Name: Samudranil Bose

Class: IR PG-I
Roll No: 002100702019
Semester: I
Institution: Jadavpur
University
Core Paper: Politics in India

Home Assignment-I
Topic: - Critical Analyses of
Changing Nature of Federalism In
India
Federalism is an instrument through which democracy gets implemented upon a Republic. Under aegis
of GoI Act,1935 & Cabinet Mission Plan, Constituent Assembly, framed Independent India’s
constitution starting 1946, ending in 26th January,1950. With “division of hearts”1 constitution
proclaimed “Bharat” as congregation of “Union of States & Territories”2, but the word “federation”
stayed absent due to looming fears of secession. While Ambedkar & Nehru favoured unitary features,
Patel envisioned strong, robust federal setup for future generations. A reformed Westminster model with
strong Canadian unitary features pushed India for “quasi-federalism” .

Nehru’s Objectives Resolution3 guaranteed democratic conciliation with autonomous administrative

states over three lists4 for holistic human development over polity, socio cultural & economic dimensions.
This prediction of inclusive federalism has fully eroded, fostering radical centrifugal forces after 75
years. But why?

I. Nehruvian Era of Political Homogeneity (1947-67)

Post-partition, interim government led by Nehru & Patel hastened the job of integrating Indian
Union with few hiccups in Junagadh, Travancore-Cochin, Hyderabad & J&K. In 1952 with
landslide victory, Nehru kicked-off his first tenure, optimistic in pulling several masterstrokes.

 State Reorganization-Masterstroke or Compulsion? : Within prefectorial federalism,

Nehru’s perspectives on Centre-State relations were democratic & cooperative rather than
confrontational. During British Raj, state boundaries were drawn artificially for
administrative convenience but got rejected5. Post-Independence, Central leaders felt carving
out states along linguistic lines may foment disruption & disintegration, hence postponed it.
Protests erupted across Indian states where protesters6 lost lives in police firing. Nehru
reluctantly played masterstroke by announcing Andhra as separate state (Dec,1952) &
formation of SRC7. Based on 1955 report, 14 states & 6 UT took birth. Although Regional
Zonal Councils, fostered cooperative federalism to discuss Centre-state issues of mutual
interests & socioeconomic policies but they were formed within system of central dominion
over states. Home Minister Pant described it as Centre’s gameplan to arrest active regional
consciousness & decisive trends.

 Elitist Linguistic Policy : Nehru portrayed federal zeal via official language policy. He didn’t
impose Hindi as only official language due to lurking fears of Dravidian Movement creating
rifts between Centre & Non-Hindi speaking states. English was decided to stay as associate
lingua-franca of India. But Ambedkar criticized this move as authoritarian imposition of
colonial language as official medium among bureaucrats who’re going to frame policies for
newly independent mass with overall literacy rate of 12%(Oxfam India). Voices were stifled
of a populace who couldn’t even write their vernaculars.
1
Amrita Pritam described “Partition” in her poem Today I Call Waris Shah.
2
First Schedule, Indian Constitution, Art 1(1); 1(2).
3
INC-Karachi Session,1931.
4
Seventh Schedule, distinguishing legislative powers of Centre-states in Union, States & Concurrent List.
5
INC Nagpur Session,1920.
6
In interim period Telegu speaking areas of old Madras province demanded separate Andhra state aka Vishalandhra movement. Veteran
Gandhian-Congress leader Potti Sriramulu’s death after 56 days indefinite fast triggered violent unrests in Andhra.
7
State Reorganization Commission(1953) was estd. to redraw state boundaries along linguistic lines in SRC Report(1955) pushing forward a
State Reorganization Act,1956. Five Regional Zonal Councils assisted SRC.
  HighCommand Hegemony & Controlling “Internal factionalism” of an Umbrella : INC
dominated Centre as well as states. During 3 general elections of 1952,1957 & 1962 INC
returned to power in almost all states while in rest it was the single largest party. Centre was
further rejuvenated by Nehru’s charismatic leadership. As Rajni Kothari chronicles CMs &
Ministers were cherry-picked by Nehru & Party High Command & former couldn’t assert
themselves. Even candidatures to state legislative elections were decided by same. In states,
INC had factions & in many cases they were wrongfully encouraged by central leadership to
deny CMs strength. This subordination of state governments into “play marbles” before
Centre, culminated in 1963 “Kamraj Plan8”. Nehru as constitutional patriarch always
intervened in work of CMs with periodic administrative guidance & political direction.

