jbp123/hello · Datasets at Hugging Face

instruction stringlengths 1 84	input stringlengths 1 85	output stringlengths 1 83
divided between the national government and the regional	governments by the Constitution itself and both operate in their	respective jurisdictions independently. Britain, France, Japan,
China, Italy, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Spain and so on have the	unitary model of government while the US, Switzerland, Australia,	Canada, Russia, Brazil, Argentina and so on have the federal
model of government. In a federal model, the national government	is known as the Federal government or the Central government or	the Union government and the regional government is known as the
state government or the provincial government.	The specific features of the federal and unitary governments are	mentioned below in a comparative manner:
The term ‘federation’ is drived from a Latin word foedus which	means ‘treaty’ or ‘agreement’. Thus, a federation is a new state	(political system) which is formed through a treaty or an agreement
between the various units. The units of a federation are known by	various names like states (as in US) or cantons (as in Switzerland)	or provinces (as in Canada) or republics (as in Russia).
Table 13.1 Comparing Features of Federal and Unitary	Governments	Federal Government Unitary Government
Federal Government Unitary Government	1. Dual Government (that 1. Single government, that is,	is, national the national government
government and which may create regional	regional government) governments	2. Written Constitution 2. Constitution may be written
(France) or unwritten (Britain)	3. Division of powers 3. No division of powers. All	between the national powers are vested in the
and regional national government	government	4. Supremacy of the 4. Constitution may be supreme
Constitution (Japan) or may not be	supreme (Britain)	5. Rigid Constitution 5. Constitution may be rigid
(France) or flexible (Britain)	6. Independent judiciary 6. Judiciary may be independent	or may not be independent
7. Bicameral legislature 7. Legislature may be bicameral	(Britain) or unicameral	(China)
A federation can be formed in two ways, that is, by way of	integration or by way of disintegration. In the first case, a number of	militarily weak or economically backward states (independent)
come together to form a big and a strong union, as for example, the	US. In the second case, a big unitary state is converted into a	federation by granting autonomy to the provinces to promote
regional interest (for example, Canada). The US is the first and the	oldest federation in the world. It was formed in 1787 following the	American Revolution (1775–83). It comprises 50 states (originally
13 states) and is taken as the model of federation. The Canadian	Federation, comprising 10 provinces (originally 4 provinces) is also	quite old–formed in 1867.
due to two main reasons–the large size of the country and its socio-	cultural diversity. They realised that the federal system not only	ensures the efficient governance of the country but also reconciles
national unity with regional autonomy.	However, the term ‘federation’ has no where been used in the	Constitution. Instead, Article 1 of the Constitution describes India
asa ‘Union of States’. According to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the phrase	‘Union of States’ has been preferred to ‘Federation of States’ to	indicate two things: (i) the Indian federation is not the result of an
agreement among the states like the American federation; and (ii)	the states have no right to secede from the federation. The	federation is union because it is indestructible.1
The Indian federal system is based on the ‘Canadian model’ and	not on the ‘American model’. The ‘Canadian model’ differs	fundamentally from the ‘American model’ in so far as it establishes
a very strong centre. The Indian federation resembles the Candian	federation (i) in its formation (i.e., by way of disintegration); (ii) in its	preference to the term ‘Union’ (the Canadian federation is also
FEDERAL FEATURES OF THE CONSTITUTION	The federal features of the Constitution of India are explained	below:
1. Dual Polity	The Constitution establishes a dual polity consisting the Union at	the Centre and the states at the periphery. Each is endowed with
sovereign powers to be exercised in the field assigned to them	respectively by the Constitution. The Union government deals with	the matters of national importance like defence, foreign affairs,
currency, communication and so on. The state governments, on the	other hand, look after the matters of regional and local importance	like public order, agriculture, health, local government and so on.
2. Written Constitution	The Constitution is not only a written document but also the	lengthiest Constitution of the world. Originally, it contained a
Preamble, 395 Articles (divided into 22 Parts) and 8 Schedules.2 At	present (2019), it consists of a Preamble, about 470 Articles	(divided into 25 Parts) and 12 Schedules.3 It specifies the structure,
organisation, powers and functions of both the Central and state	governments and prescribes the limits within which they must	operate. Thus, it avoids the misunderstandings and disagreements
between the two.	3. Division of Powers	The Constitution divided the powers between the Centre and the
states in terms of the Union List, State List and Concurrent List in	the Seventh Schedule. The Union List consists of 98 subjects	(originally 97), the State List 59 subjects (originally 66) and the
Concurrent List 52 subjects (originally 47). Both the Centre and the	states can make laws on the subjects of the concurrent list, but in	case of a conflict, the Central law prevails. The residuary subjects
