Question

“The Indian Federation has become stronger since the 1990s”. Justify with appropriate points.

Answer 1

Answer:

$\huge\sf{Answer:-}$

Answer 2

The Indian Federation

Explanation:

• The Indian nation is a federation with a strong unitary orientation.
• At first look, that appears to be a deception intended to cause you to fail your high school civics exam.
• Part XI of the Constitution (Articles 245–263) deals with the relationship between the centre and the states. It deals with state-to-state legislative and administrative relations.
• The following chapter of the Indian Constitution deals with the financial relationship between the centre and the states, including Article 280, which deals with the mandate to establish a periodic Finance Commission.
• Because the centre is given residuary powers—the capacity to legislate on things not specified in the central, state, or concurrent list of subjects—the term "unitary bias" comes to mind.
• This is in contrast to the constitutions of many other federations, such as the United States, Germany, and Australia, which provide states such power.
• Due to the development of the Indian party system and economic liberalisation, the dynamics of Indian federalism have changed dramatically in the last two decades. This section gives a high-level overview of the main topics.
• The first of them, "party system pluralization," is not discussed in detail, but the numerous writers to this Special Issue consider its implications for India's center-state dynamics.
• Given that all federal governments between 1996 and 2014 were (minority) coalition governments,10 in which some state or non-polity-wide parties played a more significant role in state politics.
• India's party system has undergone significant change, initially with the rise of state-based or non-polity-wide parties playing a more significant role in state politics; but especially since 1996, with a more durable from 1996-2000.
• Although the BJP has held an overall majority in the federal parliament since May 2014, it would not have been able to do so without pre-election seat-sharing deals with at least some state parties, some of which were given ministerial positions in exchange.