Question

Why India is described as a ‘Union of States’ rather than a ‘Federation of States’?


1. The Indian federation is the result of an

agreement among the states.
2. States have no right to secede from the federation.

Select the correct answer using the options given below :-
(a) 1 only
(b) 2 only
(c) Both 1 and 2
(d) Neither 1 nor 2​

Answer 1

Option B - 2 Only

■ Explanation :-

• Article 1 describes India, that is, Bharat as a ‘Union of States’ rather than a ‘Federation of States’. This provision deals with two things: one, name of the country, and two, type of polity.

• There was no unanimity in the Constituent Assembly with regard to the name of the country. Some members suggested the traditional name (Bharat) while other advocated the modern name (India). Hence, the Constituent Assembly had to adopt a mix of both (‘India, that is, Bharat’). Secondly, the country is described as ‘Union’ although its Constitution is federal in structure.

• According to Dr B R Ambedkar, the phrase ‘Union of States’ has been preferred to ‘Federation of States’ for two reasons :-

☆ The Indian Federation is not the result of an agreement among the states like the American Federation. Hence, statement 1 is not correct.

☆ The states have no right to secede from the federation. Hence, statement 2 is correct.

• The federation is a Union because it is indestructible. The country is an integral whole and divided into different states only for the convenience of administration.

___________

Answer 2

Why India is described as a ‘Union of States’ rather than a ‘Federation of States’?

1. The Indian federation is the result of an agreement among the states.

2. States have no right to secede from the federation.

Select the correct answer using the options given below :-

(a) 1 only

(b) 2 only

(c) Both 1 and 2

(d) Neither 1 nor 2

Option B is the option Thank you