INTRODUCTION

Being the largest democratic countries in the world, both United

States and India are based on federalism in their political structure. US
became a Federal Republic State by promulgating its constitution in the
year1789; whereas India became a Socialist, Sovereign, Secular,
Democratic republic by formally launching its constitution only in the year
1950. Thereby both countries had attained dominion status in which a
number of smaller states had got affiliated forming a union with a strong
central government that came to be called as Federal Government in the
US and Central Government in India. Thus both states became Federal
Republics.

Federalism is a form of government which has been progressively

becoming more powerful throughout the globe. There was a time during
Worldwar II, when Harold Lasci, the eminent Bristish political scientist
wrote that federalism has come to an end. That was the period of the
great economic depression and the beginning of the Worldwar II, and
both of these events have contributed to the theory of separation of
powers and it has been a revival to the federal principle to the federal
form of government.

Today, federal form of government and the institution of judicial review

are the most widely expanding principles of government. It has been
increasingly becoming popular in the new constitutions in the world.

Nepal and Myanmar has been contemplating on the idea of adopting the
federal form of government. This form of government is very prevalent in
Srilanka and Pakistan.
Federal form of government is based on a constitutional contract. A
constitution division of powers between the center and the states federal
government which cannot be arbitrarily altered by will of any
government. It is a constitutional demarcation which can be unilaterally
annealed unless there is a constitutional amendment. The parliament
can make any law at any moment. But, a constitutional amendment
requires a special majority in both the houses of the parliament
separately and 2/3rds majority in two houses of the parliament
separately and ratification of atleast 50 percent of state legislature. That
is the significance of federal principle.

Broadly speaking, a constitution serves the following three purposes :

1. The distribution and delimitation of public powers.

2. The maintenance of public rights.
3. The declaration of public obligations.

The distribution of public powers requires the definition of :

a) The respective spheres of authority of the central and local

governments,
b) The mode of exercising the authority so divided, and
c) The regulation of mutual relations between public institutions
charged with authority and between the central and local
governments.

The maintenance of public rights, in its relation to all citizens under

the constitution, involves the guarantee to them of a measure of
individual liberty by legal sanction – eg., by means of writ of Habeas
 Corpus, the freedom of religious practices, and of the expression of
personal views.

FEDERALISM IN INDIA

Genesis of idea of federalism in India was first traced in Simon

Commission, “Indian Statutory Commission” appointed in 1927. The
Commission was meant for revision of the Constitution for India. In its
report in 1930, the Commission recommended the evolution of India into
a ‘federation of self-governing units.’

The representatives of Princely States declared during the First Round

Table Conference (1930-32) that they would join an “All India Federation
with a self-governing British India1”. The White Paper embodying the
report of Round Table Conference, in March 1933 was submitted to
Joint Select Committee of Parliament, which preferred creation of “d)e)f)
By Government of India Act, 1935, the background was ready for
making India to become a federation with 11 Governor’s provinces and
650 Native states, who supposed to have fifty per cent seats in Council
of States. However, execution of the instrument of accession was the
prerequisite to form the Federation, which could not become a reality.

The Cabinet Mission Plan in 1946 contemplated the division of the

country into three Zones, Zone A, Zone B and Zone C, based on the
concentration of Hindus and Muslims. Zones B and C included Muslim
dominated areas. The Centre was supposed to be the uniting point of
these three zones, with its power confined only to Defence, Foreign
Affairs and Communication. Constituent Assembly was to be divided into
three sections according to the Zonal scheme for evolving provincial and
group Constitutions. The proposal of grouping of Provinces became

1
Modern Indian history- B L GROVER
point of dispute and disagreement, while in general; the Plan was
acceptable to major political parties. The division of three Zones
eventually resulted in Partition as a precondition for Independence.
While presenting the Partition scheme, Lord Mountbatten insisted the
major parties to agree for partition to have the federation with a strong
centre, instead of weak centre as contemplated in Cabinet Mission Plan.

Generally speaking, the CONFEDERATION is a system where the units

dominate the Union, in Unitary State, the Union dominates the Units,
and if Union and Units is co-equal it is Federation. In a Confederation,
there will be an alliance between independent states where units can
secede. In Unitary State the legislatures of Units derive power from
Central Legislature. Vital feature of federation is division of legislative
powers, each unit being sovereign in its own place.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar used the term Union to make it clear that states had
no right to secede from the Union to set themselves into separate
States. He said that this Union was Federation and called it a flexible
federation to say that it was not as rigid as the American Constitution
was. However the expression Federation was not used deliberately.