 Centralized Planning & Economic Fallacies : Established 1950, Planning Commission

chaired by PM with his kitchen cabinet became an instrument of Central domination over
states. Planning Commission overstepped monitoring of (education, public healthcare,
agricultural services) all state subjects. West Bengal vehemently opposed it commenting that
real federation should prevail between Centre & states limited to respective spheres. Even
1952 crafted Nations Development Council's platform of CMs for democratic dialogue was
no different. K. Santhanam termed it as “super Indian economic cabinet” with resolve to
equally distribute & mobilize resources across states for balanced & rapid development. But
NDC showed true colours when CMs were unilaterally forced by Centre to surrender their
state taxes on sugar, textile & tobacco without consent. Santhanam concluded that INC
domination between Centre-state relations poisoned federal atmosphere with states unable to
assert themselves.

 Leaving behind unhealthy precedents & international humiliation :

 Nehru got intolerant when it came to whimsically invoke Art 356, 7 times. Notable
ones first , on Punjab(1951) to unseat Gopichand Bhargava, follower of Patel;
second, in PEPSU9(1953) rattle Union Front Ministry headed by Rarewala; third ,
Communists from forming an alternative government after collapse of INC in
Andhra (1954); fourth , prevent PSP leader Pattom Pillai from forming alternative
government in Travancore-Cochin(1956) after INC government resignation; fifth ,
oust EMS Namboodiripad popular CPI government in Kerala(1959). Ambedkar
described it as “most violent rape of Constitution”.

 He miserably failed with Soviet model of economic planning10 crippling thrust of

federal polity. Nehru controversially in 3rd Constitutional empowered Centre to
legislate on subject i.e. essential commodities.

 October 1962 Sino invasion of Aksai-Chin & NEFA shattered Nehru emotionally.
Nehruvian regime hit rock bottom in Chinese ceasefire with humiliating defeat, top
army commanders & members of cabinet resigning. Opposition issued

8
In 1963, 6 CMs & unwanted INC Cabinet ministers were dethroned.
9
Patiala & Eastern Punjab States Union.
10
1st, 2nd & 3rd FYPs failure forced Nehru to call “plan holidays” followed by three Annual Plans with 4 th FYP coming only in 1969. Impetus for
agro-production, heavy industries, multipurpose projects & mixed economic model with public-private undertak8ngs had half-hearted ambitions.
Even fruits of such labour were unequally distributed.
 no-confidence against him. He was bulldozed for his naive assessment of Chinese
intentions & zero military preparedness. Ignorance & postponing reorganization of
NEFA & Ladakh cost him dearly with major defeats in by-elections. Thus he
leaving for heavenly abode left Gulzarilal Nanda as acting PM for 13 days before
Shastri took baton.

 Shastri’s brief 2 year stint got embroiled in war with Pak provocations, resulting in
latter’s defeat. But Indian economic downturn deepened with food shortages11. Hence
rallying Indian masses for skipping meals under slogan- “Jai Jawan, Jai Kisan”
aggravated problems . White & Green revolution took foundational steps under him.
Even he couldn’t resist invoking Art 356 twice. After his untimely demise with
Nanda as acting PM, stage was set for fierce competition of inheritance between
Morarji Desai & Mrs. Gandhi.

II. Indira Regime I: Prediction of “Gungi Guria” gone fatally wrong (1967-77)
Kingmaker Kamraj & elders of Congress Syndicate gave baton to perceivable timid Indira
Gandhi in being PM & head of Parliamentary party. This era of “hyper-centralization” of powers
reduced states into meagre “provincial units” with President’s rule imposed 50 times in both
regimes.
 Electoral misdeeds : Political inexperience with rampant food shortages, poverty, inequality,
communal & regional division denied her grasp over government & party. Fourth General
elections(1967) without Nehru culminated into “political earthquake” in nine key states;
lowest tally of seats with thin majority in Parliament. Post-1969 split Mrs. Gandhi with left
parties “engineered defections12” & invoked Art 356.

