Local Governments Notes | Class 11 Political Science

13 September 2022 · 7 min read

This chapter introduces the federal nature of India's political system. It explains what federalism is, how the Constitution divides powers between the Centre and the States, why India ended up with a strong central government, and how tensions play out through Centre versus State disputes, interstate conflicts, and the special case of Jammu and Kashmir. These notes sit alongside the rest of our Class 11 Political Science material in the resources library.

In short, federalism means two levels of government, one for the whole nation and one for the regions, working under a single Constitution. India adopted this design so that a huge and diverse country could stay united while still giving States real powers of their own.

Why did the erstwhile USSR break up?

One of the primary reasons for its disintegration was Russia's excessive centralisation, the concentration of authority in one place, and 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 went through division. Even Canada faces separatist feeling between its English speaking and French speaking regions. The lesson is that a federation which ignores diversity, or lets one group dominate, can come apart.

How has India stayed united despite partition and diversity?

Despite India's cultural and linguistic diversity, its people share a common history of resistance to British rule. This encouraged our national leaders to imagine India as a country defined by its diversity yet united through it, an idea often called unity in diversity.

Beyond simply writing a federal Constitution, the actual structure of the federal system and the way it has been practised have contributed a great deal to holding India together.

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 formally breaking up in 1962.

Later, in 1973, under the Treaty of Chaguaramas, the independent islands pooled some powers to create a common legislature, a supreme court, a common currency and, to a limited extent, a common market known as the Caribbean Community. It even has a common executive made up of the heads of government of member countries. So the units can neither live fully as one country nor stand completely apart.

What is federalism?

Federalism is a way of organising government that unites separate States, or other units, within one larger political system, while still allowing each unit to keep its own identity. As a principle of government it has developed differently in different countries. Its main features are:

Federalism is an institutional arrangement that accommodates two sets of government, one at the regional level and one at the national level.
Each government is independent, or autonomous, in its own sphere. In some federal countries there is even a system of dual citizenship, but India has only single citizenship.
People carry two sets of identities and loyalties, belonging both to their region and to the nation. For example, we may be Gujaratis or Jharkhandis as well as Indians.

Each level of government has its own powers, responsibilities and system of government. The details of this dual system are usually set out in a written Constitution.

Some subjects that concern the whole nation, such as defence or currency, are the responsibility of the union or central government. Regional or local matters are handled by the State government. To prevent clashes between the Centre and the States, an independent judiciary settles disputes about the division of power.

What helps federalism work smoothly?

How well a federation runs depends on its politics, culture, ideology and history. Federations work best when they have a culture of trust, cooperation, mutual respect and restraint.

Political parties also shape how a Constitution actually works. If a single unit, State, language group or ideology begins to dominate the whole federation, it can breed deep resentment among those who do not share that dominant voice. In extreme cases such feelings can lead aggrieved units to demand separation, or even to civil war.

The failure of federalism in Nigeria

Nigeria is an instructive example of a federal arrangement that has struggled to produce a stable state.

Northern and Southern Nigeria were two separate 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, the Yoruba, the Ibo and the Hausa Fulani, governed the western, eastern and northern regions respectively.

Their wish to extend their power into other regions created fear and sparked conflict. These events led to the setting up of a military administration. Under the 1960 Constitution the Nigerian police were run jointly by the federal and regional governments, but the 1979 Constitution, administered by the military, allowed no State to have its own civil police force.

Though Nigeria returned to democracy in 1999, religious divisions and disputes over who controls the revenue from oil resources remain a source of tension. Local ethnic groups oppose the centralisation of power over oil. Nigeria therefore shows how religious, ethnic and economic divisions can combine to strain a federation.

How does the Indian Constitution divide power between the Centre and the States?

The Constitution of India does not even use the word federation. Yet federalism in India describes the relationship between the Centre and the States as set out in the Constitution.

Article 1 opens with a clear statement:

India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States. The States and the territories thereof shall be as specified in the First Schedule.

Part XI of the Constitution sets out how legislative, administrative and executive powers are shared between the union government and the States.

Why did the Constituent Assembly choose federalism?

Most of our national leaders realised that to govern a country as large as India, authority would have to be shared between the provinces and the central government. After the trauma of Partition, the Constituent Assembly decided to build a government based on unity and cooperation between the Centre and the States, while still giving the States powers of their own.

