Discuss the basic characteristics of Indian federation
Answers
Answered by
2
Indian federation,
it is divided into two administrative powers:-
1)central or union power.
2)state power.
central power handle by the government of India
state power handle by the state government
it is divided into two administrative powers:-
1)central or union power.
2)state power.
central power handle by the government of India
state power handle by the state government
Answered by
7
Nature of Indian Federation:
The Indian Federation is a federation of its own type. It does not fall into either of the two conventional categories. The British provinces though largely autonomous after the attainment of independence in 1947 did not possess the attributes of sovereignty. Their position was just like Canadian provinces. They could not therefore form a compact of their own for common purposes of supra-provincial importance.
Moreover, the Union was not brought into existence by the British before they relinquished power. The representatives of the Indian people assembled in a Constituent Assembly and decided on the structure of the Union. Hence, they provided for the distribution of authority and functions between the national and regional governments.
On the other hand, the Indian States (Indian India) were fully autonomous according to the Independence Act, 1947. The native rulers were no longer under the suzerainty of the British. Paramountcy had lapsed. The States had the option to join India or newly carved out country—Pakistan, or remain independent. Thus their position was just like the states which constitute American federation. Hence our Federation cannot be categorized in a traditional way as a Canadian type or American type.
The independent states voluntarily form a federation. In case of India, some of the states were persuaded whereas some were coaxed and then coerced to join the Indian Union. Hyderabad may be cited as an example. The position of the provinces vis-a-vis the Centre, however, was on the Canadian pattern. Thus two different types of units were to be brought in the Union fold.
Besides, the former Chief Commissioner provinces and far-flung situated once penal islands like Andaman and Nicobar were also brought in the Union. Evidently, the nature of Indian federation was to be of a peculiar type, as it was to be constituted of different types of units.
In the initial stages, the Indian Union comprised of four types of states, viz., Part A, Part B, Part C and Part D. Nine British provinces were put under Part A, nine integrated native states under part B, the Chief Commissioner Provinces and since 1950 Vindhya Pradesh states under Part C and Andaman Nicobar under Part D. Thus 27 states and the territory of Andaman and Nicobar Island constituted the territory of Indian Union before the reorganization of the States on November 1, 1956. In order to achieve viability among the states and rationalize the base of the Indian Union, the States Reorganization Act, was passed which abolished old classification of states and established two types of units only i.e., States and Union Territories.
Hence, different opinions have been expressed by different critics regarding the nature of Indian Federation. According to Dr. Where, the Indian Constitution establishes a “system of government which is at most quasi-federal, almost revolutionary in character; a unitary state with subsidiary federal features rather than federal state with unitary features.” Dr. Krishna P. Mukerjee remarks “I have come to take the view that whatever might have been the position at the drafting stage or previous to that stage the Constitution that emerged out of the august deliberations of the Constituent Assembly of India in January, 1950 is definitely un-federal or unitary Constitution.”
Dr. Ambedkar, is of the view. “The Constitution has been set in a tight mould of federalism.” Sir Ivor Jennings opines “India has a federation with a strong centralizing tendency.” Dr. Gajendragadkar, former Chief Justice of India, observed, “though it partakes of some of the characteristics of federal structure it cannot be said to be federal in the true sense of the term.” Dr. K.M. Munshi, a distinguished jurist, portrayed Indian Federation as “a quasi-federal union invested with several important features of a unitary government.”
In fact the Indian Constitution can be unitary or federal according to requirements of time and circumstances. Rightly remarks D.D. Basu “The constitution of India is neither purely federal nor unitary, but is a combination of both. It is a union or a composite of novel type.” Pandit Nehru who had used the word “federation” a number of times in the Assembly once described the states as “mere administrative units” in one of his off-hand speeches.
Dr. Deshmukh summed up the nature of Indian federation as “neither federal nor unitary.” According to Sardar Patel “…Our new Constitution is not an alliance between democracies and dynasties but a real union of the Indian people based on the basic concept of the sovereignty of the people.”
The Indian Constitution, no doubt, fulfills some conditions of a federation, but it leans towards a strong Centre, it is a stable union of states and provinces (now termed as states) which have neither lost their entities nor claim complete autonomy. Evidently it does not violate the essentials of a federal polity.