 Overconfidence & Ignoring state's voices : After ’71 Indo-Pak War Mrs. Gandhi swept polls
with thumping majority but 1967-71 marked peak Union-state conflict. Over-centralization of
power pushed states to demand autonomy. Facing tensions, Centre appointed 1st ARC,1969
to reassess centre-state dynamics. But as usual it made no recommendations for reform since
it felt present dynamics were harmonious but not same with role of Governors & financial
shares. After noncompliance of ARC, dejected states like Tamil Nadu appointed its
Rajamannar Committee(1969) which after 2 years demanded readjustment of VII schedule
& residuary powers. Even new CPI(M) government via its West Bengal Memorandum voiced
for replacing the word “Union” in constitution with “Federation”. Alkalis in 1970s via
Anandpur Sahib Resolution demanded greater state autonomy of Punjab with central
authority confined only to defence, Foreign relations, Communication, Railways & Currency.
In 1971 opposition party BJD was denied to form ministry with President’s rule. DMK 1976
ministry was wrongfully dismissed with Art 356 on charges of being corrupt. The article was
used only to prevent regional forces from filling vacuum created by weakening INC party.

 Vertical & Horizontal Fiscal Imbalances : Despite popular announcements of Ten &
Twenty Point Programmes13,4th & 5th FYPs vertical imbalances (relative ability to raise
revenues vis-a-vis expenditures) across governments turned acute because union taxation
11
India got hit with worst famines between 1965-67, triggering Union government to import US Food Aid via Op.PL480.
12
To deny breathing space, in Rajasthan, Kerala, West Bengal & Tripura Non-Congress United Front governments were ousted via Art 356.
13
Programmes involved Garibi Hatao; devaluation of INR-USD; nationalisation of General Insurance-14 Banks; urban property, land &
income ceiling; Abolition of Privy Purse; PDS of food grains via newly acquired FCI silos; PM Awas Yojana; employment generation etc.
 powers are overwhelming as compared to states. Union taxed corporate income, personal
income, foreign trade, manufacture sectors & mineral resources. But states are less capable of
raising taxes on land, sales & other local property taxes. Horizontal imbalance referred
ability of states to raise revenue for meeting their expenditures. The ratio between highest &
lowest per capita income remains 5:1. Ironically, poorest States with large populace,
compounded problem of horizontal equalisation. Article 280 with Finance Commission tried
to ease fiscal pressure but failed.
 Critiquing One Big Mistake...Emergency(1975-77) : Tracing prelude to Emergency
declaration & historical events are insignificant but analyses Shah Commission Report post
event open dimensions.
 Censorship : On the night of 25th June, 1975 with hundreds of agitating farmers,
railway workers & politicians detained, electricity to major newspaper offices were
cut. For next two years newspapers were asked to get prior approval for all material
to be published. Indian Express, TOI & Statesman protested by leaving blank spaces
where items had been censored. Eminent civil society members & Padma awardees
returned their awards in protest.
 Preventive Detention to stifle voices : People arrested under Preventive Detention,
infamous MISA, AFSPA & UAPA couldn’t appeal to SC & HCs for basic
Fundamental Right to Life & constitutional remedies (habeas corpus). Pan-Indian
custodial deaths were reported while Home Ministry reports revealed that it didn’t
have any concern about national law & order during Emergency. While giving
judicial testimonies, Madam Gandhi cunningly claimed that Emergency was declared
because she felt extra-judicial movements & subversive forces were derailing her
government.
 Human Rights atrocities : Atrocities were meted out under Sanjay Gandhi’s order
who despite being an official person, took control of the administration. Torture,
custodial deaths, forced relocation of poor people, forced sterilization & Demolition
of jhuggi-jhopris (Turkman Gate massacre) ensued across Northern, Central &
Western states. Policy “Garibi Hatao” soon became “Garib Hatao”.

