Current challenges to multinational federalism in India

ABSTRACT

India’s multinational federation has experienced multiple challenges in the last 25 years, relating to the rise of coalition politics and the process of economic liberalization, both of which have increased the power of some of the states of the federation at the expense of others. The internal borders of India continue to be restructured, with the latest state, Telangana, created in 2014. India is often seen as a successful multinational federation, but it is important to recognize the limitations of this success, as well as the areas where the rise of an aggressive Hindu nationalism poses a powerful threat to India’s multinational federal democracy.

KEYWORDS:

• India
• federalism
• ethnic conflict
• ethnofederalism
• multinational federalism

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dishil Shrimankar for research assistance on this article. This article is an outcome of the Leverhulme Trust’s ‘Continuity and Change in Indian Federalism’ IN-2013-43.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 In a recent chapter, Bhattacharyya (2007) has argued that the Western concept of federalism has been adapted to Indian conditions so that federalism in India remains a hybrid product.

2 After the Indian Supreme Court judgment in 1994 (S R Bommai vs. the Union of India), this power of the Centre has been much circumscribed.

3 Other concessions were made to the multinational nature of the Indian polity, such as the retention of Personal Laws for Muslims and Christians and the reservation of seats (and positions in public services) for Scheduled Castes and Tribes in the Lok Sabha, State Legislative Assemblies, and the local self-government bodies.

4 Brass (1994) has identified four informal rules which the Union government has more or less adhered to: no demand for a political recognition of a religious group will be considered; no explicitly secessionist demand will be tolerated; no capricious concessions will be made to any political demand of any group; and there must be demonstrable popular support of the claim from both sides in conflict for a territorial unit within the federation.

5 The Union Territory of Chandigarh was also created, and some territory transferred to the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh.

6 These data exclude Jammu and Kashmir.

7 Class conflicts manifest themselves politically (and very violently) in the Maoist movements in the so-called red corridor of India. But they have not been able to challenge the authority of the Indian state. Class conflicts remain marginalized compared to the politics of ethnic conflicts that attract more academic and policy attention.

8 Which comprises Articles 297-320 of the Constitution.

9 In addition to the eight states of the north-east, Jammu and Kashmir, Uttarakhand, and Himachal Pradesh also enjoyed Special Category Status.