[a]Federalism is in sharp contrast to the unitary model of government where all the administrative powers are entirely vested upon the national government and the regional governments, if any, entirely derives their powers from the national government.
[b]It is called “holding together” federalism as the constituent units do not necessarily volunteer to form the federation, rather the state create decentralised power structure in order to ensure administrative autonomy to the states for political balance and stability.
[c]There is a third tier of local self-government in India in the form of panchayats and Municipalities which got a strong constitutional foundation with the 73rd and 74th Amendment of the Constitution.
[d] The fear was understandable as the newly independent, socially vulnerable nation already witnessed one of its most violent manifestations of fragmentation at the time of partition of India and Pakistan in 1947.
[e] Some federal features are as follows- dual polity, the establishment of the union and the state governments which has a clearly differentiated jurisdiction of powers sanctioned by a written Constitution where the powers of the centre and state are clearly laid down in the union, state and concurrent lists. Furthermore, the state rights are safeguarded by making the amending procedure of the federal features of the Constitution rigid which is possible only with the consent of the majority of the states. Apart from the immunity against arbitrary amendments by the centre, the independent judiciary has been created to arbiter any dispute between the centre and the states. Lastly, the bicameral structure of the Indian parliament has been created to represent the interests of the ‘federating states’ in the upper house (Rajya Sabha) of the parliament.
[f] The Union and the state governments do not have equal powers in all aspects and there are differences in which some states and other provincial units of India are governed. This creates asymmetrical federalism in India.
[g] These divisions have been formulated by the author.
[h] The term ‘regionalisation’ refers to the political factors at the regional level or those created by the regional actors that influence the political discourse at the national level. On the other hand, such regionalising tendencies can be termed as ‘decentralisation’ or ‘federalisation’ when such tendencies or demands get reflected in the legal-constitutional-governmental setting.
[i] The constitutional definition of the Indian state indicates the bias of the Indian federal structure towards the Centre.
[j] The centre merely needs to solicit the view and not the approval of the state concerned to redraw the state boundaries, making India an ‘indestructible union of destructible states.’.
[k] Political scientist Rajni Kothari used the term “Congress System” to explain the party’s overarching dominance in Indian politics after independence as the party succeeded in presenting itself as the “authoritative spokesman of the nation as well as its affirmed agent of criticism and change”. See Rajni Kothari, “The Congress System in India”, Asian Survey, Dec., 1964, Vol. 4, No. 12 (Dec., 1964), pp. 1161-1173
[l] These movements refer to the demand for the creation of language-based states and resentment against the imposition of Hindi in South Indian states.
[m] Prime Minister Nehru’s famous letters to the chief ministers on the issues of national importance can be seen as a testimony of what Austin finds the harbinger to ‘cooperative federalism’ in India.
[n] The regionalised composition of the Congress party’s national organisational apparatus, played an instrumental role in the appointment of prime ministers like Lal Bahadur Shastri and Indira Gandhi in 1964 and 1966, respectively. Regional leaders like K. Kamaraj, Atulya Ghosh, N. Nijalingappa, S.K. Patil, Nelaam Sanjiva Reddy and others collectively known as the ‘Syndicate’ played a key role in shaping the Indian political discourse.
[o]This started with the demand for a separate Andhra Pradesh in 1953 which compelled the central government to accept language as a category for carving out states for territorially concentrated majority linguistic and tribal communities.
[p] Article 351of the Indian Constitution mandated the central government to promote Hindi “so that it may serve as a medium of expression for all the elements of the composite culture of India.” Article 343 provided that English would only be operative for a period of 15 years.
[q] The principle of Bilingualism is followed in South Indian states, like in Tamil Nadu. See K Venkataramanan, “What is the three-language formula”, The Hindu, 8 June 2019.
[r] While the issue of language pluralism in the centre and the states appears to have reached a consensus, the issue of minority languages and communities within the linguistically formed states, remains contentious.
[s] In 1968, Weiner wrote in an assuring note regarding Indian federalism that the autonomy of states is considerable and it was safe from encroachment of the centre.
[t] The Congress party garnered its lowest tally of seats in the Lok Sabha since independence (284 seats) and lost the elections in many states like Bihar, U.P., Rajasthan, Punjab, West Bengal, Orissa, Madras, and Kerala. Even in some of the states where it won with narrow majorities, its members defected to opposition parties. Many Congress stalwarts suffered significant defeats in the elections and regional actors outside the Congress system started emerging in the political fray in many states. One such example can be the defeat of charismatic Congress leader, K. Kamaraj in Tamil Nadu and the meteoric rise of the Dravidian leader, C.N. Annadurai who hailed from the regional party of Tamil Nadu, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK). The regional parties and coalition of anti-Congress opposition parties collectively called the Samyukta Vidhayak Dal (SVD) formed the government in many states in India in 1967.