III. Voices of Non-Congressi Coalitions to Congressi Asymmetrical Federalism(1977-89)

In 1977 Janata Government arrived with landslide majority under slogan “Save Democracy” &
ashirvaad from constituent SVD14 coalitions. But soon Morarji-Charan duet became delusional
with anti-Indira narrative & manipulative politics. Janata regime dissolved 7 ‘recalcitrant’
legislative assemblies ruled/supported by INC to install Janata governments. Undoing Indira
misdeeds like scrapping Art 357A, 42nd & 44th constitutional amendments were prioritized more
by PM Morarji than citizen’s welfare. Janata regime got jolted in 1980 electoral results for not
adhering to Parliament reports on improving Centre-state relations with J&K, Punjab, West
Bengal & Dravidian states.
 Asymmetrical Federalism-Indira II : After Mrs. Gandhi returned, she showed her colours by
dismissing Janata governments with renewed Central vigour. But this time radical regional
demands arose in Non-Congress Punjab by Akalis; Ahomiya Movement(AGP) in Assam;
J&K & “Four Rama Council15” got centrestage nationally. Centre’s tendency of controlling
states with iron hand met with stiff resistance. While Bhagwan Dua commented “excessive
14
Grand Alliance with Samyukta Vidhayak Dal{SSP,PSP, Jan Sangh, Congress(O)} under Janata banner pitted against Congress(I)-CPI.
15
In March 1983, CMs of four Dravidian states- NTR(Andhra Pradesh), MGR(Tamil Nadu), Rama Hegde(Karnataka) & D. Ramachandran
formed Council for Southern Region to restructure Centre-state financial shares & latter’s autonomy to legislate Concurrent list subjects.
 use of Art 365 makes state autonomy farce”, centre crumbled before 1970-80s escalating
tensions, regional sentiments & militancy in Kashmir, Mizoram & Assam. Centre hastily
appointed Sarkaria Commission (1983) to reassess constitutional provisions on Centre-state
relations. Finally, Khalistani militancy-Frankenstein’s monster borne out of Mrs. Gandhi took
her life culminating in irreparable rifts after 1984 Delhi Sikh Riots.
 Reconciliation Attempts-Rajiv Era : 1984, Rajiv regime had to accommodate regional
demands for autonomy16 & decentralisation to rekindle confidence of regional forces. For
sake of national unity & peace, this phase perceived coming to power “of parties opposed to
INC, through peaceful means.” But Rajiv’s era too was marked by similar centralising
tendencies17. Initial attempts by Centre to strengthen architecture of local self-government 18
in India were met with limited success. In fiscal federalism, transition to an arrangement
where states had financial autonomy was slightly brokered. This era also marked advent of
“expressive federalism”, as regional political forces interacted with Union government for
their demands & succeeded.

IV. Golden Era of State Voices (1989-2014)

1989-92, saw 4 pivotal events “reconfiguring Indian politics”. The rise of regional parties
heralded multi-party system in India.
The End of INC’s National Dominance : The massive defeat of INC in 1989 national elections
changed national political landscape.
 First, collapse of USSR & belief in superiority of central planning weakened Union
government’s control over economy.

 Second, Mandalization (under VP Singh), extended reservation of OBCs in government

service & universities. Until 1989, party leaders had usually been upper caste, & often
Brahmins. The new caste-based state parties, located in northern states, had leaders drawn
from the lower castes & proliferated state-based parties. From 1996 onwards, no national
party was able to win majority of seats in Lok Sabha. Coalition governments thrashed
centralized federalism.

 Third, Mandir controversy tarnished our secular federal model. INC's inability to prevent
1992 destruction of mosque at Ajodhya sparked religious controversy. The incident helped
BJP, which had supported construction of Hindu temple at Ajodhya. Gujarat pogrom (2002)
proved difficult to contain. Opponents hoped this backlash against BJP state government
would help in Gujarat 2002 elections. But it didn’t as BJP won resounding victory. Later in
five state legislative assembly elections held during 2002-2003, BJP got punished.