In KeshavanandaBhartivs State of Kerela2, the Supreme Court held that

the federal character of the Constitution was its basic feature. In State of
Rajasthan vs. Union of India (AIR 1977 SC 1361), the Supreme Court
stated that, The Constitution is amphibian in sense that it can move
either on the federal or the unitary plane. When action is taken under
Article 356, the movement is on the unitary plane.

2
AIR 1973 SC 1461
In West Bengal vs. Union of India3 the Supreme Court observed, “The
Indian Union is not a true federation.”

FIVE ESSENTIALS OF FEDERAL CHARACTER

 The Constitution must be written

 It must be rigid

 It must be supreme law of the land

 There must be division or distribution of powers between the Union

or Federal Government and the various States or Provinces.

 There must be an independent and impartial judiciary to interpret

the Constitution and the Laws.

HISTORY OF FEDERALISM IN INDIA

India emerged as a federation getting relieved from the clutches of

British Raj4. Several princely states, which were divided and ruled, came
together to form the Indian Union. The Centre and Provinces of Pre-
Independence days became Union and States with clear division of
powers enlisted in three lists- Union, States and Concurrent Lists. The
Indian Federation was joined by the former Princely States, which later
became the units of the federation. Several such states acceded to India
and became full-fledged members of the Indian union. When
Constitution of India came into force, the component units were grouped

3
AIR 1963 SC 1241
4
India after Gandhi- RamchandraGuha
into four categories of States. By a gradual process the reorganization of
States took place, which continued up to the close of 1969.

Ambedkar said that that the Indian Federation was a “Union” because it
was indissoluble, and no state has the right to secede from it. The
federation is a Union because it is indestructible

Strong Centre to secure the nation

The founding fathers of the Constitution felt a need for a strong Centre
because of prevailing social,economic and political conditions.
Ambedkar said in the Constituent Assembly: “The Indian Constitution is
a federal Constitution in as much as it established what may be called a
dual polity which will consist of the Union at the Centre and the States at
the periphery each endowed with sovereign powers to be exercised in
the field assigned to them respectively by the Constitution.”

Flexibility in working of Federation

Article 249 is a well-drafted provision intending to secure greater

flexibility in working the federation. The States have exclusive power
to legislate on matters contained in the States List. Article 249 provides
for a situation where the national interest requires that Parliament can
legislate on a subject in the State List only if Council of States resolves
by 2/3rd majority that it is necessary in the national interest.

Centre-State Administrative Relations

The term “Executive power” has no precise definition either in the

Constitution or any statute or rule conferring executive power.
Nevertheless, there is some demarcation of executive power between
the Centre and the States. Ordinarily, executive power connotes, “the
residue of governmental functions that remain after legislative and
judicial powers are taken away,” (per Supreme Court in
RamjawayaKapoor vs. State of Rajasthan5. The exercise of executive
function comprises the determination of policy as well as carrying into
execution, the maintenance of order, the promotion of social and
economic welfare, in fact, the carrying on or supervision of the general
administration of the state.

FEDERALISM IN U.S.

The United States is a federal system6. The powers of the national

government are listed in article I, and were said by James Madison to be
‘few and defined’7. Few, perhaps: article I, section 8 has 18 clauses,
though some have sub divisions. And defined, to some extent: the
clause giving congress the power ‘to establish post offices and post
roads’8 is not subject to much interpretation. Other provisions are not as
obviously well defined; the meaning of the clause giving congress the
power ‘to regulate commerce among the several states’ has been
contested almost continuously since 1789.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution are
reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Upholding the
federal minimum wage law, Justice Harlan Fiske stone observed that
textually this provision ‘states but a truism that all is restrained which has
been surrendered’9. Madison provides a useful statement: ‘the powers
reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the

5
1955 2 SCR 225
6
Mark Tushnet- constitution of USA
7
The federalist
8
Chief justice John Marshall dia argue that the clause did not clearly give congress the power to punish postal
thefts
9
United States vs Darby 312US 100,124 (1941)
ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of
the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity and the
state’10.

State governments and the US constitution

The US constitution says nothing about the powers state governments

have. Some provisions expressly limit state power, for e.g. by barring
state from issuing bill of credit11. In addition the national government has
the power to displace state laws by enacting legislation that falls within
the powers granted to the national government. Justice Louis Brabdeis
famously asserted that a single courageous state may, if its citizens
choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic
experiments without risk to the rest of the country12.

