Federalism Notes | Class 11 Political Science
These One Young India study notes introduce students to the federal nature of India's system of government. The chapter explains federalism alongside a strong central government, the Constitution and the division of powers. It also looks at real inter-state conflicts, from the revocation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir to long-running river water disputes.
What was the major reason for the breakup of the erstwhile USSR?
One of the primary reasons for the disintegration of the USSR was Russia's excessive centralisation and concentration of authority, along with its dominance over other regions that had their own distinct languages and cultures.
The USSR was not alone. Other countries such as Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Pakistan also faced division. Even Canada has seen separatism between the English-speaking and French-speaking regions of the country.
How has India remained united despite its partition and diversity?
Despite India's cultural and linguistic diversity, the country shares a common history of resistance to the British Raj. This prompted our national leaders to imagine India as a nation defined by its diversity yet held together by it. This idea is often called unity in diversity.
Beyond adopting a federal constitution, it is the structure of the federal system and the way it is practised that have contributed significantly to India's unity.
Federalism in the West Indies
The Federation of the West Indies was founded in 1958. It had a weak central authority and each unit's economy was largely self-sufficient. These features, combined with political struggle among the units, led to the federation's formal disintegration in 1962.
Later, in 1973, under the terms of the Treaty of Chaguaramas, the independent islands pooled some powers in the form of a common legislature, a supreme court, a common currency and, to a limited extent, a common market known as the Caribbean Community.
The Caribbean Community even has a common executive, made up of the heads of government of member countries. So the units can neither coexist as a single country nor function fully independently.
What is federalism?
Federalism is a mode of political organisation that unites separate states or other polities within an overarching political system, in a way that allows each to keep its own integrity.
As a principle of government, federalism has evolved differently in different situations.
- Federalism is an institutional mechanism to accommodate two sets of polities, one at the regional level and the other at the national level.
- Each government is autonomous in its own sphere. In some federal countries there is even a system of dual citizenship. India, however, has only single citizenship.
- People likewise have two sets of identities and loyalties: they belong to their region as well as to the nation. For example, we are Gujaratis or Jharkhandis, and also Indians.
Each level of the polity has distinct powers and responsibilities and a separate system of government. The details of this dual system are generally spelt out in a written constitution.
Certain subjects that concern the nation as a whole, such as defence or currency, are the responsibility of the union or central government. Regional or local matters are the responsibility of the state government. To prevent conflict between the Centre and the states, an independent judiciary settles disputes.
The judiciary has the power to resolve disputes between the central government and the states on legal matters relating to the division of power.
What factors help federalism function smoothly?
The working of a federation is shaped by its politics, culture, ideology and history. Federations run more smoothly when they have a culture of trust, cooperation, mutual respect and restraint.
Political parties also influence how a constitution operates. If a single unit, state, language group or ideology begins to dominate the federation as a whole, it can breed serious resentment among the people or units that do not share the dominant voice. Such circumstances may lead aggrieved units to demand secession, or even to civil war.
Failure of federalism in Nigeria
Federalism in Nigeria
Nigeria is an instructive case where a federal arrangement failed to produce a stable state.
Northern and Southern Nigeria were two distinct British possessions until 1914. Nigerian leaders decided to create a federal constitution at the 1950 Ibadan Constitutional Conference. The three largest ethnic groups of Nigeria, namely the Yoruba, the Ibo and the Hausa-Fulani, governed the western, eastern and northern regions respectively.
Their desire to extend their power into other regions sowed fear and sparked conflict. These events led to the establishment of a military administration.
Under the 1960 constitution, the Nigerian police were jointly administered by the federal and regional governments. No state was permitted to have a civil police force under the 1979 constitution, which was administered by the military.
Although Nigeria returned to democracy in 1999, religious divisions and disputes over who should manage revenue from oil resources remain a source of tension for the Nigerian federation. Local ethnic groups oppose the centralisation of power over oil.
Nigeria therefore shows how religious, ethnic and economic divisions among groups can combine.
How does the Indian Constitution structure the division of powers between the states and the Centre?
The Constitution of India does not even use the word federation. Yet federalism in India refers to the relationship between the Centre and the states as set out in the Constitution.
India is described by the following articles of the Constitution:
- Article 1(1): India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.
- Article 1(2): The states and the territories thereof shall be as specified in the First Schedule.
Part XI of the Constitution specifies the distribution of legislative, administrative and executive powers between the union government and the states of India.
What led the Constituent Assembly to turn to federalism for the Indian union?
Most of our national leaders realised that, in order to administer a country as large as ours, authority would have to be divided between the provinces and the central government.
Following India's partition, the Constituent Assembly resolved to create a government based on unity and collaboration between the Centre and the states, while also giving the states autonomous powers.
Division of powers in India
The Indian Constitution creates two sets of government:
- The central government.
- The state government.
Both have constitutional status and clearly identified areas of activity. If there is any dispute about which powers fall under the union and which under the states, it can be resolved by the judiciary on the basis of the constitutional provisions.
