Introduction

Federalism is a system of government in which the power is divided between a

central authority and various constituent units of the country. Usually, a
federation has two levels of government. One is the government for the entire
country that is usually responsible for a few subjects of common national
interest. The others are governments at the level of provinces or states that look
after much of the day-to-day administering of their state. Both these levels of
governments enjoy their power independent of the other.

In this sense, federations are contrasted with unitary governments. Under the
unitary system, either there is only one level of government, or the sub-units are
subordinate to the central government. The central government can pass on
orders to the provincial or the local government. But in a federal system, the
central government cannot order the state government to do something. State
government has powers of its own for which it is not answerable to the central
government. Both these governments are separately answerable to the people.
Nature of Indian federalism

The constitution of India has not described India as a federation. However,

Article 1 of Indian constitution describes India as a ‘’Union of States.’’ This
means India is a union comprising of various states which are an integral part of
it. Here, the states cannot break away from the union. They do not have the
power to secede from the union. In a true federation, the constituting units or the
states have the freedom to come out of the union.

India is not a true federal government because it combines features of a federal

government and the features of unitary government which can also be called as
a quasi-federal government.

The best way to comprehensively understand the federal system is to learn

about its features. These characteristics combined to reflect the true essence of
federalism.
Key features of federalism:

1. The essential feature, which is the definition of federalism is that there

are two levels of governance in the country at least. There can even be
more. But the entire power is not concentrated with one government.

2. All levels of governance will govern the same citizens, but

their jurisdiction will be different. This means that each level of
government will have a specific power to form laws, legislate and execute
these laws. Both governments will have clearly marked jurisdiction. It
will not be that one of the government is just a figurehead government.

3. Another important feature is that the constitution must guarantee this

federal system of government. Which means the powers and duties of
both, or all governments must be listed down in the constitution of that
country hence guaranteeing a federal system of governance.

4. As stated above the federalism of a country must be prescribed by the

constitution. But it is also important that just one level of government
cannot make unilateral changes or amendments to the important and
essential provisions of the constitution. Such changes must be approved
by all the levels of the government to be carried through.

5. Now there are two levels of government with separate jurisdictions and
separate duties. Yet there is still a possibility that a conflict may arise
between the two. Well in a federal state, it will fall upon the courts or
rather the judiciary to resolve this conflict. The courts must have the
power to interfere in such a situation and reach a resolution.

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

There are two kinds of routes through which federations have been formed. The
first route involves independent States coming together on their own to form a
bigger unit, so that by pooling sovereignty and retaining identity they can
increase their security. This type of ‘coming together’ federations include the
USA, Switzerland and Australia. In this first category of federations, all the
constituent States usually have equal power and are strong vis-à-vis the federal
government. The second route is where a large country decides to divide its
power between the constituent States and the national government. India, Spain
and Belgium are examples of this kind of ‘holding together’ federations. In this
second category, the central government tends to be more powerful vis-à-vis the
States. Very often different constituent units of the federation have unequal
powers. Some units are granted special powers.
What makes India a federal country?

We have earlier seen how small countries like Belgium and Sri Lanka face so
many problems of managing diversity. What about a vast country like India,
with so many languages, religions and regions? What are the power sharing
arrangements in our country? Let us begin with the Constitution. India had
emerged as an independent nation after a painful and bloody partition. Soon
after Independence, several princely states became a part of the country. The
Constitution declared India as a Union of States. Although it did not use the
word federation, the Indian Union is based on the principles of federalism. Let
us go back to the seven features of federalism mentioned above. We can see that
all these features apply to the provisions of the Indian Constitution. The
Constitution originally provided for a two-tier system of government, the Union
Government or what we call the Central Government, representing the Union of
India and the State governments. Later, a third tier of federalism was added in
the form of Panchayats and Municipalities. As in any federation, these different
tiers enjoy separate jurisdiction. The Constitution clearly provided a threefold
distribution of legislative powers between the Union Government and the State
Governments. Thus, it contains three lists:

Union List includes subjects of national importance such as defence of the

country, foreign affairs, banking, communications and currency. They are
included in this list because we need a uniform policy on these matters
throughout the country. The Union Government alone can make laws relating to
the subjects mentioned in the Union List.

State List contains subjects of State and local importance such as police, trade,
commerce, agriculture and irrigation. The State Governments alone can make
laws relating to the subjects mentioned in the State List.
Concurrent List includes subjects of common interest to both the Union
Government as well as the State Governments, such as education, forest, trade
unions, marriage, adoption and succession. Both the Union as well as the State
Governments can make laws on the subjects mentioned in this list. If their laws
conflict with each other, the law made by the Union Government will prevail.

What about subjects that do not fall in any of the three lists? Or subjects like
computer software that came up after the constitution was made?

According to our constitution, the Union Government has the power to legislate
on these ‘residuary’ subjects. We noted above that most federations that are
formed by ‘holding together’ do not give equal power to its constituent units.
Thus, all States in the Indian Union do not have identical powers. Some States
enjoy a special status. Jammu and Kashmir has its own Constitution. Many
provisions of the Indian Constitution are not applicable to this State without the
approval of the State Assembly. Indians who are not permanent residents of this
State cannot buy land or house here. Similar special provisions exist for some
other States of India as well. There are some units of the Indian Union which
enjoy very little power. These are areas which are too small to become an
independent State but which could not be merged with any of the existing
States.

