INTRODUCTION

India’s political map has undergone remarkable changes since 1947, reflecting shifts in boundaries, names, and the number of States.

At the time of Independence, the country consisted of British-administered provinces and over 500 princely states that merged with the newly formed Indian Union. Over the decades, India’s States have been reorganized multiple times, and several have been renamed to reflect the linguistic and cultural aspirations of their people—for instance, Mysore became Karnataka and Madras was renamed Tamil Nadu. These large-scale transformations stand as a testament to the dynamic and adaptive nature of Indian federalism.

WHAT IS FEDERALISM?

After 1989, the USSR—once a global superpower—disintegrated into several independent nations. A major reason for its collapse was excessive centralisation and concentration of power, along with the domination of Russia over other regions that had distinct languages and cultures, such as Uzbekistan. Similarly, countries like Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and Pakistan also experienced division.

Canada, too, came close to breaking apart due to tensions between its English-speaking and French-speaking regions. In contrast, India—despite emerging from a painful partition in 1947—has remained united for over seventy years, a remarkable achievement largely attributed to the spirit and practice of its federal system.

India is a land of continental proportions and immense diversity, home to more than twenty major languages and several hundred minor ones, multiple major religions, and millions of indigenous communities. Despite this vast diversity, the nation shares a common landmass and a rich, intertwined history, inspiring its leaders to envision India as a country embodying unity in diversity.

Federalism, however, is not a rigid set of principles; it has evolved differently across nations. For instance, American federalism differs significantly from the systems practiced in Germany or India.

Institutional Mechanism:

Federalism is an institutional mechanism designed to accommodate two levels of governance—one at the regional level and the other at the national level. Each government operates autonomously within its own sphere of authority. Unlike some federal countries that provide for dual citizenship, India mandates only single citizenship. Nevertheless, its people embody dual identities and loyalties: regional—such as Gujaratis or Jharkhandis—and national, as Indians.

Constitutional Requirements:

The details of this dual system are generally laid out in a written constitution, which is regarded as supreme and serves as the ultimate source of authority for both levels of government.

• National responsibilities: Subjects concerning the nation as a whole—such as defence, foreign affairs, and currency—fall under the jurisdiction of the Union or Central government.
• State responsibilities: Matters of regional or local importance are managed by the State or regional governments.
• Judicial authority: An independent judiciary functions to resolve disputes between the Centre and the States, particularly those relating to the division of powers and constitutional interpretation.
• Functionality and Challenges: The functioning of a federation is shaped not only by constitutional design but also by the dynamics of real politics, culture, ideology, and history. Its smooth operation depends on a spirit of trust, cooperation, mutual respect, and restraint among all levels of government. Political parties play a crucial role in determining how federal principles are implemented in practice. However, if any single unit, state, linguistic group, or ideology comes to dominate the federation, it can create deep resentment and instability—sometimes even provoking demands for secession or triggering internal conflicts.

FEDERALISM IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

The leaders of India’s national movement were conscious that governing such a vast and diverse country required a division of powers between the provinces and the central government, acknowledging the nation’s regional and linguistic diversity. After the decision to partition India, the Constituent Assembly resolved to create a system of government founded on unity and cooperation between the Centre and the States, while also ensuring adequate autonomy for the States.

The most significant feature of this arrangement is that the relationship between the Centre and the States was envisioned to rest on the principle of cooperation. Interestingly, the Constitution does not explicitly use the word federation. Instead, it describes India’s polity as follows:

Article 1:
 (1) India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.
 (2) The States and the territories thereof shall be as specified in the First Schedule.

Division of Powers

The Indian Constitution established two levels of government: the Union (or Central) government for the entire nation, and the State governments for individual units. Both levels enjoy constitutional status and have clearly defined areas of jurisdiction. Any disputes concerning the division of powers are adjudicated by the Judiciary in accordance with constitutional provisions.

The Constitution demarcates subjects under the exclusive domains of each level of government through three lists—the Union List, the State List, and the Concurrent List. A notable feature of this division is the concentration of economic and financial powers in the hands of the Centre. As a result, while States bear immense responsibilities, they possess only “very meagre revenue sources.”