4. Supremacy of the Constitution	The Constitution is the supreme (or the highest) law of the land.	The laws enacted by the Centre and the states must conform to its
provisions. Otherwise, they can be declared invalid by the Supreme	Court or the high courts through their power of judicial review. Thus,	the organs of the government (legislative, executive and judicial) at
both the levels must operate within the jurisdiction prescribed by the	Constitution.	5. Rigid Constitution
The division of powers established by the Constitution as well as	the supremacy of the Constitution can be maintained only if the	method of its amendment is rigid. Hence, the Constitution is rigid to
the extent that those provisions which are concerned with the	federal structure (i.e., Centre-state relations and judicial	organisation) can be amended only by the joint action of the Central
and state governments. Such provisions require for their	amendment a special majority4 of the Parliament and also an	approval of half of the state legislatures.
6. Independent Judiciary	The Constitution establishes an independent judiciary headed by	the Supreme Court for two purposes: one, to protect the supremacy
of the Constitution by exercising the power of judicial review; and	two, to settle the disputes between the Centre and the states or	between the states. The Constitution contains various measures
like security of tenure to judges, fixed service conditions and so on	to make the judiciary independent of the government.	7. Bicameralism
The Constitution provides for a bicameral legislature consisting of	an Upper House (Rajya Sabha) and a Lower House (Lok Sabha).	The Rajya Sabha represents 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	maintain the federal equilibrium by protecting the interests of the
UNITARY FEATURES OF THE CONSTITUTION	Besides the above federal features, the Indian Constitution also	possesses the following unitary or non-federal features:
1. Strong Centre	The division of powers is in favour of the Centre and highly	inequitable from the federal angle. Firstly, the Union List contains
more subjects than the State List. Secondly, the more important	subjects have been included in the Union List. Thirdly, the Centre	has overriding authority over the Concurrent List. Finally, the
residuary powers have also been left with the Centre, while in the	US, they are vested in the states. Thus, the Constitution has made	the Centre very strong.
2. States Not Indestructible	Unlike in other federations, the states in India have no right to	territorial integrity. The Parliament can by unilateral action change
the area, boundaries or name of any state. Moreover, it requires	only a simple majority and not a special majority. Hence, the Indian	Federation is “an indestructible Union of destructible states”. The
American Federation, on the other hand, is described as “an	indestructible Union of indestructible states”.	3. Single Constitution
Usually, in a federation, the states have the right to frame their own	Constitution separate from that of the Centre. In India, on the	contrary, no such power is given to the states. The Constitution of
India embodies not only the Constitution of the Centre but also	those of the states. Both the Centre and the states must operate	within this single-frame. The only exception in this regard was the
case of Jammu and Kashmir which had its own (state)	Constitution.5	4. Flexibility of the Constitution
The process of constitutional amendment is less rigid than what is	found in other federations. The bulk of the Constitution can be	amended by the unilateral action of the Parliament, either by simple
majority or by special majority. Further, the power to initiate an	amendment to the Constitution lies only with the Centre. In US, the	states can also propose an amendment to the Constitution.
5. No Equality of State Representation	The states are given representation in the Rajya Sabha on the	basis of population. Hence, the membership varies from 1 to 31. In
US, on the other hand, the principle of equality of representation of	states in the Upper House is fully recognised. Thus, the American	Senate has 100 members, two from each state. This principle is
regarded as a safeguard for smaller states.	6. Emergency Provisions	The Constitution stipulates three types of emergencies–national,
state and financial. During an emergency, the Central government	becomes all powerful and the states go into the total control of the	Centre. It converts the federal structure into a unitary one without a
formal amendment of the Constitution. This kind of transformation is	not found in any other federation.	7. Single Citizenship
In spite of a dual polity, the Constitution of India, like that of	Canada, adopted the system of single citizenship. There is only	Indian Citizenship and no separate state citizenship. All citizens
irrespective of the state in which they are born or reside enjoy the	same rights all over the country. The other federal states like US,	Switzerland and Australia have dual citizenship, that is, national
citizenship as well as state citizenship.	8. Integrated Judiciary	The Indian Constitution has established an integrated judicial
as well as the state laws. In US, on the other hand, there is a	double system of courts whereby the federal laws are enforced by	the federal judiciary and the state laws by the state judiciary.
9. All-India Services	In US, the Federal government and the state governments have	their separate public services. In India also, the Centre and the
states have their separate public services. But, in addition, there are	all-India services (IAS, IPS, and IFS) which are common to both the	Centre and the states. The members of these services are recruited
and trained by the Centre which also possess ultimate control over	them. Thus, these services violate the principle of federalism under	the Constitution.