 Fourth, balance of payments crisis of 1991, followed the collapse of National Front. A new
INC government took office. It had no choice but to embark on "liberalization." While
progress was slow, the psychological impact of switch from socialist to market economy was
profound. Bankruptcy of many PSUs became apparent. Slowly emerged a consensus on the

16
Rajiv-Longolwal Accord promised normalcy in Punjab with- transfer of Chandigarh, separate commission to resolve Punjab-Haryana Border
dispute; sharing of Ravi-Beas water among Rajasthan, Punjab & Haryana. Mizo National Front & Naga National Council had peaceful
negotiations with Mizoram & Arunachal got statehood(1987). Even LTTE issue in Tamil Nadu was resolved with deployment of IPKF.
17
Rajiv’s PM to DM policy seriously undermined every level of federal constitutional bodies of Governor, CMs, state cabinet ministers,
municipalities in between.
18
He advocated for Panchayati Bill 1986 also paving way for 2nd ARC.
 need for gradual privatization of much of India's vast public sector, barring national Defence
undertakings.

NDA I & UPA I & II marked a stable phase of coalition politics at national level from 1999 to 2014.Some
positive manifestations in three major Policy and institutional changes that took place during this period:-
 Financial Autonomy
First, the economic reforms that ushered in an era of liberalisation facilitated the
dismantling Of the ill-famed license, permit and quota raj in India. Economic
interactions through FTA-SEZs ,FDIs, MNREGA schemes targeted poor masses

 Judicial Safeguard
Right to Information , Right to Food & Right to Education(2005) were sunshine laws
aimed to remove transparency & increase accountability via biometric digital
mediums. It was called the “Post Anna Hazare Decade”.

 Constitutionalised Local Self-government

This phase also witnessed further decentralisation of Indian politics as the 73 rd and
74th Amendments(1992) strengthened functioning of third tier of Indian Federalism in
Municipal and Panchayat levels. This strengthened the ground for empowerment of
women, minorities, SC/STs etc

V. The Return of ‘Dominant Party’ Federalism (2014-present)

2014 general elections challenged coalition politics at Centre. BJP gained absolute majority on its
own & formed government led by PM Modi. This phase marked beginning of “renationalisation
of Indian politics”. Post-victory, BJP captured power in 21 states on its own or with strong
regional allies. BJP’s more impressive win in 2019 elections strengthened its position as new
‘Indian Vanguard Party’. Points below shed light on Centre’s list of encroachments so far under
Modi 1.0 :-
 The Promise of ‘Cooperative’ Federalism Left at Altar
Modi as CM of Gujarat realised need for empowering states, making ‘cooperative federalism’
a major electoral promise in his 2014 campaign. Post-victory, BJP took some major steps in
strengthening the states. Planning Commission dismantled with Niti Aayog (2015) assured
“active involvement of states in spirit of “competitive” federalism” under Sabka Sath Sabka
Vikas banner. GST by which Centre and states would “become equal fiscal partners in
indirect tax base” was implemented. A GST Council was formed for consensus amongst
states for tax shares. Third, Union accepted 14th Finance Commission recommendation to
provide states 42-percent share of the funds from the central pool. However, Niti Aayog &
the devolution of state taxshare via GST council & Finance Commission has been left at
altar.
 Challenges from Vanguard Political Party
Electoral strength of BJP has increased manifold by its impressive victories in 2014 & 2019
General Elections & several state elections. In 2014, BJP dented INC vote bank but in 2019 it
also made considerable inroads in states where powerful regional parties are incumbent.
  In states MP & Karnataka in which BJP formed government by engineering
defections of legislators. Even analysts believe unilateral decision of
Demonetisation, not only violated spirit of federalism but also politically motivated
to destroy political rivals keeping 2017 UP elections in sight.

 Role of Governor in opposition-ruled states became controversial. The

proclamation of president rule in Arunachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand & J&K revealed
centralising intentions. Governor’s role in government formation in Goa, Manipur &
Maharashtra raised questions about governor’s preference for incumbent at Centre.

 Non-BJP states expressed concern regarding Union’s intervention in state

administration by directly monitoring Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS). Since all
state & Central schemes get halted during elections19, BJP surreptitiously uses 170th
Law Commission Report on Electoral Laws for political gains. Through this General
& state elections coincide within few months gap. NITI Aayog Survey,2019
legitimized that when such event occurs citizens rarely engage in split-ticket vote-
voting same parties. This reduces halt of social schemes.

 BJP via parliamentary hegemony achieved consensus amongst most opposition

parties regarding its major policy decisions in the name of national interest.
“Legislative Acts of Terror” like demonetisation, abrogation of Article 370, &
changing political status of J&K, passing of Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA)
2019, National Education Policy(2020) & Three Farm Laws (2020) met with little
resistance from regional parties, barring few recent exceptions. Regional actors
largely rallying behind nationalist policy decisions of Centre marks beginning of
‘nationalist federalism’ in India.