[u] In the absence of powerful regional leaders, political mobilisation was left to the unmediated direct communication between Indira Gandhi and the public. But this had limited electoral longevity without organisational support, as the Congress’s electoral base gradually started to weaken at the grassroots. It is true that Congress achieved spectacular electoral victories in 1971, 1980 and 1984, riding on Gandhi’s personal popularity and due to the absence of a credible oppositional force; but it was losing grip over the states.
[v] During this period, Congress also had to get into electoral arrangements with regional parties for political advantage in some of the state elections. This stopped Congress from contesting many seats in such states, further reducing its vote share as well as political organisational strength in those regions. Moreover, it scored better electoral results during this time in states like Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh, where the organisational mechanism of the party was still strong under powerful state leaders.
[w]Article 356 of the Indian Constitution empowers the central government to proclaim president rule in any state if the Centre is of the opinion that there is a breakdown of constitutional machinery in that state. In such situation, the Centre dissolves the state government and legislature and rules the state directly.
[x] However, the Janata government which otherwise commendably restored the constitutional sanctity that Indira Gandhi attempted to tamper with during the emergency, justified the dissolution of the state governments as a course correction of Gandhi’s undemocratic political legacy. Gandhi’s Congress after returning to power in 1980 returned the favour by once again dissolving the state governments led by Janata Party and its allies.
[y] The Commission, in its report, gave elaborate recommendations for decentralisation of power and strengthening of states by suggesting effective constitutional reforms, which remains mostly on paper even today. See Jaytilak Guha Ray, “Sarkaria Commission on Centre-State Administrative Relations in respect of Public Order Duties”, The Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 51, No. 1 (Jan. – March 1990), pp. 46-53
[z] Rajiv Gandhi also retained complete control over the state-level Congress leaders like Indira Gandhi did. See Sachidananda Murthy, “Relative strength”, The Week, 22 October 2017.
[aa] The unstable coalition governments at the centre which could not complete a full five-year term were led by V.P. Singh (1989), Chandra Shekhar (1990), H.D. Dewe Gowda (1996), I.K. Gujral (1997) and Atal Bihari Vajpayee (1996, 1998).
[bb]BJP led NDA under PM A.B. Vajpayee succeeded to run a coalition government of around 15 parties for the full tenure of five years from 1999 to 2004 which was also followed by two full terms (from 2004 to 2014) of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) consisting of many regional political parties led by Congress party with Dr Manmohan Singh as the Prime Minister.
[cc] The coalition government led by V.P. Singh established the Inter-State Council as a constitutional body to discuss contentious issues and areas of common interest among the states, in order to advance the federal spirit, however with limited practical outcome. See “Indian Federalism needs the Inter-state Council”, LiveMint, July 19, 2016.
[dd]Such freedom on the part of the states to pursue their own economic agenda have also triggered an era of ‘competitive’ federalism where the states compete with each other for wooing the lucrative investors to their respective states. This has further aggravated disproportionate development of the Indian states as the already resource rich and developed states would be in the better position to attract business opportunities while the poorer states would lag behind.
Atul Kohli “Politics of Economic Growth in India, 1980-2000: Part II- The 1990s and Beyond”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol 41 No 14, (2006): 1361-1370.
[ee]In this case, the court ruled that federalism is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Therefore, the arbitrary use of Article 356 by the centre to topple an opposition-ruled state government cannot be allowed. The court further laid down a detailed guideline to prevent further misuse of the provision regarding president rule in the states.
S.R. Bommai vs Union Of India on 11 March, 1994 AIR 1918, 1994 SCC (3) 1.
[ff] This paved the scope for paradiplomacy by the chief ministers. See James Manor, “India’s States: The Struggle to Govern”, Studies in Indian Politics, 4 (I), (2016): 1-14.
See Andrew Watt, “Paradiplomacy of India’s chief ministers”, India Review, Vol 16, No.1, (2017): 106=124.
[gg] BJP marked a new phase in Indian politics as BJP became the first party to garner a parliamentary majority of its own since 1984.
[hh] The NITI Aayog has also set up sub-committees of chief ministers to suggest changes on important issues like Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS) and regional councils ‘to address specific contingencies impacting more than one state or a region, convened and chaired by the PM but made up [of a group of] chief ministers of the state.’