10. Integrated Audit Machinery	The Comptroller and Auditor-General of India audits the accounts of	not only the Central government but also those of the states. But,
his appointment and removal is done by the president without	consulting the states. Hence, this office restricts the financial	autonomy of the states. The American Comptroller-General, on the
contrary, has no role with respect to the accounts of the states.	11. Parliament’s Authority Over State List	Even in the limited sphere of authority allotted to them, the states
do not have exclusive control. The Parliament is empowered to	legislate on any subject of the State List if Rajya Sabha passes a	resolution to that effect in the national interest. This means that the
legislative competence of the Parliament can be extended without	amending the Constitution. Notably, this can be done when there is	no emergency of any kind.
12. Appointment of Governor	The governor, who is the head of the state, is appointed by the	President. He holds office during the pleasure of the President. He
contrary, provided for an elected head in the states. In this respect,	India adopted the Canadian system.	13. Integrated Election Machinery
The Election Commission conducts elections not only to the Central	legislature but also to the state legislatures. But, this body is	constituted by the President and the states have no say in this
matter. The position is same with regard to the removal of its	members as well. On the other hand, US has separate machineries	for the conduct of elections at the federal and state levels.
14. Veto Over State Bills	The governor is empowered to reserve certain types of bills passed	by the state legislature for the consideration of the President. The
President can withhold his assent to such bills not only in the first	instance but also in the second instance. Thus, the President	enjoys absolute veto (and not suspensive veto) over state bills. But
CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THE FEDERAL SYSTEM	From the above, it is clear that the Constitution of India has	deviated from the traditional federal systems like US, Switzerland
and Australia and incorporated a large number of unitary or non-	federal features, tilting the balance of power in favour of the Centre.	This has prompted the Constitutional experts to challenge the
federal character of the Indian Constitution. Thus, KC Wheare	described the Constitution of India as “quasi-federal”. He remarked	that “Indian Union is a unitary state with subsidiary federal features
rather than a federal state with subsidiary unitary features.”6	According to K Santhanam, the two factors have been	responsible for increasing the unitary bias (tendency of
centralisation) of the Constitution. These are: (i) the dominance of	the Centre in the financial sphere and the dependence of the states	upon the Central grants; and (ii) the emergence of a powerful
erstwhile planning commission which controlled the developmental	process in the states6a. He observed: “India has practically	functioned as a unitary state though the Union and the states have
tried to function formally and legally as a federation.”7	However, there are other political scientists who do not agree	with the above descriptions. Thus, Paul Appleby8 characterises the
Indian system as “extremely federal”. Morris Jones9 termed it as a	“bargaining federalism”. Ivor Jennings10 has described it as a	“federation with a strong centralising tendency”. He observed that
“the Indian Constitution is mainly federal with unique safeguards for	enforcing national unity and growth”. Alexandrowicz11 stated that	“India is a case sui generis (i.e., unique in character). Granville
Austin12 called the Indian federalism as a “cooperative federalism”.	He said that though the Constitution of India has created a strong	Central government, it has not made the state governments weak
and has not reduced them to the level of administrative agencies for	the execution of policies of the Central government. He described	the Indian federation as “a new kind of federation to meet India’s
peculiar needs”.	On the nature of Indian Constitution, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar made	the following observation in the Constituent Assembly: “The
Constitution is a Federal Constitution in as much as it establishes a	dual polity. The Union is not a league of states, united in a loose	relationship, nor are the states the agencies of the Union, deriving
powers from it. Both the Union and the states are created by the	Constitution, both derive their respective authority from the	Constitution.”13 He further observed: “Yet the Constitution avoids
the tight mould of federalism and could be both unitary as well as	federal according to the requirements of time and circum-	stances”.14 While replying to the criticism of over-centralisation in
the Constitution, he stated: “A serious complaint is made on the	ground that there is too much centralisation and the states have	been reduced to municipalities. It is clear that this view is not only
an exaggeration but is also founded on a misunderstanding of what	exactly the Constitution contrives to do. As to the relations between	the Centre and the states, it is necessary to bear in mind the
fundamental principle on which it rests. The basic principle of	federalism is that the legislative and executive authority is	partitioned between the Centre and the states not by any law to be
made by the Centre but by the Constitution itself. This is what the	Constitution does. The states are in no way dependent upon the	Centre for their legislative or executive authority. The states and the
Centre are coequal in this matter. It is difficult to see how such a	Constitution can be called centralism. It is, therefore, wrong to say	that the states have been placed under the Centre. The Centre

