Introduction

Federalism is a political concept describing the practice whereby a group of

members is bound together by agreement or covenant (Latin: foedus, covenant) with a governing representative head. It refers to a system of government in

whichsovereignty is constitutionally shared between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces).[1] Leading examples of such a political system, or federation, include Switzerland, Germany, the United

States, Canada, Australia and India. Federalism is a system based upon democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared

between national and provincial/state governments. The term federalist describes several political beliefs around the world depending on context.

In a federal system where sovereignty is shared between a central governing

authority and constituent political units, power is also divided. The central governing authority has certain exclusive federal powers, the constituent political units have

certain powers (sometimes known as states' rights), and there may be a number of shared concurrent powers.

Examples of federalisum

Australia

The States and Territories of Australia, consisting of The Australian Capital Territory (red), New South Wales (pink), Northern Territory (yellow, top), Queensland (blue), South Australia (purple), Tasmania (yellow, bottom), Victoria (green), and Western

Australia (orange).

On the 1st of January 1901 the nation-state of Australia officially came into existence as a federation. The Australian continent was colonised by the United Kingdom in 1788, which subsequently established six, eventually self-governing, colonies there.

In the 1890s the governments of these colonies all held referendums on becoming a unified, self-governing "Commonwealth" within the British Empire. When all the

colonies voted in favour of federation, the Federation of Australia commenced, resulting in the establishment of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901. The model of Australian federalism adheres closely to the original model of the United States of

America, although it does so through a parliamentary Westminster system rather than a presidential system.

Brazil

Brazil is a union of 26 states and one federal district, which is the site of the federal.

In Brazil, the fall of the monarchy in 1889 by a military coup d'état led to the rise of thepresidential system, headed by Deodoro da Fonseca. Aided by well-known

jurist Ruy Barbosa, Fonseca established federalism in Brazil by decree, but this system of government would be confirmed by every Brazilian constitution since 1891, although some of them would distort some of the federalist principles. The

1937 Constitution, for example, granted thefederal government the authority to appoint State Governors (called interventors) at will, thus centralizing power in the

hands of President Getúlio Vargas. Brazil also uses the Fonseca system to regulate interstate trade. Brazil is one of the biggest federal governments.

The Brazilian Constitution of 1988 introduced a new component to the ideas of

federalism, including municipalities as federal entities. Brazilian municipalities are now invested with some of the traditional powers usually granted to states in

federalism, and although they are not allowed to have a Constitution, they are structured by an organic law.

Canada

In Canada, the provincial governments derive all their powers directly from

theconstitution. In contrast, the territories are subordinate to the federal government and are delegated powers by it.

In Canada, the system of federalism is described by the division of powers between

the federal parliament and the country's provincialgovernments. Under the Constitution Act (previously known as the British North America Act) of 1867,

specific powers of legislation are allotted. Section 91 of the constitution gives rise to federal authority for legislation, whereas section 92 gives rise to provincial powers.

For matters not directly dealt with in the constitution, the federal government retains residual powers; however, conflict between the two levels of government, relating to

which level has legislative jurisdiction over various matters, has been a longstanding and evolving issue. Areas of contest include legislation with respect to regulation of the economy, taxation, and natural resources.

India

Indian state governments led by various political parties

The Government of India (referred to as the Union Government) was established by theConstitution of India, and is the governing authority of a federal union of 29 states

and 7 union territories.

The government of India is based on a tiered system, in which the Constitution of

Indiadelineates the subjects on which each tier of government has executive powers. The Constitution originally provided for a two-tier system of government, the Union Government (also known as the Central Government), representing the Union of

India, and the State governments. Later, a third tier was added in the form of Panchayats and Municipalities. In the current arrangement, The Seventh

Schedule of the Indian Constitution delimits the subjects of each level of governmental jurisdiction, dividing them into three lists:

Union List includes subjects of national importance such as defence of the

country, foreign affairs, banking, communications and currency. The Union

Government alone can make laws relating to the subjects mentioned in the Union List.

State List contains subjects of State and local importance such as police, trade,

commerce, agriculture and irrigation. The State Governments alone can make laws relating to the subjects mentioned in the State List

Concurrent List includes subjects of common interest to both the Union

Government as well as the State Governments, such as education, forest, trade

unions, marriage, adoption and succession. Both the Union as well as the State Governments can make laws on the subjects mentioned in this list. If their laws conflict with each other, the law made by the Union Government will prevail.