[ii] In the 2019 national elections, BJP made heavy political gains in states like West Bengal, Orissa and Telangana where strong regional parties are the dominant political forces.
[jj] The state government who earlier had political incentives to implement the CSS now feels cornered as the schemes are directly politically appropriated by the centre in the name of PM Modi.
[kk] The Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), the Biju Janata Dal (BJD), Shiv Sena and YSR Congress Party unequivocally extended their support to the scrapping of Article 370 in the Rajya Sabha.
See Shaswati Das, “Rajya Sabha passes Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill; scraps Articles 370, 35A” LiveMint, August 5, 2019.
[ll] National federalism is not federalism in the conventional-constitutional sense of the term. In this form of federalism, sovereignty and autonomy of units have no intrinsic value. Units are viewed as partners in the national governance agenda of the federal government. For national federalism, the term ‘cooperative federalism’ acts as signifier of collective governance.
Abbe R. Gluck, “Our [National] Federalism”, The Yale Law Journal 123(6), (2014): 1996-2043.
Heather K. Gerken, “Federalism as the New Nationalism: An Overview”, The Yale Law Journal 123(6), (2014): 1889-1918.
Jessica Bulman-Pozen, “From Sovereignty and Process to Administration and Politics: The Afterlife of American Federalism”, The Yale Law Journal 123(6), (2014):1920-1957.
[mm] An analysis of Modi’s speeches “revealed that he not only wore the traditional headgear and costume representative of each state and spoke a few opening sentences in the appropriate regional language, but also that he attempted to play to the sentiments of regional parties. His speeches extolled the ideals of revered state leaders from an earlier era, while criticising the current regional state leaders for not upholding their predecessors’ ideals and not being true to their people. He even focused on constituency-specific issues and promised favours tailored to each state’s concerns. He also assured states of a specific formula to achieve double-digit growth.”
[nn] BJP’s capacity or inability to co-opt or accommodate these regional/regionalist parties in many states like Goa, Manipur, Haryana or Maharashtra, determined its grip over the state power in many states.
[oo] The more nationalised a party system, the lower the degree of dissimilarity in electoral outcomes when varied by level of aggregation and type of election. But, the more incongruent or less nationalised a party system, the higher the degree of dissimilarity in electoral outcomes at the centre and the state level.
[pp] When the BJP came to power at the Centre in 2014, it was in power in seven states. The party had won as many as 21 states by 2018. By early 2020, BJP has lost power in quite a few states but still in power in many states in India.
[qq] The legacy of partition and the subsequent major violent secessionist movements gave rise to insecurity of the Centre and therefore it attempts to keep the regional forces at bay. The notion that weak states would ipso facto make strong centre or vice-e-versa is probably misconceived.
AshutoshVarshney, “How has Indian Federalism done?”, Studies in Indian Politics I(I), (2013): 43-46.
[1] George Anderson, Federalism: An Introduction, (Newyork: Oxford, 2008)
[2] M. Laxmikant, Indian Polity. (New Delhi: McGraw Hill Education, 2013)
[3] Alfred Stephan, “Federalism and democracy: Beyond the US model”. Journal of Democracy Vol 10(4), (1999):19–34.
[4] Philip Mawhood, “The Politics of Survival: Federal States in the Third World”, International Political Science Review, Vol 5(4), (1984): 521-531.
[5] Mohit Bhattacharya, “The mind of the founding fathers,” in Federalism in India: Origins and Development, ed. N. Mukarji & B. Arora (Vikas Publishing House, 1992), 87–104.
[6] Constituent Assembly Debates, Volume V, 20 August 1947.
[7] Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. VIII, 33.
[8] K. Venkataramanan, “Explained: India’s asymmetric federalism”, The Hindu, August 11, 2019.
[9] Rakhahari Chatterji, “Democracy and Opposition in India”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 23, No. 17, (1988):843-847.
[10] Constituent Assembly Debates, Volume VII, November 4, 1948.
[11] Mahendra Prasad Singh, Indian Federalism: An Introduction (National Book Trust, 2011)
[12]Constituent Assembly Debates, Volume VII, November 4, 1948.
[13] K.C. Wheare, Federal Government. (London: Oxford University Press, 1949), 28.
[14] Laxmikant, Indian Polity.
[15] P.M. Bakshi, The Constitution of India, (Universal Law, 14th Edition, 2017).
[16] Sujit Choudhry, Madhav Khosla and Pratap Bhanu Mehta (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution, (Oxford University Press, 2016).