divided between the national government and the regional

governments by the Constitution itself and both operate in their

respective jurisdictions independently. Britain, France, Japan,

China, Italy, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Spain and so on have the

unitary model of government while the US, Switzerland, Australia,

Canada, Russia, Brazil, Argentina and so on have the federal

model of government. In a federal model, the national government

is known as the Federal government or the Central government or

the Union government and the regional government is known as the

state government or the provincial government.

The specific features of the federal and unitary governments are

mentioned below in a comparative manner:

The term ‘federation’ is drived from a Latin word foedus which

means ‘treaty’ or ‘agreement’. Thus, a federation is a new state

(political system) which is formed through a treaty or an agreement

between the various units. The units of a federation are known by

various names like states (as in US) or cantons (as in Switzerland)

or provinces (as in Canada) or republics (as in Russia).

Table 13.1 Comparing Features of Federal and Unitary

Governments

Federal Government Unitary Government

1. Dual Government (that 1. Single government, that is,

is, national the national government

government and which may create regional

regional government) governments

2. Written Constitution 2. Constitution may be written

(France) or unwritten (Britain)

3. Division of powers 3. No division of powers. All

between the national powers are vested in the

and regional national government

government

4. Supremacy of the 4. Constitution may be supreme

Constitution (Japan) or may not be

supreme (Britain)

5. Rigid Constitution 5. Constitution may be rigid

(France) or flexible (Britain)

6. Independent judiciary 6. Judiciary may be independent

or may not be independent

7. Bicameral legislature 7. Legislature may be bicameral

(Britain) or unicameral

(China)

A federation can be formed in two ways, that is, by way of

integration or by way of disintegration. In the first case, a number of

militarily weak or economically backward states (independent)

come together to form a big and a strong union, as for example, the

US. In the second case, a big unitary state is converted into a

federation by granting autonomy to the provinces to promote

regional interest (for example, Canada). The US is the first and the

oldest federation in the world. It was formed in 1787 following the

American Revolution (1775–83). It comprises 50 states (originally

13 states) and is taken as the model of federation. The Canadian

Federation, comprising 10 provinces (originally 4 provinces) is also

quite old–formed in 1867.

due to two main reasons–the large size of the country and its socio-

cultural diversity. They realised that the federal system not only

ensures the efficient governance of the country but also reconciles

national unity with regional autonomy.

