Challenges to India's centralized parliamentary federalism

Publius: The Journal of Federalism

Volumn 33, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 1-20

  Singh, Mahendra P ^a   Verney, Douglas V ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DELHI   (India)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^c YORK UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 5744251726     PISSN: 00485950     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubjof.a005005     Document Type: Review

References (42)

1. In Indian usage this is spelled as "the Centre"; spelling and usage throughout this special issue have been adapted to American style norms.
2. Sarkaria Commission on Centre-State Relations, Report of the Commission on Centre-State Relations, Two Volumes (Nasik: Government of India, 1987-1988).
3. National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, M.N. Venkatachaliah, Chair, Report of the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, Two Volumes (Delhi: Controller of Publications, 2002).
4. rd reprint), Book No. 2, Vol. VII, pp. 33-34.
5. Constituent Assembly Debates, Book V, Vols. X-XII, p. 987.
6. Throughout its history India experienced a longue duree of competing regional kingdoms and subcontinental states, rather than a single centralized authority. Until the British Raj (rule), India had never been a single country. The Raj lasted only ninety years (1858-1947) and governed a subcontinent divided into the provinces of "British India" and the numerous Princely States. Even under the Raj there were new provinces; Bengal was divided into Assam, Bihar, and Orissa. The first attempt to establish a modern federation was the British Parliament's Government of India Act of 1935. With the end of the Raj, the subcontinent was split by Partition and the creation of Pakistan, and Pakistan was further divided by the creation of Bangladesh after civil war in 1971.
7. See, for example, Amal Ray and John Kincaid, "Politics, Economic Development, and Second-Generation Strain in India's Federal System," Publius: The Journal of Federalism 18 (Spring 1988): 147-167.
8. By 2003, Article 371 extended from 371-A to 371-I, and covered ten pages. Jammu and Kashmir, India's only state with a Muslim majority, is covered by its own article, Article 370. This is a controversial provision because of its potential to encourage confederacy. It gives Jammu and Kashmir a unique status, and so is a bone of contention between India. Pakistan, and those favoring a more independent Kashmir.
9. It is interesting to compare the parlous state of federalism during Mrs. Gandhi's rule in the early 1980s with the situation today, when the union government can no longer dismiss state governments and dissolve state legislative assemblies at will. See the section on federalism in the early 1980s in Lloyd I. Rudolph and Susanne Hoeber Rudolph, In Pursuit of Lakshmi (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), pp. 98-102.
10. Haryana was separated from Punjab in 1966. Himachal Pradesh was created in 1971. Assam was subdivided in to seven northeastern states in the 1970s. Three new states were created out of Uttar Pradesh (Uttaranchal), Bihar (Chhattisgarh), and Madhya Pradesh (Jharkhand) in 2000.
11. The Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPM) has continued to govern the state of West Bengal. In 2003 it once again won power in the small northeastern state of Tripura, and remains a significant force in the southern state of Kerala.
12. Reservations for Backward Classes: Mandal Commissions Report of the Backward Classes Commission, Alongwith Introduction [sic], (Delhi: Akalkank Publications, n.d.).
13. For a seminal explication of this ideology, originally published in 1923, see V.D. Savarkar, Hindutva (New Delhi: Hindi Sahitya Sadan, 2003).
14. The lower castes first emerged as a political force as part of the Janata Party in 1977. At that time, when success in the national elections was not expected, politicians from the Other Backward Castes managed to win power at the state level, where they formed OBC-led governments.
15. Asian News Digest 3, 11-17 November 2002, p. 2388.
16. India's proliferation of "back offices" for multinational corporations should not be confused with the information technology revolution in Silicon Valley, California. See the articles on information technology-enabled services in India Today, November 21, 2002, pp. 10-21.
17. Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu was not as successful at raising investment abroad as he sometimes claimed. See the figures in "Flight of Fancy," India Today, March 10, 2003, pp. 30-31.
18. However, in 2003, responding to a protest by the employees, the Calcutta High Court stayed a decision of the (communist) Government of West Bengal to privatize one of its public sector undertakings.
19. Compare Douglas V. Verney, "A More Federal India?" Seminar 459 (1997): 31-35 with his "Resisting Federalism," Seminar 357 (1989): 39-46.
20. Compare Douglas V. Verney, "A More Federal India?" Seminar 459 (1997): 31-35 with his "Resisting Federalism," Seminar 357 (1989): 39-46.
21. Report of the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, Volume 1, Section 1.3.1, p. 4.
22. The 1990s also saw the recognition by scholars of the importance of federalism. See, for example, Nirmal Mukarji and Balveer Arora, eds., Federalism in India (New Delhi: Vikas, 1992); Rasheeduddin Khan, Federal India (New Delhi: Vikas, 1992); Balveer Arora and Douglas V. Verney, eds., Multiple Identities in a Single State: Indian Federalism in Comparative Perspective (New Delhi: Konark, 1995); and Mahendra Prasad Singh, "From Hegemony to Multi-Level Federalism? India's Parliamentary-Federal System," Indian Journal of Social Science, 5 (July-September 1992): 263-288.