 Political Setbacks
Despite centralising tendencies, BJP has been facing setbacks in state elections since 2017.
To oppose BJP's hegemony- regionalist parties like DMK, BJD & TMC20 which have strong
appeal based on sub-nationalism & cultural identity like ones in Tamil Nadu, Orissa & West
Bengal, have successfully thrashed BJP in their respective regional turfs. In Punjab,
Rajasthan, Haryana or Chhattisgarh, INC won state elections by relying heavily on regional
leaders & addressing regional concerns. This reveals a limited form of ‘de-nationalised’ party
system even under a dominant national party. Main political opposition against proposal of
implementing NRC, came from regional forces. Most of the state governments ruled by INC
or regional parties, including ones being ruled by BJP’s own political allies, opposed it.

Modi 2.0
Some snippets of this phase are:-
 The government criminalised ‘triple talaaq’. SC’s verdict granting disputed Babri
Masjid site in Ayodhya to those wishing to construct a Hindu temple & passage of
CAA, ignited a storm of protests, culminating in Delhi riots. The Covid outbreak
offered BJP breathing space –an opportunity to pause nationwide unrest on
CAA/NRC, and reset India to communal polarisation. It gave the Modi a gold-plated
19
Due to Model Code of Conduct.
20
Led successfully by MK Stalin, Naveen Pattanaik & Mamata Banerjee respectively.
 excuse for its colossal economic failures, with record levels of unemployment well
before Covid. BJP handling the pandemic – lacked planning & marred the
lockdown, human disaster of migrant workers, & deceptive stimulus package – has
stumbled. There’s no doubt- Modi remains immensely popular personally & comes
as a decisive, no-nonsense leader, willing to break traditions & attempt bold solutions
to national problems. The reality that many out-of the-box solutions he has attempted
have done more harm than good. His demonetisation of 86 percent of India’s
currency in 2016 gave disastrous blow to Indian economy, costing millions of jobs.
His abrogation of Art 370 was undertaken while locking down India, arresting
political leaders & denying its population telephone & internet connections.

 PM Modi has upended practically every civilised convention, unleashing law-

enforcement authorities to pursue flimsy charges against a slew of Opposition
leaders; intimidating media owners has maimed democratic culture. The ideal of
unity has given way to homogeneity; patriotism to chauvinism; independent
institutions are yielding to PMO & democracy is being reshaped into one-man rule.
Parliament is suspended while a slew of decisions normally requiring legislative
approval are announced via ordinances in press conferences.

 Citizens are now thriving in aggressive nationalism that extols every Indian
achievement, real or imagined, and brooks no dissent – the mildest disagreement or
protest is promptly labelled ‘anti-national’ or even ‘seditious’ under UAPA. Every
independent institution has been hollowed out: while this is less surprising of tax
authorities, financial investigative agencies and law enforcement & intelligence-
gathering machinery of union, even autonomous bodies like Election Commission &
judiciary have not been exempted from such concerns.

Conclusion
Indian polity incurs strength dually from Union & state governments asserting their independence in
different political contexts. Diverse regional aspirations relentlessly asserted themselves across 75
years, resulting in decentralisation of India- to maintain proper balance between six pillars of
federalism: autonomy of states, national integration, centralisation, decentralisation, nationalisation &
regionalisation. But extreme political centralisation or chaotic political decentralisation under Modi
regime has completely eroded cooperative federalism. Controlling these extremes are challenging, or
else more militancy may rise in “disturbed areas”. “Second Dominant party” system presently, is
slowly descending into violence & chaos under garb of Hindu Nationalism derailing democratic
federal channels leading to “Demo-autocracy”.
Contentious role of governors in suppressing states for Centre’s interest needs reassessment. Proper
utilisation of Inter-state Council must be ensured to develop Centre-state political goodwill on
contentious policy issues. Gradual widening of states fiscal autonomy has to be legally guaranteed.
Electoral reforms should facilitate more competitive political contest between national & regional
political forces. Unless, fourth level of Indian federalism i.e. local self-governments, get fully
empowered, efforts to strengthen federal discourse will fail. Unlike populist-authoritarian regimes, the
biggest strength of federal democracies are that they admit mistakes & duly rectify them in their
journey for better a skeletal structure. Despite all their tussles, Union government & state’s mutual
need for survival is what makes federal democracies vibrant. A few days back International
Democracy Day was celebrated which resonates deeply with BJP apologizing & retracting farm laws
once again affirming “We the People” constitute India’s federalism. ................(PTO)