However, the term ‘federation’ has no where been used in the

Constitution. Instead, Article 1 of the Constitution describes India

asa ‘Union of States’. According to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the phrase

‘Union of States’ has been preferred to ‘Federation of States’ to

indicate two things: (i) the Indian federation is not the result of an

agreement among the states like the American federation; and (ii)

the states have no right to secede from the federation. The

federation is union because it is indestructible.1

The Indian federal system is based on the ‘Canadian model’ and

not on the ‘American model’. The ‘Canadian model’ differs

fundamentally from the ‘American model’ in so far as it establishes

a very strong centre. The Indian federation resembles the Candian

federation (i) in its formation (i.e., by way of disintegration); (ii) in its

preference to the term ‘Union’ (the Canadian federation is also

FEDERAL FEATURES OF THE CONSTITUTION

The federal features of the Constitution of India are explained

below:

1. Dual Polity

The Constitution establishes a dual polity consisting the Union at

the Centre and the states at the periphery. Each is endowed with

sovereign powers to be exercised in the field assigned to them

respectively by the Constitution. The Union government deals with

the matters of national importance like defence, foreign affairs,

currency, communication and so on. The state governments, on the

other hand, look after the matters of regional and local importance

like public order, agriculture, health, local government and so on.

2. Written Constitution

The Constitution is not only a written document but also the

lengthiest Constitution of the world. Originally, it contained a

Preamble, 395 Articles (divided into 22 Parts) and 8 Schedules.2 At

present (2019), it consists of a Preamble, about 470 Articles

(divided into 25 Parts) and 12 Schedules.3 It specifies the structure,

organisation, powers and functions of both the Central and state

governments and prescribes the limits within which they must

operate. Thus, it avoids the misunderstandings and disagreements

between the two.

3. Division of Powers

The Constitution divided the powers between the Centre and the

states in terms of the Union List, State List and Concurrent List in

the Seventh Schedule. The Union List consists of 98 subjects

(originally 97), the State List 59 subjects (originally 66) and the

Concurrent List 52 subjects (originally 47). Both the Centre and the

states can make laws on the subjects of the concurrent list, but in

case of a conflict, the Central law prevails. The residuary subjects

4. Supremacy of the Constitution

The Constitution is the supreme (or the highest) law of the land.

The laws enacted by the Centre and the states must conform to its

provisions. Otherwise, they can be declared invalid by the Supreme

Court or the high courts through their power of judicial review. Thus,

the organs of the government (legislative, executive and judicial) at

both the levels must operate within the jurisdiction prescribed by the

Constitution.

5. Rigid Constitution

The division of powers established by the Constitution as well as

the supremacy of the Constitution can be maintained only if the

method of its amendment is rigid. Hence, the Constitution is rigid to

the extent that those provisions which are concerned with the

federal structure (i.e., Centre-state relations and judicial

organisation) can be amended only by the joint action of the Central

and state governments. Such provisions require for their

amendment a special majority4 of the Parliament and also an

approval of half of the state legislatures.

6. Independent Judiciary

The Constitution establishes an independent judiciary headed by

the Supreme Court for two purposes: one, to protect the supremacy

of the Constitution by exercising the power of judicial review; and

two, to settle the disputes between the Centre and the states or

between the states. The Constitution contains various measures

like security of tenure to judges, fixed service conditions and so on

to make the judiciary independent of the government.

7. Bicameralism

The Constitution provides for a bicameral legislature consisting of

an Upper House (Rajya Sabha) and a Lower House (Lok Sabha).

