Why did constitution makers prefer 'union of states' over 'federation of states' to describe India? To what extent this preference is responsible for tensions in centre-state relations?
Main Body
While India has a federal structure, the constitution doesn't have "Federation" anywhere. It calls India a "union of states".
The reason is to comply philosophical unity –
1. Indian state have not come together as an agreement. They all constitute India already.
2. India is a union of states, not by agreement. So, no state has power to leave it.
3. The territorial integrity of states is not guaranteed. Parliament can alter their boundaries by simple amendment. Thus, India continues to be a union,
not a federation.
Conclusion
However, the Supreme Court has stated that 'federalism' is a basic feature of the Constitution. In this regards, recommendation of Sarkaria Commission, such as inter-state councils, non-partisan governor, rare use of President's Rule, etc. and Punchhi Commission Finance Commission should be adopted to ensure harmonious relation between Centre & State.
50 words
Open original scan
Page 23
GAURAV OJHA
Federal Structure - Functions, Responsibilities, Devolution of Powers and Finances
Federalism
Union and State Functions
244
Total words
11
Paragraphs
analytical
Tone