Asymmetric federalism

A distinguishing aspect of Indian federalism is that unlike many other forms of federalism, it is asymmetric.[3] Article 370 makes special provisions for the state of Jammu and Kashmir as per its Instrument of Accession. Article 371 makes special

provisions for the states of Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Goa, Mizoram, Manipur, Nagalandand Sikkim as per their

accession or state-hood deals. Also one more aspect of Indian federalism is system of President's Rule in which the central government (through its appointed Governor) takes control of state's administration for certain months when no party can form a

government in the state or there is violent disturbance in the state.

Coalition politics

Although the Constitution does not say so, India is now a multilingual federation.[3] India has a multi-party system,with political allegiances frequently based on linguistic, regional and caste identities,[4] necessitating coalition politics,

especially at the Union level.

South Africa

By the definition of most political scientists, South Africa counts as a federal state in

practice.

Federalism in Europe

Several federal systems exist in Europe, such as in Switzerland, Austria, Germany, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina and the European Union.

Germany and the EU present the only examples of federalism (or advanced confederalism) in the world where

members of the federal "upper houses" (the German Bundesrat (Federal Council) and the European Council) are neither elected nor appointed but comprise members or delegates of the governments of their constituents,

the different constituents of the "upper house" have not the same number of

votes, contrary to the federal principle that one of the two houses of parliament has to grant equal voting power to the unequally sized and populated federated entities (e.g. the U.S. Senate or the Swiss Council of States (Ständerat)).

Modern Germany abandoned federalism only during Nazism (1933–1945) and in the

DDR (German Democratic Republic a.k.a. East Germany) from 1952 to 1990. Adolf

Hitlerviewed federalism as an obstacle to his goals. As he wrote in Mein Kampf,

"National Socialism must claim the right to impose its principles on the whole German nation, without regard to what were hitherto the confines of federal states .

Accordingly, the idea of a strong, centralized government has very negative associations in German politics, although the Progressive political movements in

Germany (Liberals, Social Democrats) were advocating at the time of the Second German Empire (1871-1918) to abolish (or to reshape) the majority of German federated states of that era, as they were considered to be mostly monarchist

remnances of the feudal structures of the Middle Ages.[5]

In Britain, an Imperial Federation was once seen as (inter alia) a method of solving

the Home Rule problem in Ireland; federalism has long been proposed[by whom?] as a solution to the "Irish Problem", and more lately, to the "West Lothian question".[6]

French Revolution

During the French Revolution, especially in 1793, "federalism" had an entirely

different meaning. It was a political movement to weaken the central government in Paris by devolving power to the provinces.[7][8]

European Union[

Following the end of World War II, several movements began advocating a European federation, such as the Union of European Federalists or the European Movement, founded in 1948. Those organizations exercised influence in the

European unification process, but never in a decisive way.[citation needed] In 2011 also a European political party calling for the creation of a federal Europe was established,

the European Federalist Party. Hard for political parties to agree.

Although the drafts of both the Maastricht treaty and the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe mentioned federalism, the representatives of the member

countries (all of whom would have to agree to the term) never adopted it. The strongest advocates of European federalism have

been Germany, Italy, Belgium and Luxembourg while those historically most strongly opposed have been the United Kingdom, Denmark and France (with conservative presidents and governments). Since the presidency of François Mitterrand (1981-

1995), the French authorities have adopted a much more pro-European Unification position, as they consider that a strong EU is presenting the best "insurance" against

a unified Germany which might become too strong and thus a threat for its neighbours.

Those uncomfortable using the “F” word in the EU context should feel free to refer to

it as a quasi-federal or federal-like system. Nevertheless, for the purposes of the analysis here, the EU has the necessary attributes of a federal system. It is striking

that while many scholars of the EU continue to resist analyzing it as a federation, most contemporary students of federalism view the EU as a federal system (See for instance, Bednar, Filippov et al., McKay, Kelemen, Defigueido and Weingast). (R.

Daniel Kelemen)[9]

Russian Federation

The post-Imperial nature of Russian subdivision of government changed towards a generally autonomous model which began with the establishment of the USSR (of

which Russia was governed as part). It was liberalized in the aftermath of the Soviet Union, with the reforms under Boris Yeltsin preserving much of the Soviet structure while applying increasingly liberal reforms to the governance of the constituent

republics and subjects (while also coming into conflict with Chechen secessionist rebels during the Chechen War). Some of the reforms under Yeltsin were scaled

back by Vladimir Putin.

