constitution also contains a large number of unitary or non-
federal features, i.e. a strong Centre, single Constitution, single
citizenship, flexibility of Constitution, integrated judiciary,
appointment of state governor by the Centre, all-India services,
emergency provisions, and so on.
Article 1, on the other hand, describes India as a ‘Union of
States’ which implies two things: one, Indian Federation is not
the result of an agreement by the states; and two, no state has
the right to secede from the federation. Hence, the Indian
Constitution has been variously described as ‘federal in form
but unitary in spirit’.
Within this basic framework of federalism, the Constitution
has given overriding powers to the Central government. States
must exercise their executive power in compliance with the
laws made by the Central government and must not impede on
the executive power of the Union. Governors are appointed by
the Central government to oversee the States. The Centre can
even take over the executive of the States on the issues of
national security or breakdown of constitutional machinery of
the State.Considering the overriding powers given to the
Central government, Indian federation has often been
described as 'quasi-federation', 'semi-federation', 'pragmatic
federation' or a 'federation with strong unitary features'.
 26

Federalism with the cultural and ethnic pluralism has given the
country’s political system great flexibility, and therefore the
capacity to withstand stress through accommodation.
However, continuation of the same requires not simply
federalism, but cooperative and constructive federalism.
A strong Centre is necessary for strong States and vice versa is
the essence of cooperative federalism
Indian federation should be seen in the context of its
democratic system of governance at the national, state and
local levels and the pluralities of its culture in terms of ethnic,
linguistic, religious and other diversities which cut through the
States. India is the largest democratic country as also the
largest federal and the largest pluralist country of the world.
While democracy provides freedom to everybody, federation
ensures that governance is distributed spatially and a strong
central government enables that the 'unity amidst diversity' is
maintained. It is through Federation that the country mobilizes
all its resources to maintain its harmony and integrity and
marches ahead to progress.
Development of Cooperative Federalism Post Independence
The changing dynamics and the varied experiences that the
Indian State has had like one party rule, the rise of regional
parties, the formation of coalition Governments, active role of
the Judiciary, have shaped the trajectory of federalism by
swinging the pendulum from cooperative to confrontationist
and vice versa.
It has been a trend in Indian political history that so long as the
central and state governments were ruled by the same political
party, the cooperative framework worked very well. But when
different political parties are in power in the centre and the
states and more recently when coalition governments are in
power there are signs of stresses and tensions in
intergovernmental relations between the Centre and the States.
Trend so far:
Cooperative in the 50s and 60s- First fifteen years after
independence were marked by a democratically elected regime
 27

with a comfortable majority coupled with idealism and

freshness of hope having just gained independence.
Confrontationist From 1960s To 1980s - The supremacy of the
Centre broke the power of States and established a new
balance or rather, imbalance between the Centre and the
States.
Cooperative in the 90s – the decade was marked by regime of
coalition government of national and regional parties at the
centre which were cooperative in nature
Cooperative, Concomitant, Negotiatory and Opportunistic In
the last decade - The current trends emphasize cooperation and
coordination, rather than demarcation of powers between
different levels of government. The basic theme today is
interdependence.
Emerging Challenges for 21st Century Federalism
The new challenges facing 21st Century federalism have
further necessitated the pre existing need for cooperative
federalism, thereby making its practice as a form of
governance all the more indispensable.
• Multi Party System
The states today have acquired sufficient political weight of
their own through a pluralised party system enabling
individual states to embark onto bilateral negotiations with the
union bypassing the institutionalised bodies of collective
policy framing that have proved to be ineffective, thus lending
a negotiator character to our federalism.
• International Treaties
India is making strides in the global sphere and the local
governments that promote shared partnership in development
have come to be noticed today. Hence, whenever development
programs or any other interests of states are touched by
international agreements, the well conceived demands of states
should be met in order to promote truly cooperative,
coordinative and multi dimensional centre state relations.
• Environmental factors
 28

Environmental Challenges of global nature like climate change

do not recognise state frontiers. Pollution and conservation
issues reflect the uncomfortable tension between decision
making process of the governments at the centre-state –local
levels. Disaster Management transcends inter-state boundaries
too.
• Terrorism
Terrorism, militancy, organised crimes, problem of internally
displaced persons, refugees – all these require that the country
as a whole comes together and the institutional bodies under
state governments help the centre by collectively making
available the necessary information and resources.
• Voice of Separatism
The increasing voices of autonomy and separatism have
vitiated the political and social fabric of the federal structure.
States are increasingly harbouring feelings of deprivation and
alienation and have begun viewing all problems from a narrow
parochial outlook. This not only weakens the nation but also
makes the land fertile for the growth of terrorism and
insurgency.
• Globalisation
Globalisation has reinforced the need for concurrence between
the geographical, climatic, environmental and technological
diversities inter as well as intra states so that they may link
with global processes for viable and sustainable development
and growth. The experiences felt at the global level are also
being felt at the local level.
Conclusion
The relation between the centre, the states and the local tiers
lies at the heart of India’s sense of nationhood and is the pre
requisite for India’s progress. However, every centre-state and
inter-state relation has a political dispute at its heart. Such a
dispute slowly ripens into an economic one and leads to
underdevelopment, poverty and birth of negative
forces. Unless political disputes and stagnation in the
economic field is not addressed, integration and solidarity in
 29

the federal set up will not be complete. Both Centre and State
governments must attend to the task of preserving our
nationhood through constructive cooperative federalism which
requires a great deal of commitment.
The need to come together today is not only the consequence
of the new challenges facing the nation but that the same will
serve as an antidote to prevent such challenges from recurring
in future. Cooperative federalism alone strengthens the nation
from within by enabling it to withstand adversities and
challenges because of its inherent resilience and malleability.