HOPE IT HELPS AND MARK AS BRAINLIEST ANSWER
The Indian Federation is a federation of its own type. It does not fall into either of the two conventional categories. The British provinces though largely autonomous after the attainment of independence in 1947 did not possess the attributes of sovereignty. Their position was just like Canadian provinces. They could not therefore form a compact of their own for common purposes of supra-provincial importance.
Moreover, the Union was not brought into existence by the British before they relinquished power. The representatives of the Indian people assembled in a Constituent Assembly and decided on the structure of the Union. Hence, they provided for the distribution of authority and functions between the national and regional governments.
On the other hand, the Indian States (Indian India) were fully autonomous according to the Independence Act, 1947. The native rulers were no longer under the suzerainty of the British. Paramountcy had lapsed. The States had the option to join India or newly carved out country—Pakistan, or remain independent. Thus their position was just like the states which constitute American federation. Hence our Federation cannot be categorized in a traditional way as a Canadian type or American type.
The independent states voluntarily form a federation. In case of India, some of the states were persuaded whereas some were coaxed and then coerced to join the Indian Union. Hyderabad may be cited as an example. The position of the provinces vis-a-vis the Centre, however, was on the Canadian pattern. Thus two different types of units were to be brought in the Union fold.
Besides, the former Chief Commissioner provinces and far-flung situated once penal islands like Andaman and Nicobar were also brought in the Union. Evidently, the nature of Indian federation was to be of a peculiar type, as it was to be constituted of different types of units.
In the initial stages, the Indian Union comprised of four types of states, viz., Part A, Part B, Part C and Part D. Nine British provinces were put under Part A, nine integrated native states under part B, the Chief Commissioner Provinces and since 1950 Vindhya Pradesh states under Part C and Andaman Nicobar under Part D. Thus 27 states and the territory of Andaman and Nicobar Island constituted the territory of Indian Union before the reorganization of the States on November 1, 1956. In order to achieve viability among the states and rationalize the base of the Indian Union, the States Reorganization Act, was passed which abolished old classification of states and established two types of units only i.e., States and Union Territories.
Hence, different opinions have been expressed by different critics regarding the nature of Indian Federation. According to Dr. Where, the Indian Constitution establishes a “system of government which is at most quasi-federal, almost revolutionary in character; a unitary state with subsidiary federal features rather than federal state with unitary features.” Dr. Krishna P. Mukerjee remarks “I have come to take the view that whatever might have been the position at the drafting stage or previous to that stage the Constitution that emerged out of the august deliberations of the Constituent Assembly of India in January, 1950 is definitely un-federal or unitary Constitution.”
Dr. Ambedkar, is of the view. “The Constitution has been set in a tight mould of federalism.” Sir Ivor Jennings opines “India has a federation with a strong centralizing tendency.” Dr. Gajendragadkar, former Chief Justice of India, observed, “though it partakes of some of the characteristics of federal structure it cannot be said to be federal in the true sense of the term.” Dr. K.M. Munshi, a distinguished jurist, portrayed Indian Federation as “a quasi-federal union invested with several important features of a unitary government.”
In fact the Indian Constitution can be unitary or federal according to requirements of time and circumstances. Rightly remarks D.D. Basu “The constitution of India is neither purely federal nor unitary, but is a combination of both. It is a union or a composite of novel type.” Pandit Nehru who had used the word “federation” a number of times in the Assembly once described the states as “mere administrative units” in one of his off-hand speeches.
Dr. Deshmukh summed up the nature of Indian federation as “neither federal nor unitary.” According to Sardar Patel “…Our new Constitution is not an alliance between democracies and dynasties but a real union of the Indian people based on the basic concept of the sovereignty of the people.”
The Indian Constitution, no doubt, fulfills some conditions of a federation, but it leans towards a strong Centre, it is a stable union of states and provinces (now termed as states) which have neither lost their entities nor claim complete autonomy. Evidently it does not violate the essentials of a federal polity.
HOPE IT HELPS AND MARK AS BRAINLIEST ANSWER
Similar questions