All of Russia's subdivisional entities are known as subjects, with some smaller entities, such as the republics enjoying more autonomy than other subjects on

account of having an extant presence of a culturally non-Russian ethnic minority or, in some cases, majority.

United States

Federalism in the United States is the evolving relationship between state

governments and the federal government of the United States. American government has evolved from a system of dual federalism to one of associative

federalism. In "Federalist No. 46," James Madison asserted that the states and national government "are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers." Alexander Hamilton, writing in "Federalist No. 28,"

suggested that both levels of government would exercise authority to the citizens' benefit: "If their [the peoples'] rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the

other as the instrument of redress." (1)

The United States is composed of fifty self-governing states and several territories.

Because the states were preexisting political entities, the U.S. Constitution did not need to define or explain federalism in any one section but it often mentions the

rights and responsibilities of state governments and state officials in relation to the federal government. The federal government has certain express powers (also

called enumerated powers) which are powers spelled out in the Constitution, including the right to levy taxes, declare war, and regulate interstate and foreign commerce. In addition, the Necessary and Proper Clause gives the federal

government the implied power to pass any law "necessary and proper" for the execution of its express powers. Other powers—the reserved powers—are reserved

to the people or the states.[10] The power delegated to the federal government was significantly expanded by the Supreme Court decision inMcCulloch v.

Maryland (1819), amendments to the Constitution following the Civil War, and by some later amendments—as well as the overall claim of the Civil War, that the states

were legally subject to the final dictates of the federal government.

The Federalist Party of the United States was opposed by the Democratic-

Republicans, including powerful figures such asThomas Jefferson. The Democratic-Republicans mainly believed that: the Legislature had too much power (mainly because of the Necessary and Proper Clause) and that they were unchecked; the

Executive had too much power, and that there was no check on the executive; a dictator would arise; and that a bill of rights should be coupled with the constitution to

prevent a dictator (then believed to eventually be the president) from exploiting or tyrannizing citizens. The federalists, on the other hand, argued that it was impossible to list all the rights, and those that were not listed could be easily overlooked

because they were not in the official bill of rights. Rather, rights in specific cases were to be decided by the judicial system of courts.

After the American Civil War, the federal government increased greatly in influence on everyday life and in size relative to the state governments. Reasons included the need to regulate businesses and industries that span state borders, attempts to

secure civil rights, and the provision of social services. The federal government acquired no substantial new powers until the acceptance by the Supreme Court of

the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

From 1938 until 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court did not invalidate any federal statute as exceeding Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. Most actions by the

federal government can find some legal support among the express powers, such as the Commerce Clause, whose applicability has been narrowed by the Supreme

Court in recent years. In 1995 the Supreme Court rejected the Gun-Free School Zones Act in the Lopez decision, and also rejected the civil remedy portion of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 in the United States v. Morrison decision.

Recently, the Commerce Clause was interpreted to include marijuana laws in the Gonzales v. Raich decision.

Dual federalism holds that the federal government and the state governments are co-equals, each sovereign.

However, since the Civil War Era, the national courts often interpret the federal

government as the final judge of its own powers under dual federalism. The establishment ofNative American governments (which are separate and distinct from

state and federal government) exercising limited powers of sovereignty, has given rise to the concept of "bi-federalism."

Types of federalisum

Dual Federalism

Giving limited list of powers primary foreign policy

and national defense to the national government.

Other powers to states.

Cooperative Federalism

When national, state, and local governments work

together to make the government easier.

Marble Cake Federalism

Where powers are mixed and given out to the

different levels of government.

Competitive Federalism

Where state and local governments compete for

different laws and powers, and then people choose

which region they live under.

Permissive Federalism

State and local governments ask the national

government before doing anything.

The "New" Federalism

Says anything not stated in the constitution is a

reserved power for the states.

Stages of federalisum

FEDERALISM Federalism is a political system in which power is divided and shared between the national/central government and the states. This arrangement limits the power of government. Over the years, the powers of the national government have increased tremendously at the expense of the states. The Supreme Court has played a key role in defining the relationship and powers of the national government through its broad interpretation of the supremacy and commerce clauses.