The Constitution clearly demarcates the subjects that fall under the exclusive domain of the Union and those under the states. One important aspect of this division is that economic and financial powers are centralised in the hands of the central government. The states, on the other hand, carry immense responsibilities but have very limited revenue sources.
How are the areas of jurisdiction divided for Indian federalism?
The Union List consists of 100 subjects (originally 97), the State List 61 subjects (originally 66) and the Concurrent List 52 subjects (originally 47). Both the Centre and the states can make laws on subjects in the Concurrent List, but in case of a conflict, the central law prevails.
The residuary subjects, that is, those not mentioned in any of the three lists, are given to the Centre.
Why is India considered to have federalism with a strong central government?
The Indian Constitution is widely seen as having established a strong central government. India is a continent-sized country with enormous diversity and deep socioeconomic problems. The framers of the Constitution felt that these challenges would be best addressed by a strong central government working in tandem with the states.
Poverty, illiteracy and wealth disparities were among the issues that called for planning and cooperation. As a result, concerns about unity and development pushed the authors of the Constitution to establish a strong central authority.
What provisions create a strong central government?
Territorial integrity
The very existence of a state, including its territorial integrity, is in the hands of Parliament:
- Parliament is empowered to form a new state by separating territory from an existing state, or by uniting two or more states.
- It can also alter the boundary of any state, or even its name.
- The Constitution provides some safeguards by requiring that the views of the concerned state legislature be sought.
Emergency provisions
The Constitution has certain very powerful emergency provisions, which can turn our federal polity into a highly centralised system once an emergency is declared. During an emergency, power becomes lawfully centralised, and Parliament also assumes the power to make laws on subjects that fall within the jurisdiction of the states.
Financial powers
In normal circumstances, the central government has very effective financial powers and responsibilities. The main revenue-generating items are under the control of the central government.
- The central government has many revenue sources, while the states depend mostly on grants and financial assistance from the Centre.
- India adopted planning as an instrument of rapid economic progress and development after independence.
- Planning led to considerable centralisation of economic decision-making.
The Planning Commission, appointed by the union government, was the coordinating body that supervised the management of the states' resources. This distribution of economic resources was often seen as lopsided and led to charges of discrimination against states ruled by opposition parties.
The office of Governor
The Governor has certain powers to recommend the dismissal of the state government and the dissolution of the assembly. Even in normal circumstances, the Governor has the power to reserve a bill passed by the state legislature for the assent of the President.
This allows the central government to delay state legislation, and also to examine such bills and veto them completely. The Constitution clearly states that the executive powers of the Centre are superior to those of the states.
Greater executive powers to the Centre
There may be times when the situation requires the central government to legislate on issues from the State List. This is possible if the Rajya Sabha approves the move.
According to the Constitution, the executive powers of the federal government are clearly superior to those of the states. The federal government also has the authority to issue directions to state governments.
Protection to the All India Administration
The All India Services also come under the control of the central government. A state government can neither take disciplinary action against these officers nor remove them from service.
Articles 33 and 34 authorise Parliament to protect persons in the service of the union or a state in respect of any action taken by them during martial law to maintain or restore order.
This provision further strengthens the powers of the union government. The Armed Forces Special Powers Act has been made on the basis of these provisions.
Centre-State relations
Centre-State relations can be studied under three heads:
- Legislative relations.
- Administrative relations.
- Financial relations.
Legislative relations between the states and the Centre
Articles 245 to 255 in Part XI of the Constitution deal with the legislative relations between the Centre and the states.
The Constitution divides legislative powers between the Centre and the states in terms of both the territory and the subjects of legislation.
It also provides for parliamentary legislation in the state field under five extraordinary situations, as well as the Centre's control over state legislation in certain cases.
There are four aspects in the Centre-State legislative relations, beginning with the territorial extent of central and state legislation.
Distribution of legislative subjects
The other aspects are the distribution of legislative subjects, parliamentary legislation in the state field, and the Centre's control over state legislation.
Demands for autonomy by states
- First, that the division of powers should be changed in favour of the states, with more and more important powers assigned to the states.
- Second, that the states should have independent sources of revenue and greater control over them. This is also known as financial autonomy.
- Third, demands related to the administrative powers of the states. States resent the control of the Centre over the administrative machinery.
- Fourth, autonomy demands linked to cultural and linguistic issues. The opposition to the domination of Hindi in Tamil Nadu, or the demand for advancing the Punjabi language and culture, are instances of this.
- Some states also feel that the Hindi-speaking areas dominate the others.
- In fact, during the 1960s there were agitations in some states against the imposition of the Hindi language.
Role of Governors and President's Rule
The role of Governors has always been a controversial issue between the states and the central government.
- The Governor is not an elected office-holder.
- Many Governors have been retired military officers, civil servants or politicians.
- The Governor is appointed by the central government, and so the Governor's actions are often viewed as interference by the Centre in the functioning of the state government.