State governments mirror the national government in structure: an

elected chief executive, two houses in the legislature and a judiciary.
Aside from the fundamental proposition that state governments have
plenary power- that is, can legislate on any subject whatever- whereas
the national government has only enumerated powers, state government
differ from the national government structurally in many ways.

Each state develops its own budget. The us constitution does not require
that the national government operate in fiscal balance and in recent
years it has rarely done so.

Federalism revolution of the 1990s

10
SUPRA 11
11
Mark Tushnet- constitution of USA
12
New state ice co. VsLiebman 285 US,311 (1932)
Several Supreme Court decisions in the 1990s led observers to declare
that a federalism revolution had begun. And indeed the court found a
few statues unconstitutional because they violated principles of
federalism for the first time since 1936. Yet, to this point the revolution
looks more like a group of framers with pitchforks than a serious effort to
overturn the expansion of national power that followed the new deal.

Federalism and the spending power

The main lines of centralization of power in the national government

were laid down through congressional use of the power to regulate
interstate commerce. Congress has others powers, of course, and as
the twentieth century proceed, one in particular become increasingly
important. Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes and provide
for the common defence and general welfare of the United States.

The growth of the national government and especially the adoption of

the 16th amendment (1913) authorizing congress to collect an income
tax opened up the possibility of a more vigorous use of the taxing and
spending powers. Their most important implications for the divisions of
effective governing power between the states and the national
government came from conditional spending programs. In light of the
national governments fiscal resources the conditional spending power
has become almost as important a tool for centralizing governing
authority as the commerce clause. And the court has shown no interest
in developing serious limitations on the conditional spending power.

SUPREME COURT PRESPECTIVE ON FEDERALISM

“The union of the states never was a purely artificial and arbitrary
relation. It began among the colonies and grew out of common origin,
mutual sympathies, similar interest and geographical relations”- Chief
Justice Salmon p. Chase writing for the court in Texas v White13

“In interpreting the constitution, it must never be forgotten that the nation
is made up of states to which are entrusted the power of local
government. And to them and to the people in the powers not expressly
delegated to the national government are reserved”-Justice William r.
Day writing for the court in Hammer v Dagenhart14

“apart from the limitation on Federal authority inherent in the delegated

nature of congress article I powers the principal means chosen by the
framers to ensure the role of the states in the feudal system lies in the
structure of the federal government itself”.- Justice Harry Blackmun,
writing for the court in Garcia vs. San Antonio metro transit authority15

In the case of Chisholm vs. Georgia16

The U.S. Supreme Court rendered its first major constitutional decision
in 1793. It deals with state soveignity. An essential aspect of sovereignty
in the Anglo- American tradition has been sovereign immunity. As
previously noted article III of the constitution granted to federal courts
jurisdiction over controversies between a state and citizens of another
state.

COMPARING THE MODEL OF FEDERALISM IN INDIA AND U.S.

The Traditional approach towards identifying the federal character of the

Constitution17

13
74 US 700
14
247US 251
15
469 US 528
16
2 US 419
 1. Dual polity

2. Distribution of powers

3. Supremacy of the Constitution

4. A Written Constitution

5. Rigidity

But Ivo D. Duchacek approached the federalism in a different manner by

raising certain questions based on classical model constitution of
America.He provided 10 yardsticks for testing the federal character of
the Constitution

1. Has the central authority exclusive control over diplomacy and

defense as befits nation-states in relations with other nation –states?

 In India Article 246 read with schedule VII – various entries-

1,2,4,10,11,13,14,15 directly provides for the exclusive control of
the central authority

 Besides these direct provisions there are other Entries like

5,6,7,9,12,16,17,18,19,37 and 41 of the List I support the union in
this matters

 Articles 53(2),352,353 and 355 further strengthen this power of

central authority

2. Is the Federal Union Constitutionally immune against dissolution by

secession?

 Under US Constitutions there is no chance to have secession

17
Comparative constitutional law- Tom Ginsburg and Rosalind Dixon
  Texas v White18- the US Supreme Court held that US is an
indestructible Union of indestructible States

 In India the Constitution in Article 1 says India that is Bharat shall

be a Union of States

 Territories of the State are Specified in Schedule I

 Article2 parliament is having the power to admit and establish new

states, Parliament can alter the boundaries of States or name of
existing States

 Article 352 and 356 can be used to prevent any secessionist

tendency

3. Is the exercise of the central authority as it reaches all citizens directly

independent of the individual approval and resources of the component
units?