Stage 1: Dual Federalism (1789 – 1937) Stage is called “dual federalism” because the functions of the state and national government remained largely separate. • Marshall Court o Cases upheld expansive federal powers. They had a major impact on the balance of power between the national and state governments. o McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) o Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) • Taney Court o Different notion of federalism o Belief that separate and equally powerful levels of government work best o National government should not exceed its constitutionally enumerated powers o Court tended to limit the national government’s authority in areas such as slavery and civil rights o Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) o Post Civil War Amendments o Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Stage 2: Cooperative Federalism (1937 – 1963) Stage is called “cooperative federalism” because the new programs of the “New Deal” require cooperation across all levels of government. o Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal” sparks a revolution in national policy making and an increased role for the national government altering the balance of power. o Initially, the Supreme Court struck down New Deal programs, but in 1937 Supreme Court changes course (court-packing plan).

Stage 3: Regulated Federalism (1963 – 1981) Stage is called “regulated federalism” because the national government further intervened in state government decision-making by threatening to withhold federal grants for specific purposes. o Categorical Grants were given to the states for specific purposes. Discretion largely remains in the hands of federal and officeholders. o Example: War on Poverty – in an effort to alleviate social ills that the states

had been unable or unwilling to remedy, Johnson Administration bypasses conservative legislatures and administrators and gives money to constituencies that will spend it on urban renewal, education, poverty programs, and job training. o Example: to regulate speed

limits within states, the national government threatens to withhold federal transportation dollars thus forcing the states to comply with federal mandates. o Unfunded mandates o

From the New Deal to the 1980’s, the Supreme Court expanded national powers and restricted state power in their rulings. Stage 4: New Federalism (1981 - ?) Stage is called

“new federalism” because it reflects the return of administrative powers to the state governments. The federal-state relationship was proposed by Ronald Reagan during the

1980’s. o Block Grants are given to states for general purposes and allow state officials greater discretion over how funds will be spent, e.g. education, welfare. o Reduced the size

and power of the federal government. o President Reagan used states rights as a litmus test for appointments. o Bush Administration: federal government expands post 9/11 o Most

Supreme Court decisions since 1989 have been 5-4 majorities in favor of states rights. o Bush Administration: federal government expan

Features of Federalism

…Has two /more levels of Govt.Each level has its own Power or

jurisdiction.Jurisdiction is specified by the constitution.and there is constitutional guarantee of authority.Constitutional provisions can be changed

only with the consent of both levels of Govt.Court interprets the constitution and powers of different levels of Govt. . Supreme court is the umpire if disputes arise with different levels of Govt.Sources of revenue are clearly

specified.

Two sets of government: India has two sets of government - the Central or Union government and the State government. The Central government works for the whole

country and the State governments look after the States. The areas of activity of both the governments are different

Division of Powers: The Constitution of India has divided powers between the Central government and the state governments. The Seventh Schedule of the

Constitution contains three lists of subjects which show how division of power is made between the two sets of government. Both the governments have their separate

powers and responsibilities

Written Constitution: The Constitution of India is written. Every provision of the

Constitution is clearly written down and has been discussed in detail. It is regarded as one of the longest constitutions of the world which has 395 Articles 22 Parts and 12

Schedules

Supremacy of the Constitution: The Constitution is regarded as the supreme law of

the land. No law can be made which will go against the authority of the Constitution. The Constitution is above all and all citizens and organizations within the territory of

India must be loyal to the Constitution.

Supreme judiciary: The Supreme Court of India is the highest court of justice in India. It has been given the responsibility of interpreting the provisions of the

Constitution. It is regarded as the guardian of the Constitution

Bi-cameral legislation : In India, the legislature is bi-cameral. The Indian Parliament,

i.e., the legislature has two houses - the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. The Rajya is the upper house of the Parliament representing the States while the Lok Sabha is the

lower house representing the people in general

Nature

One important thing, here, is to be noted that the Constitution of India has not described India as a federation. On the other hand, Article 1 of the Constitution describes her as a “Union of

States.” This means, India is a union comprising of various States which are integral parts of it. The Indian Union is not destructible. Here, the States can not break away from the union.

They do not have the right to secede from the union. In a true federation, the constituting units or the States have the freedom to come out of the union.

India is not a true federation. It combines the features of a federal government and the features of a unitary government which can also be called the non-federal features. Because

of this, India is regarded as a semi-federal state. Prof.K.C. Wheare describes it as “a quasi-federal state”. The Supreme Court of India also describes it as “a federal structure with a strong bias towards the Centre”. Let us now discuss the federal and the unitary or non-federal

features of the Indian Constitution.