Table: Constitutional Division of Legislative Subjects

FEDERALISM WITH A STRONG CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

The Indian Constitution is widely regarded as having established a strong central government. While the framers intended to create a federal structure that could accommodate India’s vast diversity, they also sought to ensure a powerful Centre capable of preventing disintegration and promoting social and political transformation. A strong central authority was deemed essential because India, at Independence, consisted of British provinces and more than 500 princely states that needed to be unified into a single nation.

Addressing this issue of centralisation in the Constituent Assembly, T.T. Krishnamachari observed:

“Let me tell my honourable friends in the House that the drift in all constitutions has been towards the Centre… because of circumstances that have now come into being—that the States have become, whether federal or unitary, welfare states from being police states, and the ultimate responsibility for the economic well-being of the country has become the paramount responsibility of the Centre.”

Thus, concerns for national unity and socio-economic development justified the creation of a strong Central government. The pressing challenges of poverty, illiteracy, and inequality demanded coordinated planning and cooperation between the Centre and the States.

Provisions Creating a Strong Central Government:

1.     Parliamentary Power over State Existence: The very existence, territorial integrity, and name of a State are in the hands of Parliament. Parliament can form a new State, unite two or more States, or alter boundaries or names.  A safeguard is securing the view of the concerned State legislature.

2.     Emergency Provisions: Powerful provisions allow the federal polity to turn into a highly centralised system upon emergency declaration. Power lawfully centralises, and Parliament assumes the power to make laws on State subjects.

3.     Financial Centralization: Revenue-generating items are under Central control, making States dependent on grants and financial assistance. The adoption of Planning led to considerable centralisation of economic decision making; the Planning Commission (appointed by the Union) controls and supervises State resource management. The Union’s discretion in giving grants and loans is often charged with discrimination against opposition-ruled States.

4.     Governor’s Power to Veto State Legislation: The Governor has the power to recommend dismissal of the State government/dissolution of the Assembly. In normal circumstances, the Governor can reserve a bill passed by the State legislature for the President’s assent. This allows the Centre to delay, examine, and completely veto State legislation.

5.     Parliamentary Legislation on State List: The Centre can legislate on State List matters if the move is ratified by the Rajya Sabha.

6.     Superior Executive Authority: The executive powers of the Centre are superior to those of the States.  The Centre can choose to give instructions to the State government. Article 257 (1): The executive power of every State shall be so exercised as not to impede or prejudice the exercise of the executive power of the Union, and the executive power of the Union shall extend to the giving of such directions to a State as may appear to the Government of India to be necessary for that purpose.

7.     Integrated Administrative System: The all-India services are common to India. Officers (like IAS/IPS) serve in State administration but are under the control of the central government. States can neither take disciplinary action nor remove these officers from service.

8.     Martial Law: Articles 33 and 34 authorise Parliament to protect persons in service of the union or a state for actions taken during martial law to maintain/restore order. This provision strengthens Union powers, and the Armed Forces Special Powers Act has been made on this basis, sometimes creating tensions.

CONFLICTS IN INDIA’S FEDERAL SYSTEM

The concentration of powers in the Centre, alongside the recognition of regional identities, naturally leads States to seek a greater role within the federal framework. This dynamic often gives rise to demands for increased autonomy and occasional tensions between the Centre and the States. While constitutional and legal disputes are settled by the judiciary, issues of political autonomy and representation must be addressed through dialogue, negotiation, and mutual understanding.

Centre-State Relations

Federalism in India has evolved in close connection with the changing nature of its political process, which gives the constitutional framework its “flesh and blood.”

1. 1950s and Early 1960s – The Era of Congress Dominance:
   During the early decades after Independence, under the leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru, the Congress Party dominated both the Centre and most State governments. Relations between the two levels were generally cooperative, though debates occasionally arose over the reorganization of States. States were largely optimistic about achieving progress through Central grants and the implementation of national socio-economic development policies.
2. Mid-1960s – Decline of One-Party Dominance:
   By the mid-1960s, the Congress Party’s dominance began to wane, and opposition parties gained power in several States. This political shift led to growing demands for greater State autonomy, as differing political parties at the Centre and in the States often clashed. Many State governments began protesting what they perceived as excessive interference by the Congress-led Central government, sparking widespread discussions on Centre–State relations.
3. Since the 1990s – The Coalition Era:
   The decline of Congress dominance eventually gave rise to coalition politics at the national level. With multiple regional and national parties sharing power, both in the Centre and in the States, India entered a new phase of cooperative and negotiated federalism. This era witnessed a stronger voice for the States, greater respect for regional diversity, and the gradual maturing of India’s federal structure.