The Rajya Sabha represents 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

maintain the federal equilibrium by protecting the interests of the

UNITARY FEATURES OF THE CONSTITUTION

Besides the above federal features, the Indian Constitution also

possesses the following unitary or non-federal features:

1. Strong Centre

The division of powers is in favour of the Centre and highly

inequitable from the federal angle. Firstly, the Union List contains

more subjects than the State List. Secondly, the more important

subjects have been included in the Union List. Thirdly, the Centre

has overriding authority over the Concurrent List. Finally, the

residuary powers have also been left with the Centre, while in the

US, they are vested in the states. Thus, the Constitution has made

the Centre very strong.

2. States Not Indestructible

Unlike in other federations, the states in India have no right to

territorial integrity. The Parliament can by unilateral action change

the area, boundaries or name of any state. Moreover, it requires

only a simple majority and not a special majority. Hence, the Indian

Federation is “an indestructible Union of destructible states”. The

American Federation, on the other hand, is described as “an

indestructible Union of indestructible states”.

3. Single Constitution

Usually, in a federation, the states have the right to frame their own

Constitution separate from that of the Centre. In India, on the

contrary, no such power is given to the states. The Constitution of

India embodies not only the Constitution of the Centre but also

those of the states. Both the Centre and the states must operate

within this single-frame. The only exception in this regard was the

case of Jammu and Kashmir which had its own (state)

Constitution.5

4. Flexibility of the Constitution

The process of constitutional amendment is less rigid than what is

found in other federations. The bulk of the Constitution can be

amended by the unilateral action of the Parliament, either by simple

majority or by special majority. Further, the power to initiate an

amendment to the Constitution lies only with the Centre. In US, the

states can also propose an amendment to the Constitution.

5. No Equality of State Representation

The states are given representation in the Rajya Sabha on the

basis of population. Hence, the membership varies from 1 to 31. In

US, on the other hand, the principle of equality of representation of

states in the Upper House is fully recognised. Thus, the American

Senate has 100 members, two from each state. This principle is

regarded as a safeguard for smaller states.

6. Emergency Provisions

The Constitution stipulates three types of emergencies–national,

state and financial. During an emergency, the Central government

becomes all powerful and the states go into the total control of the

Centre. It converts the federal structure into a unitary one without a

formal amendment of the Constitution. This kind of transformation is

not found in any other federation.

7. Single Citizenship

In spite of a dual polity, the Constitution of India, like that of

Canada, adopted the system of single citizenship. There is only

Indian Citizenship and no separate state citizenship. All citizens

irrespective of the state in which they are born or reside enjoy the

same rights all over the country. The other federal states like US,

Switzerland and Australia have dual citizenship, that is, national

citizenship as well as state citizenship.

8. Integrated Judiciary

The Indian Constitution has established an integrated judicial

as well as the state laws. In US, on the other hand, there is a

double system of courts whereby the federal laws are enforced by

the federal judiciary and the state laws by the state judiciary.

9. All-India Services

In US, the Federal government and the state governments have

their separate public services. In India also, the Centre and the

states have their separate public services. But, in addition, there are

all-India services (IAS, IPS, and IFS) which are common to both the

Centre and the states. The members of these services are recruited

and trained by the Centre which also possess ultimate control over

them. Thus, these services violate the principle of federalism under

the Constitution.

10. Integrated Audit Machinery

The Comptroller and Auditor-General of India audits the accounts of

not only the Central government but also those of the states. But,

his appointment and removal is done by the president without

consulting the states. Hence, this office restricts the financial

autonomy of the states. The American Comptroller-General, on the

contrary, has no role with respect to the accounts of the states.

11. Parliament’s Authority Over State List

Even in the limited sphere of authority allotted to them, the states

do not have exclusive control. The Parliament is empowered to

legislate on any subject of the State List if Rajya Sabha passes a

resolution to that effect in the national interest. This means that the

legislative competence of the Parliament can be extended without

amending the Constitution. Notably, this can be done when there is

no emergency of any kind.