Objectives of Federalism

…

To safeguard /promote the unity of the country

.

To accommodate regional diversity

Two Crucial Aspects of An Ideal Federalism

Governments at different levels should agree to some rules of power sharing.

Trust and agreement to live together must be there.

What has made India a Federal Country ?

Constitution has declared India as a Union of States.

Three tier Federalism-Union, State and Panchayat.

Three fold distribution of legislative powers under Union list, State list and

Concurrent list.

All states in the Indian Union do not have identical powers. Eg. Union territories.

Changes in power sharing has to be passed by two thirds majority in the parliament.

In case of any dispute regarding division of power, the apex court will take decision.

How does India practice power sharing?

By creating linguistic states. Which has made administration easier.-

New states have been created since 1947.

No language has been given the status of national language by the

Constitution

Restructuring of power sharing between Centre and State. Rise of regional political parties and coalition government has led to a new culture of power sharing.

Three fold distribution of legislative powers

Residuary Powers…

Are subjects which do not fall under these three lists.

Union government alone has the power to make laws. Eg. Computer

software.

Linguistic State...

Many new states have been formed, boundaries have been changed, people of common language have been brought together, state s

created on the basis of culture, ethnicity and geography has made the country united and administration made easy.Example NAGALAND, UTTARAKHAND AND JARKHAND.

Language Policy

No language has been given the status of National language.

Central government can’t impose Hindi on non-Hindi speaking states .22 languages have been recognised as scheduled languages.Centre agrees to use English along with Hindi. By this flexibility is shown. 1992 Act…brought in effective Decentralisation.Steps taken for this by the

Constitution are :It is mandatory to hold regular elections to local governments.Reservation of seats for SC,ST and BCS.<br />1/3SEATS RESERVED FOR WOMEN.State election commission conducts elections.<br

State government share some power and revenue with local bodies.

Panchayatiraj – Local Self Government(Rural)

Local Government(Urban)

Difficulties faced by Local Governments...Elections to Gram Sabhas are not held REGULARLY.<br />Most of the State Governments are not transferring

powers and resources.

AN ESTIMATE OF INDIAN FEDERALISM

The Constitution of India has described India as a “Union of States” and not a federation. Dr. Ambedkar, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Indian Constitution, while explaining the meaning of the phrase, said that though India was to be a federation, it was not

the result of an agreement by the States to join a federation which is why no state had the right to secede from it. The federation is a union, because it is indestructible. He again said that the States are sovereign in the field which is left to them by the Constitution as the centre

is in the field which is assigned to it.

So, though the Constitution makers made the Central government stronger than the State governments, yet they wanted a cooperative federation. They wished that States would perform their functions in their allotted spheres freely and both the governments would co-

operate rather than confront each other.

But the real working of the Constitution in all these years shows that the Centre has grown stronger day by day and that the States have become just like administrative units of the Centre. They have not been able to work freely and independently. The Centre has been

changing the boundary of the existing States from time to time in which the consent of the concerned States was not regarded as necessary. Again, the Centre has also been using

Article 356 to have control over the States mostly in a discriminating way. The role of the Planning Commission has also been contributing to the strength of the Central government in financial matters. The Planning Commission exercises control over the working of the State

governments and thus reduced the position of the States to the units of local administration in a unitary system of government.

But the States are always resenting the stronger position of the centre and demanding autonomy so that they can work independently in their own matters. The Rajamanner

committee, the West Bengal Government Memorandum on Union-State Relations, the Anandpur Sahib Resolution and the J & K Assembly Autonomy Resolution have all given a

call for the grant of more powers to the States. The Sarkaria Commission, in its report while accepting the need for a strong Centre also favoured the devolution of more powers to the States in some areas. The demand for State autonomy has become stronger with the

emergence of the regional political parties in different States and with their growing influence in national politics.

In recent years, we have seen an important development in the working of Indian federalism. No single national political party has been able to secure absolute majority in the Parliament

to form the government independently. Various regional and local political parties have been emerging and playing crucial role in the formation of coalition governments at the Centre.

This development to some extent has changed the face of Indian federalism.