Bibliography
a. Malik, M. Asad: Changing Dimensions of Federalism in India: An Appraisal; Winter Issue
2019; ILI Law Review Vol. II; Jamia Islamia University Publishers.

b. Naik, Susant Kumar & Kumar, Anil V: Federalism & the formation of States in India; 2
January, 2016; The Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore; ISBN 978-81-
7791-234-0.

c. Tillin, Louise: Indian Federalism; 24 September, 2019; Oxford India Short Introductions;
Oxford University Press; ISBN-13: 978-0-19-949561-0.

d. Jain, R.B: Indian Constitution: Trends and Issues; Federalism in India: Emerging: Trends and
the Future Outlook; 27 October, 1998; University of Delhi Publishers.

e. Srikrishna, B.N.: Beyond Federalism; India International Centre Quarterly; WINTER 2011 –
SPRING 2012; Vol. 38, No. ¾, The Golden Thread: Essays in Honour of C.D. Deshmukh;
pp. 386-407; India International Centre Publishers; https://www.jstor.org/stable/41803993.

f. Khan, M.G.: Coalition Government & Federal System In India; The Indian Journal Of
Political Science ; July-December, 2003; Vol. 64, No. ¾; pp. 167-190; Indian Political
Science Association; https://www.jstor.org/stable/41855780 .

g. Singh, Mahendra P. & Douglas V., Verney: Challenges to India’s Centralized Parliamentary
Federalism; Publius; Autumn, 2003; Vol. 33, No. 4; Emerging Federal Process in India; pp.
1-20; Oxford University Press; https://www.jstor.org/stable/3331193 .

h. Rajashekara, H.M.: The Nature of Indian Federalism: A Critique; Asian Survey; March,
1997; Vol. 37; pp. 245-253; University of California Press;
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2645661 .

i. Mohan, R.: Evolving Federal Relations In a changing Political Framework INDIAN

EXPERIENCE SINCE 1989; The Indian Journal of Political Science ; JULY – SEPT.,
 2011; Vol. 72, No. 3; pp. 711-720; Indian Political Science Association;
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41858845 .

j. Sathyamurthy, T.V.: Impact of Centre-State Relations on Indian Politics: An Interpretative

Reckoning, 1947- 87; Economic and Political Weekly; Sep. 23, 1989;Vol. 24, No. 38; pp.
2133-2147; Economic and Political Weekly; https://www.jstor.org/stable/4395363.

k. Tummala, Krishna K.: India’s Federalism under Stress; Asian Survey; June, 1992; Vol.
32, No. 6; pp. 538-553; University of California Press;
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2645159 .

l. Rajashekara, H.M.: NEHRU AND INDIAN FEDERALISM; The Indian Journal of

Political Science; April – June 1994; Vol. 55, No. 2; pp.135-148; Indian Political Science
Association; https://www.jstor.org/stable/41858802 .

m. Saxena, Rekha: Is India a Case of Asymmetrical Federalism? ; Economic and Political

Weekly, JANUARY 14, 2012, Vol. 47, No. 2 (JANUARY 14, 2012), pp. 70-71, 73-75;
Economic and Political Weekly; https://www.jstor.org/stable/23065612 .

n. Dash, Satya Prakash: INDIAN FEDERALISM & DISTRIBUTION OF

RESPONSIBILITIES; The Indian Journal of Political Science , OCT. – DEC., 2007, Vol.
68, No. 4, pp. 697-710; Indian Political Science Association;
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41856368 .

o. Rath Sharda: FEDERALISM : A CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS; The Indian Journal Of

Political Science , Oct-Dec. 1978, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 573-586; Indian Political Science
Association; https://www.jstor.org/stable/41854876.