These areas, like Chandigarh, or Lakshadweep or the capital city of Delhi, are
called Union Territories. These territories do not have the powers of a State. The
Central Government has special powers in running these areas. This sharing of
power between the Union Government and the State governments is basic to the
structure of the Constitution. It is not easy to make changes to this power
sharing arrangement.

The Parliament cannot on its own change this arrangement. Any change to it has
to be first passed by both the Houses of Parliament with at least two-thirds
majority. Then it has to be ratified by the legislatures of at least half of the total
States. The judiciary plays an important role in overseeing the implementation
of constitutional provisions and procedures. In case of any dispute about the
division of powers, the High Courts and the Supreme Court make a decision.
The Union and State governments have the power to raise resources by levying
taxes in order to carry on the government and the responsibilities assigned to
each of them.
Theoretical Framework

The Indian political structure is neither strictly unitary nor purely federal. This
is in keeping with the diverse socio-cultural, economic and political values and
aspirations of the people. Indian federalism is a ‘holding together federalism’
rather than a ‘coming together federalism’ (like in USA). With regard to theories
of federalism, there is no specific federal theory that can be widely used or
expounded.
Denis de Rougement added that federalism is ‘essentially an attitude, which
comprises four basic principles: diversity, interdependence, responsibility and
efficiency’ (Rougement, 1978). Burgess and Gagnon (1993) pointed out that
federalism is the accommodation of human associations in which unity and
diversity are balanced and maintained. For Stevenson (2000), federalism
protects minorities. La Forest (1998) argues that federalism is a form of
partnership and friendship. Tully (2001) pointed that federalism is an expression
of democratic practices, which encourages autonomy within regions.
Based on these definitions, it is clear that they are very vague in nature.
Therefore, it is also argued that there can be two broad types of approaches,
such as: the mono-national and multi-national approach. In this regard, many
modern scholars have argued that there is no particular and unique or alternative
theory or theories for all federal studies.
In this context, Rekha Saxena (2011) has stated that each society or country
settles for a model that suits its own perspective and need. She has also
highlighted that whether a federation should be executive-dominated,
parliament-centered or judiciary-driven depends on its society, culture, history,
geography etc. Burgess (1993) also opined that the conceptions of federalism
differ from country to country and more importantly among people and political
actors within a country.
The idea of federation evolves out of the socio-political and economic context.
The scope or idea of federalism develops out of concrete reality. Thus,
sometimes it is termed as two-level federalism or, third-level federalism, or
fourth-level federalism and so on. The Indian constitutional framers aimed at a
federal structure that would politically be accountable and effective in nature by
respecting the diversity and heterogeneity of Indian society.
Thus, independent India has incorporated the principles of both parliamentary
as well as presidential federal system. However, society is very dynamic and
changes take place within the societal contexts that lead to changes in the text of
the constitution and vice-versa. Thereby, both the texts and contexts play major
roles in shaping federalism.
This is always based on the time and space/circumstances of the political
system. Therefore, the dynamism of the situation, contexts and reality matters. It
is very clear to see that how the Indian federalism is able to cope with demands
of various states. In addition, the so-called ‘Westminster Model’ needs an
empirical explanation as to how it is successful in the Indian context to
accommodate various demands for new states within the federal structure. It can
be shown through some of the diagrams below:

Coming Together Federalism (US Model)

As mentioned above, the ‘Coming Together Federalism’ has been seen in the
US as well as in European countries. In this diagram, the constituent states or
sub-units, in order to realize their autonomy or for international security, wanted
a federal Centre to protect them from all the possible aggressions and protect
their interests. Thus, the states of the US came together by transferring their
power to form a federal Centre. This process has been termed as the Coming
Together Federalism. However, this is not the case in the Indian model or
federation.
 Holding Together Federalism (Indian model)
The above diagram explains that the Indian model of federation is not following
any of the particular models of the western world. Many scholars have argued
that India is not a federal state. Rather, it is a quasi-federal state because it
includes both the principles of unitary and federal systems.
In a diverse Indian society, the framers of the constitution faced many
difficulties in deciding which type of governance structure will protect the
interests of the society and the nation. For this reason, they opted for the
‘Westminster Model’ through which Indian federation holds the constituent
units irrespective of their diverse nature, culture and identities. Now, many
changes have been observed by academicians and policy makers in the process
of federalization. This is due to the nature of demands of the state as well as the
emergence of several political parties at the regional level. So the modern
scholar questions in the context of state formation and its problem-solving
methods within the Indian federal model.
Conclusion

A review of all these theories shows us that they deal with one or the other
aspect of federalism, but not all the aspects. Therefore, each theory of
federalism contains some elements of validity and usefulness, though it suffers
from gaps and inadequacies. For a proper understanding of federalism as a
system, we may conclude that all the three theories are separate but, at the same
time interrelated and complementary to each other. The first one seeks to
explain what federalism is when viewed from a legal angle; the second provides
explanations of the forces and factors that play an active part in the origin and
formation of federal systems; and the third and the last provides an analytical
framework to study federalism not as a rigid legal structure but as a dynamic
and flexible process of cooperation and sharing between two levels of
government of one and the same people. A judicious combination of the
essential elements of all these theories call upon us to formulate a new
definition which may be stated as follows: Federalism is a political system
which creates in society broadly two levels of government with assigned powers
and functions originating from a variety of factors and political bargain, and
displaying a tendency to persist through active response to the challenges of
changing environment by a process of adaptation through creative modes of
institutional as well as functional relationship.11 Taken together all three
theories explain federalism as a political system which creates in a society
broadly two levels of Government with assigned powers and functions arising
from a variety of social, economic, cultural and political f