12. Appointment of Governor

The governor, who is the head of the state, is appointed by the

President. He holds office during the pleasure of the President. He

contrary, provided for an elected head in the states. In this respect,

India adopted the Canadian system.

13. Integrated Election Machinery

The Election Commission conducts elections not only to the Central

legislature but also to the state legislatures. But, this body is

constituted by the President and the states have no say in this

matter. The position is same with regard to the removal of its

members as well. On the other hand, US has separate machineries

for the conduct of elections at the federal and state levels.

14. Veto Over State Bills

The governor is empowered to reserve certain types of bills passed

by the state legislature for the consideration of the President. The

President can withhold his assent to such bills not only in the first

instance but also in the second instance. Thus, the President

enjoys absolute veto (and not suspensive veto) over state bills. But

CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THE FEDERAL SYSTEM

From the above, it is clear that the Constitution of India has

deviated from the traditional federal systems like US, Switzerland

and Australia and incorporated a large number of unitary or non-

federal features, tilting the balance of power in favour of the Centre.

This has prompted the Constitutional experts to challenge the

federal character of the Indian Constitution. Thus, KC Wheare

described the Constitution of India as “quasi-federal”. He remarked

that “Indian Union is a unitary state with subsidiary federal features

rather than a federal state with subsidiary unitary features.”6

According to K Santhanam, the two factors have been

responsible for increasing the unitary bias (tendency of

centralisation) of the Constitution. These are: (i) the dominance of

the Centre in the financial sphere and the dependence of the states

upon the Central grants; and (ii) the emergence of a powerful

erstwhile planning commission which controlled the developmental

process in the states6a. He observed: “India has practically

functioned as a unitary state though the Union and the states have

tried to function formally and legally as a federation.”7

However, there are other political scientists who do not agree

with the above descriptions. Thus, Paul Appleby8 characterises the

Indian system as “extremely federal”. Morris Jones9 termed it as a

“bargaining federalism”. Ivor Jennings10 has described it as a

“federation with a strong centralising tendency”. He observed that

“the Indian Constitution is mainly federal with unique safeguards for

enforcing national unity and growth”. Alexandrowicz11 stated that

“India is a case sui generis (i.e., unique in character). Granville

Austin12 called the Indian federalism as a “cooperative federalism”.

He said that though the Constitution of India has created a strong

Central government, it has not made the state governments weak

and has not reduced them to the level of administrative agencies for

the execution of policies of the Central government. He described

the Indian federation as “a new kind of federation to meet India’s

peculiar needs”.

On the nature of Indian Constitution, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar made

the following observation in the Constituent Assembly: “The

Constitution is a Federal Constitution in as much as it establishes a

dual polity. The Union is not a league of states, united in a loose

relationship, nor are the states the agencies of the Union, deriving

powers from it. Both the Union and the states are created by the

Constitution, both derive their respective authority from the

Constitution.”13 He further observed: “Yet the Constitution avoids

the tight mould of federalism and could be both unitary as well as

federal according to the requirements of time and circum-

stances”.14 While replying to the criticism of over-centralisation in

the Constitution, he stated: “A serious complaint is made on the

ground that there is too much centralisation and the states have

been reduced to municipalities. It is clear that this view is not only

an exaggeration but is also founded on a misunderstanding of what

exactly the Constitution contrives to do. As to the relations between

the Centre and the states, it is necessary to bear in mind the

fundamental principle on which it rests. The basic principle of

federalism is that the legislative and executive authority is

partitioned between the Centre and the states not by any law to be

made by the Centre but by the Constitution itself. This is what the

Constitution does. The states are in no way dependent upon the

Centre for their legislative or executive authority. The states and the

Centre are coequal in this matter. It is difficult to see how such a

Constitution can be called centralism. It is, therefore, wrong to say

that the states have been placed under the Centre. The Centre