However, India has been continuing with a strong Central government. But, it is hoped that

Coalition politics will enable Indian federalism to bring about some positive changes in the Center-State relations, particularly, in the use of Article 356 by the Central government, role

of the Governor in a State and the distribution of financial powers between the two governments. These are some of the issues which have been constraining Centre-State relations from the very beginning

Advantages Localized Governance

Every province has political, social and economic problems peculiar to the region

itself. Provincial government representatives live in proximity to the people and are most of the time from the same community, so that they are in a better position to

understand these problems and offer unique solutions for them. For example, traffic congestion in Oahu, Hawaii is a problem that can be best solved by the local government, keeping local factors in mind, rather than by somebody living in New

York. Local Representation

Federalism offers representation to different populations. Citizens of various provinces may have different aspirations, ethnicity and follow different cultures. The

central government can sometimes overlook these differences and adopt policies which cater to the majority. This is where the regional government steps in. While

formulating policies, local needs, tastes and opinions are given due consideration by the state governments. Rights of the minorities are protected too. For example, in states like Arizona where there is a large Hispanic population and therefore, a

large number of schools provide bilingual education. Freedom to Form Policies

State governments have the freedom to adopt policies which may not be followed nationally or by any other state. For example, same-sex marriages are not

recognized by the federal government of USA but they are given legal status within certain states like Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and Massachusetts. Optimum Utilization of Resources

Division of work between the central and the regional governments leads to

optimum utilization of resources. The central government can concentrate more on international affairs and defense of the country, while the provincial government can cater to the local needs.

Scope for Innovation and Experimentation

Federalism has room for innovation and experimentation. Two local governments can have two different approaches to bring reforms in any area of public domain, be it taxation or education. The comparison of the results of these policies can give a

clear idea of which policy is better and thus, can be adopted in the future.

Federalism no doubt has many positives vis-a-vis communism or imperialism but still, some political scientists often raise questions about its advantages.

Disadvantages

Conflict of Authority

Sharing of power between the center and the states includes both advantages and

disadvantages of a federal organization. Sometimes there can be overlapping of work and subsequent confusion regarding who is responsible for what. For example, when Hurricane Katrina hit Greater New Orleans, USA, in 2005, there

was delay in the rescue work, as there was confusion between the state governments and the federal government on who is responsible for which disaster

management work. This resulted in the loss of many lives. Can Lead to Corruption

Federal system of government is very expensive as more people are elected to office, both at the state and the center, than necessary. Thus, it is often said that

only rich countries can afford it. Too many elected representatives with overlapping roles may also lead to corruption.

Pitches State vs State Federalism leads to unnecessary competition between different regions. There can

be a rebellion by a regional government against the national government too. Both scenarios pose a threat to the country's integrity. Uneven Distribution of Wealth

It promotes regional inequalities. Natural resources, industries, employment opportunities differ from region to region. Hence, earnings and wealth are unevenly

distributed. Rich states offer more opportunities and benefits to its citizens than poor states. Thus, the gap between rich and poor states widens.

Promotes Regionalism

It can make state governments selfish and concerned only about their own region's

progress. They can formulate policies which might be detrimental to other regions. For example, pollution from a province which is promoting industrialization in a big

way can affect another region which depends solely on agriculture and cause crop damage. Framing of Incorrect Policies

Federalism does not eliminate poverty. Even in New York, there are poor

neighborhoods like Inwood. The reason for this may be that intellectuals and not the masses are invited by the local government during policy framing. These intellectuals may not understand the local needs properly and thus, policies might

not yield good results.

Thus, it is understandable that there have been both pros and cons of federalism in the USA. There is a general feeling that the rights of the minorities, like blacks, are compromised in USA. But at the same time, the United States now, has a

democratically elected African-American President. Similarly, there have been advantages and disadvantages in other countries as well. For this to be truly

successful, it should be accompanied by other ideals like secularism, democracy .

Acknowledgement

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to madhu shastri madam for her virtual support, guidance and encouragement without which this project would not have come forth.I would

also like to express my gratitude to the staff of the Department for their support during the making of the project.

I am also thankful to all those who helped me directly or indirectly in the preparation of the same.

Conclusion

In This unit, we have discussed that India has various features of federal government. But India is not regarded as a true federation, as it has many non-federal features as well. The

Central government has control over the State governments and the State governments are to work under the authority of the Central government although they have a certain degree of autonomy in their respective spheres. Accordingly, India combines both federal and non-

federal or unitary features with unitary features outweighing the federal features.