Demands for Autonomy

States and political parties have demanded greater autonomy, which refers to different things:

1.     Legislative Autonomy: Demands to change the division of powers in favour of States, assigning more important legislative powers. States/Parties making demands include
 Tamil Nadu, Punjab, West Bengal, DMK, Akali Dal, and CPI-M.

2.     Financial Autonomy: Demand for independent sources of revenue and greater control over resources to lessen dependence on the Centre. The Left Front Government in West Bengal brought out a document in 1977 demanding the restructuring of centre-State relations for greater financial powers.

3.     Administrative Autonomy: States resent the Centre’s control over the administrative machinery.

4.     Cultural and Linguistic Autonomy: Demands related to protecting regional language and culture. Instances include opposition to the domination of Hindi (in Tamil Nadu) and demands for advancing the Punjabi language and culture. Agitations against Hindi imposition occurred in some States during the 1960s. In the Constituent Assembly, Nehru had to appeal to the Hindi-speaking provinces to show greater tolerance towards others.

Role of Governors and President’s Rule

The Governor’s role is a controversial issue, as the appointee is viewed as Central interference, especially when different parties rule. The Sarkaria Commission (appointed 1983; report 1988) recommended that gubernatorial appointments should be strictly non-partisan.  President’s Rule (Article 356): This is one of the most controversial articles, applied when a State government “cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution”. 

This allows the Union government to take over State administration; the proclamation must be ratified by Parliament and can be extended up to three years.The Governor can recommend the dismissal of the State government or dissolution of the Assembly. Article 356 was used sparingly until 1967. Afterward, the Centre frequently used it to dismiss non-Congress State governments or prevent the majority party from taking office. Examples of misuse include the dismissal of the Kerala government in 1959 despite having a majority, and the removal of elected governments in Andhra Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir in the 1980s. The Supreme Court has since ruled that the constitutional validity of imposing President’s Rule can be examined by the judiciary.

Demands for New States

The Indian national movement not only fostered a sense of pan-Indian unity but also encouraged solidarity based on shared language, culture, and regional identity. Recognising these realities, the framers of independent India decided that, as far as possible, States should be organised on the basis of common linguistic and cultural identity.

The growing demand for linguistic States led to the establishment of the States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) in December 1953, which formally recommended the reorganisation of State boundaries. Acting on its report, the process of State reorganisation began in 1956 and has continued since.

• 1960: Creation of Gujarat and Maharashtra.
• 1966: Division of Punjab, leading to the creation of Haryana.
• 1970s–1980s: The North-Eastern region underwent major restructuring, resulting in the formation of Manipur, Tripura, Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh.
• 2000: Three new States were carved out for administrative efficiency and in response to long-standing regional demands—Chhattisgarh (from Madhya Pradesh), Uttarakhand (from Uttar Pradesh), and Jharkhand (from Bihar).
• 2014: Telangana was created from Andhra Pradesh after decades of agitation.

The reorganisation of States has thus been a continuous process reflecting India’s dynamic federalism. Yet, new demands—such as for Vidarbha in Maharashtra—illustrate that the quest for recognition and autonomy remains an ongoing aspect of India’s political landscape.

Interstate Conflicts

Disputes between States occur frequently. Legal disputes are arbitrated by the judiciary, but their political nature means they are best resolved through negotiations and mutual understanding.

Disputes between States arise frequently within India’s federal framework. While legal conflicts are adjudicated by the judiciary, many such issues carry deep political and emotional dimensions, making them more effectively resolved through negotiation, compromise, and mutual understanding.

1. Border Disputes:
   States have often laid competing claims over neighbouring territories. Although linguistic identity was intended to be the principal basis for drawing State boundaries, the multilingual nature of populations in border regions has complicated this principle.
   1. A long-standing dispute continues between Maharashtra and Karnataka over the Belgaum (Belagavi) region.
   1. Tensions also persist between Manipur and Nagaland over certain border areas.
   1. The reorganisation of Punjab gave rise to disputes between Punjab and Haryana concerning territorial boundaries and the shared capital, Chandigarh.
2. An understanding reached in 1985, under Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, proposed transferring Chandigarh to Punjab; however, this agreement remains unimplemented. Most border disputes, while symbolically significant, are often driven more by emotional and cultural factors than by administrative or economic concerns.
3. River Water Disputes:
   Disputes over river waters tend to be more serious, as they involve essential resources for drinking water, irrigation, and agriculture—testing the very spirit of cooperative federalism.
   1. The Cauvery (Kaveri) water dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka has endured for decades, despite intervention by a river water tribunal and subsequent rulings by the Supreme Court.
   1. Similarly, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra have been locked in a protracted dispute over the sharing of Narmada River waters.