23. The 1990s also saw the recognition by scholars of the importance of federalism. See, for example, Nirmal Mukarji and Balveer Arora, eds., Federalism in India (New Delhi: Vikas, 1992); Rasheeduddin Khan, Federal India (New Delhi: Vikas, 1992); Balveer Arora and Douglas V. Verney, eds., Multiple Identities in a Single State: Indian Federalism in Comparative Perspective (New Delhi: Konark, 1995); and Mahendra Prasad Singh, "From Hegemony to Multi-Level Federalism? India's Parliamentary-Federal System," Indian Journal of Social Science, 5 (July-September 1992): 263-288.
24. The 1990s also saw the recognition by scholars of the importance of federalism. See, for example, Nirmal Mukarji and Balveer Arora, eds., Federalism in India (New Delhi: Vikas, 1992); Rasheeduddin Khan, Federal India (New Delhi: Vikas, 1992); Balveer Arora and Douglas V. Verney, eds., Multiple Identities in a Single State: Indian Federalism in Comparative Perspective (New Delhi: Konark, 1995); and Mahendra Prasad Singh, "From Hegemony to Multi-Level Federalism? India's Parliamentary-Federal System," Indian Journal of Social Science, 5 (July-September 1992): 263-288.
25. The 1990s also saw the recognition by scholars of the importance of federalism. See, for example, Nirmal Mukarji and Balveer Arora, eds., Federalism in India (New Delhi: Vikas, 1992); Rasheeduddin Khan, Federal India (New Delhi: Vikas, 1992); Balveer Arora and Douglas V. Verney, eds., Multiple Identities in a Single State: Indian Federalism in Comparative Perspective (New Delhi: Konark, 1995); and Mahendra Prasad Singh, "From Hegemony to Multi-Level Federalism? India's Parliamentary-Federal System," Indian Journal of Social Science, 5 (July-September 1992): 263-288.
26. In practice it is the prime minister and home minister who appoint state governors. To the suggestion that a broader committee (perhaps including chief ministers) should be responsible, the Venkatachaliah Commission blandly replied that while a chief minister might be consulted, "the powers of the President in the matter and selection and appointment of Governors should not be diluted." Report of the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, Recommendation Number 160.
27. Douglas V. Verney, "Responsible Government and Responsible Federalism: A New Role for the Rajya Sabha, the President and the Governors," The Indian Constitution, M.P. Singh and S.K. Chaube, eds. (New Delhi: Har-Anand, 1997), pp. 35-56.
28. While reapportionment between the states is on hold, reapportionment of constituencies within each state by a new Delimitation Commission (in American parlance, redistricting) will continue.
29. rd ed. (New Delhi: Books and Things, 1995), pp. 104-105. Officially, there are three classes of parties (capitalized in Indian usage): National Parties, State Parties, and Registered Parties.
30. For details see M.P. Singh, "India's National Front and United Front Coalition Governments: A Phase in Federalized Governance," Asian Survey 41 (March/April 2001): 328-350; and "Towards a More Federalized Parliamentary System in India: Explaining Functional Change," Pacific Affairs 74 (Winter 2001-2002): 553-568.
31. For details see M.P. Singh, "India's National Front and United Front Coalition Governments: A Phase in Federalized Governance," Asian Survey 41 (March/April 2001): 328-350; and "Towards a More Federalized Parliamentary System in India: Explaining Functional Change," Pacific Affairs 74 (Winter 2001-2002): 553-568.
32. Govt. is Committed to Federalism, says PM," The Hindu, February 17, 2001, p. 1; http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2001/02/17/stories/01170001.htm.
33. These forms of protest (with loose English equivalents) include satyagraha (literally, truth maintenance or insistence on truth; sometimes translated as civil disobedience or passive resistance), hartal (a strike), ahimsa (nonviolence or nonviolent resistance), bandh (shutdown of shops, businesses, etc.), dharna (sit-in), gherao (encircling, as through a demonstration), jail bharo (mass courting of arrest; literally, jail-filling), rasta roko (road closing) and morcha (literally, battlefront; an entrenchment or barricade).
34. In formulating his concept of salyagraha, Gandhi borrowed from Hinduism, Jainism and the Christian social gospel.
35. In January 2002, however, there was some concern over the possibility that the BJP might use conciliation and compromise to remain in power at the Center, but permit violence in state election campaigns so that it could present itself as the only party capable of preserving law and order.
36. nd Amendment proposed in 1976 was passed in the Lok Sabha by 366 to 4 and in the Rajya Sabha by 190 to 0. In short order 13 of the 22 state legislatures fell into line, and the president signed the Amendment into law on December 1976.
37. For example, the High Court in Karnataka issued a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a number of people arrested at a conference in Bangalore.
38. "Reports of Human Rights Watch (New York) on the Gujarat Riots," The Black Book of Gujarat, M.L. Sondhi and Apratim Mukarji, eds. (New Delhi: Manak, 2002), p. 185.
39. th edition, (New Delhi: Universal, 2003), p. 295, and Ajit Mozoomdar, "The Indian Federal State and its Future," Contemporary India, eds., V.A. Pai Panandiker and Ashis Nandy (New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill, 1999), pp. 261-296.
40. th edition, (New Delhi: Universal, 2003), p. 295, and Ajit Mozoomdar, "The Indian Federal State and its Future," Contemporary India, eds., V.A. Pai Panandiker and Ashis Nandy (New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill, 1999), pp. 261-296.
41. th edition, (New Delhi: Universal, 2003), p. 295, and Ajit Mozoomdar, "The Indian Federal State and its Future," Contemporary India, eds., V.A. Pai Panandiker and Ashis Nandy (New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill, 1999), pp. 261-296.
42. For comparisons between the United States, Canada and India, see Douglas V. Verney, "Are All Federations Federal? The United States, Canada and India," Multiple Identities in a Single State, pp. 19-59.