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.
Different from American history, where the states to agreed to come together as one nation. There is also asymmetric federalism (by Art 371) to cater to specific needs of states. However, the notion of NON- independent identity of state has led to centre-state tensions-
— GAURAV OJHA · AIR 204
Conclusion
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