Such conflicts highlight the continuing challenge of balancing regional interests within a unified federal framework, underscoring the importance of dialogue, trust, and institutional cooperation in maintaining harmony among India’s States.

SPECIAL PROVISIONS

An extraordinary feature of Indian federalism is the differential treatment accorded to various States to accommodate the country’s immense diversity. This approach, often referred to as asymmetrical federalism, recognises that different regions require different arrangements to reflect their unique historical, cultural, and social circumstances.

• Representation in the Rajya Sabha:

The Indian federal system provides asymmetrical representation in the Rajya Sabha (Council of States). Smaller States are guaranteed a minimum level of representation to safeguard their interests, while larger States are allotted more seats in proportion to their population. This ensures both equity among States and recognition of demographic realities.

• Special Constitutional Provisions:

While the basic division of powers between the Centre and the States remains uniform, the Constitution incorporates special provisions for certain States. These provisions were introduced in light of distinctive historical, cultural, and geographic contexts.
Most of these relate to the North-Eastern States—such as Assam, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, and Mizoram—which have significant indigenous tribal populations with distinct cultures and histories. These constitutional safeguards aim to protect their identities and promote regional development, though alienation and insurgency have not been entirely eliminated.

Special provisions also apply to hilly and border States such as Himachal Pradesh and Sikkim, as well as to other States like Andhra Pradesh, Goa, Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Telangana, where unique developmental or cultural needs warranted tailored constitutional arrangements.

Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) Status (Art. 370)

Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) was among the largest princely states at the time of India’s independence in 1947. It had the option of joining India or Pakistan, or remaining independent. Following Pakistan’s invasion through tribal infiltrators in October 1947, Maharaja Hari Singh decided to accede to the Indian Union. Because J&K was a Muslim-majority region with unique historical and political circumstances, it was granted special constitutional autonomy within the Indian federation.

• Pre-2019 Autonomy:

Under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, the concurrence (consent) of the State government was required before applying any laws relating to matters in the Union or Concurrent Lists. The Centre’s legislative powers were thus limited and could be exercised only with State approval.
Over time, the President of India, with the concurrence of J&K, issued two Constitutional Orders extending many provisions of the Indian Constitution to the State. Parliament’s authority over matters in the Union List was largely accepted, yet J&K maintained its own Constitution and State flag, symbolising its distinctive status within the Union.

• Remaining Differences (Pre-2019):

Despite these integrations, key differences remained. The Union could not declare an emergency due to internal disturbances in J&K without the State’s consent. The financial emergency provisions of the Constitution did not apply to the State, and the Directive Principles of State Policy were not enforceable there. Furthermore, constitutional amendments under Article 368 could be extended to J&K only with the approval of the State government.

• 2019 Reorganisation:

The special constitutional status of J&K under Article 370 was revoked in August 2019. Subsequently, the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 was enacted, bifurcating the State into two Union Territories—

1. Jammu and Kashmir, with a legislative assembly, and
   1. Ladakh, without a legislative assembly.

This new administrative arrangement came into effect on 31 October 2019, marking a historic reconfiguration of India’s federal landscape.

Conclusion

“Federalism is like a rainbow, where each colour is distinct, yet together they form a harmonious pattern.”

This metaphor captures the essence of Indian federalism — a system that thrives on both unity and diversity. Maintaining this delicate balance requires continuous effort and political maturity. No legal or institutional framework alone can ensure its smooth functioning; it depends fundamentally on a culture of mutual trust, tolerance, cooperation, and respect among the Union, the States, and the people.

Federalism in India is not merely a constitutional arrangement but a living process that reflects the country’s plural character. Attempts to suppress regional or cultural differences through coercion can only deepen social divisions and alienation. True unity emerges when diversity is acknowledged, valued, and woven into the national fabric. A responsive and inclusive polity, sensitive to the aspirations of its diverse regions and peoples, remains the only firm foundation for a cooperative and enduring federation.