 US Constitution in Article 1 section 8 gave powers to Congress to

lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excise

 Indian Constitution provides power in favor of Central Govt. to levy

direct taxes
 Subjects in schedule VII and Articles 268-281
 In Finance resources Central Authority is powerful

4. Who has Ultimate Control over the Amendments to the federal

Constitutions?

 In US Article V provides the manner in which amendments can be

made to the Constitution

18
74 U.S. 700 (1869)
  Any amendments to US Constitution requires the ratification by
3/4th States

 In India under Article 368 there is no requirement of ratification by

the States for all Constitutional Amendments

 Articles 368(2) provides that only for the Amendment of Articles

54,55,73,162,241 and 7th Schedule the assent of the States are
required.

5. Are the Component Units immune to elimination of their identity and

authority?

 All 50 States of America is having the immunity- States are

indestructible Units, having separate Constitution

 In India the position is different , territories of the State are

Specified in Schedule I

 Under Article2 parliament is having the power to admit and

establish new states

 Under Article 3 (a) Parliament can alter the boundaries of States or

name of existing States

 In India union can change the identity of the State

6. Is the Collective Sharing in federal rule making adequately secured by

equal representation of unequal units in a bicameral system?

 In US every State is equally represented in the Senate

 Every state can send two representatives to the Senate

 In India there is no equal sharing in the federal rule making

  Allocation of seats in RajyaSabha ( Council of States) is provided
in Schedule IV read with Article 80(2)

8. Is there a judicial authority in the central authority but Standing above

that Central Authority and the Components Units to determine their
respective rights?

 In US the supreme court stands above the central authority and

the component units

 The rights of the units can be determined by the SC in the event of

conflict between the federal and the state government or among
the states, this fall within the original jurisdiction of SC

 In India Judicial Review is explicitly provided under Article 13(2)

with 14,32,226

 Article 131 speaks about original jurisdiction of SC in any intra-

federal dispute, the dispute between Govt of India and one or more
states, or between two or more states

9. Have the component units retain all the powers that the constitution
has not given to the central authority?

 Article 1 section 8 of US constitution mentions 18 subject matters

on which the federal government can legislate

 The residuary powers are with the component units

 In India residuary power is with the Central Government

 Only in limited specified matters State Govts have the law making
power

10. Is the territorial division of authority is clear and unambiguous?

  Yes , the territorial division of authority is clear in India

 US. Article 1. section 8 provides 18 subject matters and residuary

power with states

 In India constitutional makers provided schedule 7 and 3 lists

which clearly provides powers between Union and States and
thereby ensures that clarity can be provided and conflicts can be
avoided.

While framing the Indian constitution, its drafting committee headed by

Dr.Ambedkar, had borrowed many salient features from various
constitutions in the world including US but adopted them in the Indian
context. Hence, both U.S and India, despite being federal in structure
have many similarities and differences between them.

Similarities between US and India:-

1) Written constitution:-

Both US and India have a written constitution based on which the federal
political structure has been set up and both federal governments are
functioning.Both constitutions have provisions for amending the
constitution to meet the growing socio, political and economic needs and
demands of their respective countries.

2) Bill of Rights and Fundamental Rights:-

The US constitution has ensured the fundamental rights of its citizens

like right to equality, freedom, right against exploitation, freedom of
religion, cultural and educational rights, right to property, and right to
constitutional remedies etc through ‘The Bill of Rights’,. They became
part and parcel of the US constitution through first ten amendments that
were carried out and adopted into the US constitution. The Indian
constitution has guaranteed the fundamental rights of the people through
articles 14 to 34 in Part III.

3) Supremacy of the Federal or Union Government:-

Both countries have federal governments at the centre in which various

states have acceded to. In the US as many as 50 states have joined the
federal government and in the Indian Union as many as 29 states and 8
Union territories have acceded to. Both in US and India, states which
have acceded to the Federal set up have no unilateral power to secede
from the Federal Government or the Union Government. While Federal
Government or the Union Government as well as the states are
empowered to enact laws on a particular subject,(known as concurrent
powers),the law enacted by the Federal or Union Government will have
overriding effect over the law enacted by the states on the same subject.
Thus Federal or Union Government is supreme in the present federal
structure.

