Page 1 of 9
European Journal of Business &
Social Sciences
Available at https://ejbss.org/
ISSN: 2235-767X
Volume 06 Issue 04
April 2018
Available online: https://ejbss.org/ P a g e | 118
The Nature and Changing Scenario of Indian Federalism
Amit
LLM (1st Year)
H. No. 105, BHP Colony, Satrod Khurd, Hisar- 125044
E-mail: amitjangra247@gmail.com
Abstract: Federalism is still the most viable system, as it was in the past centuries,
because other systems seem to be unable to meet new challenges effectively. While the
challenges often do have linkage with the past, many emerge from the fictions in
Centre-State or state-group relations. True, mere form of classical federalism can hardly
meet the challenges without suitable constitutional mechanisms founded upon federal
principles. The problems are an indication that the nature of federal society or diversity
in society has not yet been nullified by modern transformation. This reminds us of the
validity of federalism, which gives sense of solidarity in a federal society. Today
federalism is regarded a text of modern polity and civic community. The framers of
Indian constitution have given more powers to the centers and any state has no right to
disturb the federal structure of the constitution. The present research paper highlights
the key aspects of Indian federalism.
Keywords: Federalism, Indian Constitution, Separation, Autonomy, Regionalism.
Introduction: Actually Federalism offers a viable ideology to manage multicultural
societies. It is inseparable from democracy and consociationalism. Federal attributes
range decentralization to minority rights. Federalism is basically committed to non- centralization and non-majoritarianism. It not only prescribes the principle of
proportionality but also specially takes care of the interests of minorities and other
Page 2 of 9
European Journal of Business &
Social Sciences
Available at https://ejbss.org/
ISSN: 2235-767X
Volume 06 Issue 04
April 2018
Available online: https://ejbss.org/ P a g e | 119
vulnerable groups. Examples are the some countries – Switzerland, Canada, Belgium and
Nigeria are some examples where non-majority groups have been provided with
adequate constitutional guarantees for their participation and inclusion. Thomas Fleiner
and Lidija R. Basta Fleiner have argued that minority protection has to be understood
merely as immanent to a democratic question.
Article-1 of the Indian Constitution says that India is a 'Union of States.' Thus, the
Indian Constitution does not declare itself as a 'Federation'. In fact, nowhere in the
Constitution the term 'Federation' has been used. Instead of it the term 'Union' has
been used. The dictionary meaning of 'Union' is uniting or being united. Thus, the
emphasis is on unity while the federation is a system of government in which unity and
diversity are both taken into consideration and a balance between the two is sought.
While moving, the 'Draft Constitution' on November 4, 1948 in the Constituent
Assembly Dr. B.R. Ambedkar explained why the term 'Union' instead of federation was
used. He said, "The Drafting Committee wanted to make it clear that though India was
to be a federation, the federation was not the result of an agreement by the States to.
join in a federation, and that the federation not being the result of an agreement, no
State has a right to separate from it The federation is a union because it is
indestructible. Though the country and the people may be divided into different States
for convenience of administration, the country is one integral whole, its people a single
people living under a single emporium derived from a single source. The Drafting
Committee thought that it was better to make it clear at the outset rather than to leave
it to speculation or to dispute."
Actually Federalism in India is a major output of the 1918 Montague Chemsford
Report and the 1929 Simon Commission Report strongly argued for decentralization of
Page 3 of 9
European Journal of Business &
Social Sciences
Available at https://ejbss.org/
ISSN: 2235-767X
Volume 06 Issue 04
April 2018
Available online: https://ejbss.org/ P a g e | 120
authorities among the constituent provinces as perhaps the best administration device
in politically - fragmented and strife ridden India. Further, the second serious
intervention happened to be the Government of India Act, 1935 that provided for the
distribution of legislative jurisdiction with the three fold division of powers into federal,
provincial and concurrent lists. The most remarkable feature of this Act was that it
envisaged a federation of India consisting of the British provinces and Indian states
willing to join. Therefore, when the new constitution came into existence, India adopted
most of the features of this Act. Furthermore, K.C. Wheare called it a quasi-federation
and thus deviated from the classical model of regional and sub-regional autonomy. That
is why; Indian Federation is a union of states which is indestructible. Thus, the present
paper aims at to highlight the nature of Indian federalism and the tendency of
regionalism at present in it
Need of Strong Centre: Here it is needless to say that the decision to make the centre
stronger at the expense of the states was neither prudent nor foresighted. Even the
earlier notion of conceding autonomy to the states only in order to satisfy the political
sentiments of the vocal Muslim religious minority was incorrect in as much as it did not
take into account the prevalence of other diversities in the sub-continent. It should be
remembered that India has been throughout ages an essentially plural society. It had
not only religious but also ethnic, linguistic and cultural minorities. The sub-continent
was full of regional, racial and religious diversities and, hence, the idea of granting
autonomy to units did not become irrelevant after partition. The creation of Pakistan
did not make the principle of federalism irrelevant in India. Small wonder, within a
decade of achieving independence Indian states had to be recognized on linguistic basis.
