• The chapter focuses on the evolution of a peculiar constitutional arrangement in India that is both parliamentary and federal.

• The puzzle lies in reconciling the apparent contradiction between the two systems.

• The parliamentary system is conceptually unitary, while federalism is its opposite.

• Understanding this requires a specific historical context.

• The British parliamentary model served as a major reference point for Indian Constitution-makers.

• Federalism provided an institutional framework to accommodate India’s pluralist socio-political character.

• Despite conceptual incompatibility, the framers leaned towards parliamentary-federalism as the most appropriate governance set-up for India.

• Parliamentary federalism emerged as a creative institutional response to India’s democratic governance needs.

• Its resilience stems from continuous adjustments to contextual requirements, which strengthened its survival capacity even in adverse circumstances.

DEMYSTIFYING INDIAN POLITY

• India has a hybrid system of government combining British parliamentary traditions and American constitutional principles.

• The British model emphasized parliamentary sovereignty and conventions, while the American model stressed constitutional supremacy, separation of powers, and judicial review.

• These two models are conceptually contradictory, yet both left distinct imprints on the Indian Constitution.

• Post-1950, India evolved a unique politico-constitutional arrangement borrowing features from both but identical to neither.

• India cannot be wholly British because it adopted federal principles, and it cannot be fully American because Parliament retains sovereignty.

• This hybrid arrangement is described as parliamentary-federalism, with no parallel in constitutional history.

• The system reflects a conceptual riddle shaped by British traditions and American principles within India’s socio-political history.

• The framers, in creating a modern India, neglected traditions, believing people’s rationality would suffice to embrace modern values.

• In practice, traditions reappeared, with caste and religion continuing to influence elections and democracy.

• The formation of this hybrid system was a complex process rooted in historical logic, socio-economic, and cultural distinctiveness post-1947.

• Due to peculiar historical circumstances, consensus in the Constituent Assembly favored a union with a strong Centre.

• Parliamentary form of government was preferred, with the colonial experience as a guiding reference.

• Union-State relations drew from Canada and Australia (parliamentary federalism) and the United States (presidential system).

• The 1935 Government of India Act heavily influenced the Assembly, though the 1950 Constitution differed in spirit and ideology.

• The Constitution included federal features but was not a classical federation.

• As Ambedkar articulated, India is federal under normal circumstances but unitary in extraordinary situations like war or calamities.

• India is described as a Union of States, where the Union is indestructible but states can be altered or abolished.

• The Constituent Assembly rejected the idea of a federation of states, as Ambedkar argued India’s federation was not based on agreement and states cannot secede.

• Unlike the US Civil War experience, India’s indestructible union was made explicit from the outset.

• Nehru and Patel opposed a stronger federalism, fearing it would weaken national unity and hinder the social revolution for economic development.

• Besides British and American models, ideas of Ian Coupland and K.C. Wheare on dominion constitutions also influenced the framers.

• The 1935 Act contributed features like federal structure, unified legal/financial systems, group rights, interstate water dispute mechanisms, state governors, and Article 356.

• Strong opposition existed to the federal provisions of the 1935 Act, especially the idea of secession in the 1942 Cripps Mission.

• The 1946 Cabinet Mission Plan proposed a weak Centre with stronger provinces, but this was not adopted.

• The 1950 Constitution deliberately created a strong Centre, influenced by partition and the need for national integrity.

• Ambedkar stressed that a weak central authority would harm peace and coordination, favoring a Centre stronger than that under the 1935 Act.

• The overriding concern was unity and integrity of India; hence the word federal was deliberately omitted, and India was termed a Union of States.

• Despite this, the Constitution recognized federal principles by clearly demarcating state domains within the Union.

• To avoid Centre-State friction, the Constitution provided an elaborate distribution of powers—legislative, administrative, and financial.

• Ultimately, the Union government is stronger by design, reflecting the framers’ conscious choice for a federation with a strong Centre.