When two different parties are in power at the Centre and in the state, the role of the Governor becomes even more controversial. One of the most controversial articles in the Constitution is Article 356, which provides for President's Rule in any state.
This provision is to be applied when a situation has arisen in which the government of the state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
It results in the takeover of the state government by the union government. The President's proclamation has to be ratified by Parliament, and President's Rule can be extended up to three years.
The Governor has the power to recommend the dismissal of the state government and the suspension or dissolution of the state assembly. This has led to many conflicts.
State governments have been dismissed in some cases even when they had a majority in the legislature, as happened in Kerala in 1959, or without testing their majority, as happened in several other states after 1967.
Some cases went to the Supreme Court, and the Court has ruled that the constitutional validity of a decision to impose President's Rule can be examined by the judiciary.
Inter-state conflicts
While the states keep contending with the Centre over autonomy and other issues such as the share in revenue resources, there have also been many disputes between two states, or among more than two states.
The judiciary does act as an arbitration mechanism for disputes of a legal nature, but these disputes are, in reality, not purely legal.
They carry political implications, and so they can best be resolved through negotiation and mutual understanding.
There are broadly two types of disputes that keep recurring.
Border disputes
- States sometimes claim territories that belong to neighbouring states. One long-standing border dispute is between Maharashtra and Karnataka over the city of Belgaum.
- Manipur and Nagaland also have a long-standing border dispute. The carving out of Haryana from the erstwhile state of Punjab has led to disputes between the two states, not only over border areas but over the capital city of Chandigarh.
This city today serves as the capital of both these states.
- In 1985, the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi reached an understanding with the leadership of Punjab.
- According to this understanding, Chandigarh was to be handed over to Punjab. But this has not happened yet.
Sharing of river waters
- These disputes are even more serious because they relate to problems of drinking water and agriculture in the states concerned. The Cauvery water dispute is a major issue between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.
- Farmers in both states depend on Cauvery waters. Although there is a river water tribunal to settle such disputes, this one has reached the Supreme Court.
In another similar dispute, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra are contesting the sharing of the waters of the Narmada river. Rivers are among the greatest resources, and so these water disputes test the patience and the cooperative spirit of the states.
Jammu and Kashmir
- The state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) had a special status under Article 370.
- Jammu and Kashmir was one of the large princely states that had the option of joining India or Pakistan at the time of Independence.
- Immediately after Independence, India and Pakistan fought a war over Kashmir. In these circumstances, the Maharaja of Kashmir acceded to the Indian union.
The autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir was much less than the language of Article 370 might suggest.
A constitutional provision allowed the President, with the concurrence of the state government, to specify which parts of the Union List would apply to the state.
The President issued two constitutional orders, in concurrence with the government of Jammu and Kashmir, making large parts of the Constitution applicable to the state.
As a result, although J&K had a separate constitution and a flag, Parliament's power to make laws on subjects in the Union List was fully accepted.
Among the remaining differences was that no emergency due to internal disturbances could be declared in J&K without the concurrence of the state.
The union government could not impose a financial emergency in the state, and the Directive Principles did not apply in J&K.
Amendments to the Indian Constitution under Article 368 could apply only with the concurrence of the government of J&K.
On 5 August 2019, the Indian government revoked the special status and limited autonomy granted under Article 370.
Why it still matters
Federalism is not only a chapter to revise. It is a living argument about who gets to decide what in India, and it keeps returning to the headlines.
The Governor question reached the Supreme Court
The notes above explain how a Governor can sit on a bill passed by a state assembly, or reserve it for the President. This exact power became a national dispute. In Tamil Nadu, the Governor held back ten bills, one of them for more than seventeen months. On 8 April 2025, in State of Tamil Nadu versus Governor of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court ruled that this delay was illegal and erroneous. The Court held that there is no pocket veto in the Constitution: a Governor cannot simply decide not to decide. It also said the President should normally act on bills reserved by a Governor within three months, and it used its special powers under Article 142 to treat the ten pending bills as though they had been passed. Here the office of the Governor, described in your notes, came alive in a real courtroom.
Money is still at the heart of the debate
The notes point out that our states carry heavy responsibilities but have limited revenue, so they lean on the Centre. Every few years a Finance Commission decides how central taxes are shared. The 16th Finance Commission, chaired by Arvind Panagariya, gave its report for the years 2026 to 2031, and it was tabled in Parliament on 1 February 2026. It recommended that the states together keep 41 percent of the divisible pool of central taxes, the same share as before, even though many states had asked for 50 percent. This continuing tug of war over the states' share is what people mean by fiscal federalism.
One more update for your notes: the Planning Commission mentioned above no longer exists. It was replaced on 1 January 2015 by NITI Aayog, a policy think tank whose stated aim is to foster cooperative federalism between the Centre and the states, on the view that strong states make a strong nation.
To see how these ideas connect to current affairs across other subjects, explore the Learnacy Hub, or revise more Class 11 Political Science notes on One Young India.