The division of powers in India

The Indian Constitution creates two sets of government:

the central government, and
the State governments.

Both have constitutional status and clearly marked areas of work. If there is any dispute about which powers belong to the union and which to the States, the judiciary can settle it on the basis of the Constitution.

One important feature of this division is that economic and financial powers are largely centralised in the hands of the central government. The States, by contrast, carry heavy responsibilities but have fairly small revenue sources of their own.

How is jurisdiction divided into lists?

The Constitution sorts subjects into three lists. The Union List has 100 subjects (originally 97), the State List has 61 subjects (originally 66) and the Concurrent List has 52 subjects (originally 47). Both the Centre and the States can make laws on Concurrent List subjects, but if the two laws clash, the central law prevails. Residuary subjects, meaning those not mentioned in any of the three lists, are given to the Centre.

Why is India said to have federalism with a strong Centre?

The Indian Constitution is widely seen as creating a strong central government. India is a continent sized country with enormous diversity and serious social and economic challenges. The framers believed that problems such as poverty, illiteracy and wide gaps in wealth needed planning and coordination, and so worries about unity and development pushed them to build a strong central authority.

Territorial integrity

The very existence of a State, including its boundaries, lies in the hands of Parliament:

Parliament can form a new State by separating territory from an existing State, or by uniting two or more States.
It can also change 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 contains powerful emergency provisions that can turn the federal system into a highly centralised one once an emergency is declared. During an emergency, power is lawfully centralised, and Parliament can even make laws on subjects that normally belong to the States.

Financial powers

In normal times the central government holds strong financial powers, and most revenue raising items are under its control.

The Centre has many sources of revenue, while the States depend heavily on grants and financial help from the Centre.
After independence India adopted planning as a tool for rapid economic progress.
Planning led to a good deal of centralisation of economic decision making.

The Planning Commission, set up by the union government, acted as the body that supervised the use of resources by the States. This uneven sharing of economic resources led to complaints of discrimination against States ruled by opposition parties.

The office of Governor

The Governor has certain powers to recommend the dismissal of a State government and the dissolution of the Assembly. Even in normal times the Governor can reserve a bill passed by the State legislature for the assent of the President.

This lets the central government delay State legislation, examine such bills and, in some cases, block them completely. The Constitution makes clear that the executive powers of the Centre are superior to those of the States.

Greater executive powers for the Centre

There may be times when the central government needs to legislate on a subject from the State List. This is possible if the Rajya Sabha approves the move. The executive powers of the federal government are plainly superior to those of the States, and the Centre can even issue directions to State governments.

Protection for the All India Services

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 allow Parliament to protect people serving the union or a State for actions taken during martial law to restore order. This further strengthens the union government, and the Armed Forces Special Powers Act rests on such provisions.

Centre and State relations

Centre and State relations can be studied under three heads:

legislative relations,
administrative relations, and
financial relations.

Legislative relations

Articles 245 to 255 in Part XI deal with legislative relations between the Centre and the States. The Constitution divides legislative powers by both territory and subject. It also allows Parliament to legislate in the State field in five extraordinary situations, and gives the Centre control over State legislation in certain cases.

Demands for autonomy by States

States have raised several kinds of autonomy demands over the years:

First, that the division of powers be changed in favour of the States, giving them more and more important powers.
Second, that States have independent sources of revenue and greater control over them, a demand known as financial autonomy.
Third, demands about administrative powers, since States resent central control over the administrative machinery.
Fourth, demands linked to culture and language, such as opposition to the dominance of Hindi in Tamil Nadu, or calls to promote Punjabi language and culture.
Some States also feel that Hindi speaking areas dominate the others. During the 1960s there were agitations in some States against the imposition of Hindi.

The role of Governors and President's Rule

The role of Governors has long been a source of friction between the States and the Centre.

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, so the Governor's actions are often seen as interference by the Centre in the working of the State government.

When different parties are in power at the Centre and in the State, the Governor's role becomes even more controversial. One of the most debated articles in the Constitution is Article 356, which provides for President's Rule in a State. It is meant to be used when the government of a State cannot be carried on in line with the Constitution.

President's Rule results in the union government taking over the State government. The President's proclamation has to be approved by Parliament, and President's Rule can be extended up to three years. Because the Governor can recommend the dismissal of a State government and the suspension or dissolution of the Assembly, this has led to many conflicts.