4) Division of Labour and Separation of Powers:-

Adhering to Montesquieu's theory of division of labour and separation of

powers, both US and Indian constitutions have three basic divisions with
regard to division of labour and power in their federal set up known as
executive, legislature and judiciary with clear cut ‘Separation of Powers’
Each division has been entrusted with a separate power. The executive
governs the country, the legislature enacts laws and the judiciary
administers justice. President of US is the chief executive head of US,
whereas the Union cabinet headed by the Prime Minister is the real chief
executive body in India. Both US and India have a bicameral legislature.
US legislature has an upper and lower house known as the House of
Senate and the House of Representatives respectively and the Indian
Parliament hasLokSabha and RajyaSabha as its Lower and Upper
house respectively. Both US and India have a well organized judiciary,
having the Supreme Court or the Federal Court as the apex court and a
number of other courts in various states to administer original and
appellate jurisdictions.

5)Powers of Checks and Balances:-

Though there exists a clear cut division of labor known as separation of

powers into executive, legislature and judiciary in both countries, still
there is a threat. to democracy. A strong and dynamic leadership at the
helm of powers as the executive and acting with unlimited powers may
lead to arbitrariness. After all power corrupts power; absolute power
corrupts absolutely; in the result democracy may become a laughing
stock and virtually unworkable. Hence, in order to prevent unwieldy
growth of any one of these three divisions, a fantastic mechanism known
as powers of ‘checks and balances’ has been maintained in both
countries. In other words, each division of power is somehow or other
checked and controlled by other divisions of power.

In the US, the President as the chief executive power appoints his
members of ‘Kitchen Cabinet’ and he is the Supreme Commander-in-
Chief of Army,Navy and the Air Force. He appoints the Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court of the US. He enters into treaties with other
countries. However, his treaties must be approved by the House of
Senate.Otherwise, the treaty will not come into force. Though President
Woodrow Wilson was the chief architect of the League of Nations that
came into being after the first world war,US could not become a member
of it since the House of Senate did not approve it.Thus important policy
decisions must be necessarily approved by the House of Senate, which
definitely acts as a check on the powers of US President, who is the
head of the executive. Similarly laws enacted by both houses may be
subjected to the power of Judicial Review and can be declared null and
void by the judiciary. The President can be impeached and removed
from power on the motion moved by the House of Senate in the
presence of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the US.

Similarly in India, the Prime Minister and his cabinet can be removed
from power by a successful no confidence motion passed by both
houses of parliament.The important policy decisions taken by the
cabinet headed by the Prime Minister, if necessary has to be enacted
into laws only with the requisite majority of the parliament.The laws
enacted by the parliament are subject to the judicial review of the
Supreme Court of India.The Chief Justice and other Judges of the
Supreme Court are appointed by the President as recommended by the
cabinet and the Prime Minister.

Thus the powers of checks and balances have been the effective
mechanism both in the US and in India in safeguarding the democracy in
both countries.

Differences between the federalisms of US and India:-

The differences that exist between the federalisms of US and India are
unique. These differences have been wantonly created by the architects
of the Indian constitution. The US federalism is very strong and more
rigid as envisaged in their constitution by its leaders. It is more federal
than unitary.in character.Whereas, India is more unitary than federal and
we can even say that it is a quasi-federal state.

1) The Constitution of US is very rigid than the Indian Constitution:-

i)The constitution of US is very brief and rigid running into only a few
pages, whereas the constitution of India is very voluminous containing
as many as XXII parts, 395 articles and ten schedules. Since the US
constitution is very rigid, the provisions meant for amending the
constitution are also very rigid and more formal. The last amendment
carried out in the US constitution was in the year 1992.Between the
period 1989 and 1992, the US constitution has been amended only 27
times, in which the 21st amendment was to reverse the 18th amendment
Whereas, the Indian constitution which came into force in the year 1950,
has so far been amended 94 times.Therefore, it is easy to amend the
Indian constitution, since it involves four different types of procedures
which are comparatively easy than the amending procedure of the US
constitution. For example, recently, the salaries and allowances of the
Indian MPs have been hiked through a voice vote of the members of the
Indian Parliament, whereas in the US, the 27th amendment originally
proposed on 25th September, 1789, was ratified on May 7th, 1992,
regulating the provision for varying the compensation of the members of
the House of Senate and Representatives.

ii) In the US, though there is a Federal Constitution, all the states
affiliated with the Federal Government,owing their allegiance to the
Federal Constitution, have their own constitutions to regulate their own
governance. In India, all the states affiliated with the Indian Union owe
their allegiance only to the Indian constitution and do not have their own
constitution; however, each state is empowered to enact its own laws
included in the state as well as in the concurrent list of the constitution.