State governments have sometimes been dismissed even when they held a majority, as in Kerala in 1959, or without being allowed to test their majority, as happened in several States after 1967. Some cases reached the Supreme Court, which ruled that the decision to impose President's Rule can itself be examined by the judiciary.

Interstate conflicts

While States often argue with the Centre over autonomy and their share of revenue, there are also many disputes between two or more States. The judiciary acts as an arbitration mechanism for the legal side of these disputes, but they are rarely only legal. They usually carry political weight too, and so they are best resolved through negotiation and mutual understanding. Two kinds of dispute keep recurring.

Border disputes

States sometimes claim territory held by neighbouring States. One long standing example is the dispute between Maharashtra and Karnataka over the city of Belgaum.
Manipur and Nagaland also have a long standing border dispute. The creation of Haryana out of the old State of Punjab led to disputes over border areas and over the shared capital city of Chandigarh, which today serves as the capital of both States.
In 1985 the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi reached an understanding with the leadership of Punjab, under which Chandigarh was to be handed over to Punjab. This has still not happened.

Sharing of river waters

River water disputes are even more serious because they touch drinking water and farming. The Cauvery water dispute is a major issue between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, where farmers in both States depend on the same river. Although a river water tribunal exists, this dispute has also reached the Supreme Court.
In a similar case, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra have long argued over sharing the waters of the Narmada river.

Because rivers are such a vital resource, these disputes test the patience and the cooperative spirit of the States.

Jammu and Kashmir and Article 370

Jammu and Kashmir once had a special status under Article 370.
It was one of the large princely states that, at the time of independence, had the option of joining India or Pakistan.
Soon after independence, India and Pakistan fought a war over Kashmir, and in those circumstances the Maharaja of Kashmir acceded to the Indian union.

In practice the autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir was much less than the wording of Article 370 might suggest. A constitutional provision allowed the President, with the agreement of the State government, to decide which parts of the Union List would apply to the State.

The President issued two constitutional orders, in agreement with the government of Jammu and Kashmir, that made large parts of the Constitution apply to the State. As a result, even though the State had its own constitution and flag, Parliament's power to make laws on Union List subjects came to be fully accepted there.

The remaining differences were that no emergency due to internal disturbance could be declared in Jammu and Kashmir without the State's agreement, the union government could not impose a financial emergency there, the Directive Principles did not apply, and amendments to the Constitution under Article 368 applied only with the agreement of the State government.

On 5 August 2019 the Indian government revoked the special status and limited autonomy that Jammu and Kashmir had held under Article 370, and the State was reorganised into two union territories. On 11 December 2023 a five judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court unanimously upheld that decision, a ruling that became a landmark debate about how far the Centre may reshape a State.

Why it still matters

Federalism is not just a textbook idea. The push and pull between the Centre and the States is decided again and again in real institutions, and the biggest of these is the Finance Commission, a body the Constitution requires under Article 280 to recommend how tax money is shared.

The Sixteenth Finance Commission, chaired by the economist Arvind Panagariya, gave its report for the five year period from 2026 to 2031, and it was tabled in Parliament alongside the Union Budget for 2026 to 2027. It kept the States' share of the divisible pool of central taxes at 41 per cent, and it set aside about 8 lakh crore rupees (around 7,91,493 crore rupees) as grants for local bodies, split roughly 60 to 40 between rural and urban local governments. This is the same tension the notes describe, that financial powers sit heavily with the Centre, being negotiated in real time.

It also connects federalism to a third tier below the Centre and the States. Village panchayats and municipalities, recognised by the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments of 1992, are today India's local governments, and the Finance Commission now funds them directly. So the sharing of power does not stop at States, it reaches all the way down to your own district and ward.

One update worth noting: the Planning Commission mentioned in these notes was replaced on 1 January 2015 by NITI Aayog, which is a policy think tank rather than a body that hands out funds. Much of the older centralised planning has given way to negotiation between the Centre and the States.

You can carry these ideas further with the Learnacy Hub topic on the Indian Constitution and civic life, part of the wider Learnacy Hub, where the same debates about power, courts and federalism are tracked against real events.

Sources

More on Class 11 - Political Science Notes → Explore the Learnacy Hub →