2) While US has the Presidential form of Government, India has the

Parliamentary form of Government:-

In the US, the President is the head of the state and so his government
is invariably mentioned as the Presidential form of government or
democracy; In India, the President is only a nominal head or titular
sovereign power;(dejure sovereign),whereas the Prime Minister and his
cabinet is the defacto or popular sovereign in whom the real power
exists.In the US, the President is popularly elected,besides chosen
through an electoral college.

However, nominating a candidate for contesting the Presidential election

by a political party in the US is a cumbersome process. This process is
comparatively simpler than the Indian system of forming the cabinet and
electing the Prime Minister from a party which enjoys a majority of
elected members of the LokSabha.While the US follows the bi-party
system, India has a multi-party system and a complicated process of
election.While the US President holds power for a period of 4
years,while the Indian Prime Minister holds power for five years as long
as his political party enjoys majority in the LokSabha. However, the US
President irrespective of his affiliation with a political party, Republican
or Democrat and irrespective of his party’s success or failure in the
elections for the House of Representatives or the House of Senate,
holds power for his full tenure.

A person in the US can hold the post of President only for two terms,
whereas, in India there is no such restriction to hold the post of a Prime
Minister or President. For example, Nehru was the Prime Minister of
India between 1947 and 1964 for a period of 17 years.

The Indian cabinet and the Prime Minister are collectively and directly
responsible and answerable to the parliament and indirectly to the
people, whereas, the US President has constitutional obligations and
duties and of course answerable to the people. For the dereliction of
duty and blunder committed by a cabinet minister in India, the Prime
Minister and his entire cabinet colleagues are liable,responsible and
answerable, because they have collective responsibilities.

3) Differences between the legislatures of US and India:-

In India, the lower house or the LokSabha is more powerful and its
members are directly elected by the people and the members of the
Upper house or RajyaSabhaare indirectly elected every two years. The
LokSabha members represent their constituencies on the basis of their
population strength; In the US, the House of Representatives are elected
on the basis of the population strength of a state, but irrespective of the
size of the state or its population, each state in the US has only two
senate members, totalling 100 members in all in the US. While the
LokSabha or the lower house is more powerful in India, the House of
Senate or the upper house is more powerful in the US. While a Senate
member in the US is directly elected, a RajyaSabha member in India is
indirectly elected by a system of proportional and transferable voting
system.

4) Differences in the judicial system between US and India:-

While the US has an advanced judicial system, India has a rapidly

developing judicial system. An accused or a witness in the US can
depose from the place where he is imprisoned, thereby avoiding
unnecessary travel all the way from Chicago or Los Angeles to New
York using the advanced technology. Such facilities are yet to develop in
India.While a Judge in the US can hold his post for life as long as he
enjoys his good health, in India it is slightly different. A District judge
unless elevated retires at the age of 58, a High Court and a Supreme
court Judge retires at the age of 65.

CONCLUSION

On introspection of the aforesaid study, it has been emphasized that

apart from the general scheme of our constitution towards vesting of
large powers in the centre can assume extraordinary powers in respect
of the administration of the states. One such contingency is the
proclamation of emergency under article 352, while the other
contingency is the assumption by the president of all or any of the
powers of the state government under article 356. In view of the far
reaching consequences it is necessary to ensure that resort had to
either of these measures only in circumstances warranted by the
constitution and keeping in view the provisions thereof both in letter and
spirit.

The concept of classical federalism has fuelled important debates about

essential elements of the most stable and successful federal system. But
lessons drawn from states like USA often do not apply to more volatile
conditions, such as those facing states seeking to recover from ethnic
conflict.

In both democracies, the degree to which their version of federalism is

effective depends on the extent of compatibility between the country’s
political actors. In the U.S., polarization is on the rise, possibly because
the institutions of democracy created centuries ago are no longer
adequate to address current issues.

In India, the political machinery must address the continuing challenges

of secessionist movements and unresolved problems with neighbouring
countries. The demands of a growing middle class and a better
educated, digitally-connected youthful demography in a slowing
economy plagued by corruption are also becoming louder.

These, and other challenges, can be addressed only if the central and
state governments work together more harmoniously than in the past to
craft policy frameworks and administrative structures that are suited to
the complex economic space India inhabits in the globalised world
today.