[17] Yogendra Yadav and Suhas Palshikar. “From hegemony to convergence: Party system and electoral politics in Indian states”. Journal of Indian School of Political Economy,15(1–2), (2003):5–44.
[18]Pranav Verma and Sughosh Joshi, “Reaffirm Cooperative Federalism”, The Hindu, May 13, 2020.
[19] Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution—Cornerstone of a Nation, (New Delhi: Oxford, 1966),186–88.
[20] Katherine Frank, The Life of Indira Nehru Gandhi, (New Delhi: Houghton Mufflin, 2001)
[21] Bethany Lacina, Rival Claims: Ethnic Violence and Territorial Autonomy Under Indian Federalism, (USA: University of Michigan Press, 2017)
[22] Selig. S.Harrison, India: The Most Dangerous Decades, (Princeton University Press, 1960)
[23] D.N., Factors in the Jharkhand Movement”, Economic and Political Weekly, Jan. 30, 1988, Vol. 23, No. 5, (1988):185-187.
[24] Paul R. Brass, Ethnicity and Nationalism: Theory and Comparison, (New Delhi: Sage Publication, 1991),110.
[25] Ashutosh Varshney, “How has Indian Federalism done?”, Studies in Indian Politics I(I), (2013): 43-46.
[26] W.H. Morris Jones, The Government and Politics of India.3rd Edition, (London: Hutchinson University Library, 1971),150-156.
[27] S.A. H. Haqqi and A.P. Sharma, “Centre and State relations: A Study of structural and Processual Determinants” in National Power and State Autonomy, K.A. Bombwall (Menakshi Prakashan, 1977)
[28] Yogendra Yadav and Suhas Palshikar. “From hegemony to convergence: Party system and electoral politics in Indian states”, 5–44.
[29] N.C.B. Ray Chaudhury, “The Politics of India’s Coalition”, Reprinted from The Political Quarterly, Vol 40 No. 3, July-September 1967.
[30] Ramachandra Guha. India After Gandhi: The History of the World’s Largest Democracy, (New Delhi: Picador, 2008)
[31] Paul. R Brass, Ethnicity and Nationalism: Theory and Comparison, (Sage Publication, 1991), 133.
[32] James Manor. “India and After: The Decay of Party Organisation in India”, Round Table, No. 272, (1978):315-324.
[33] Iqbal Narain, (eds.) State Politics in India, (Meerut: Meenakshi Prakashan, 1976)
[34] Bhagwan D. Dua, Presidential Rule in India (1950-1984): A Study in Crisis Politics, 2nd Edition, (New: Delhi S. Chand & Company, 1985), 396.
[35]Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution—Cornerstone of a Nation, (Oxford Press, 1966), 186–88.
[36] Paul R Brass, Ethnicity and Nationalism: Theory and Comparison, (Sage Publication, 1991), 111-161.
[37] Sagarika Ghose. Indira: India’s Most Powerful Prime Minister, (Juggernaut, 2017), 267.
[38] Mark Tully and Satish Jacob, Amritsar: Mrs Gandhi’s Last battle, (New Delhi: Rupa, 1985)
[39] Paul R Brass. Ethnicity and Nationalism: Theory and Comparison, (New Delhi: Sage Publication, 1991),123.
[40] Ramachandra Guha, India After Gandhi: The History of the World’s Largest Democracy, (New Delhi: Picador, 2008), 578.
[41] M.M. Ansari, “Financing of the States’ Plans: A Perspective for Regional Development”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol XVIII, No. 49, 3 December 1983.
[42] Yogendra Yadav and Suhas Palshikar, “From hegemony to convergence: Party system and electoral politics in Indian states”, Journal of Indian School of Political Economy, Vol 15(1–2). (2003):5–44.
[43] Yogendra Yadav, “Reconfiguration in Indian Politics: State Assembly 1996-1995”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol 31 Nos. 2-3, (1996):13-20.
[44] Yadav and Palshikar, “From hegemony to convergence: Party system and electoral politics in Indian states”
[45] Sanjay Ruparelia, Divided We Govern: Coalition Politics in India, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015)
[46] Subrata K. Mitra and Make Pehl, “Federalism”, in The Oxford Companion to Politics in India, Niraja Gopal Jayal & Pratap Bhanu Mehta, (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2010), 43-55.
[47] Subrata K. Mitra and Make Pehl, “Federalism,” 46-47.
[48] Rob Jenkins, Democratic Politics and Economic Reform in India, (Cambridge University Press, 1999)
[49] M.S.A. Rao, “Some Conceptual Issues in the Study of Caste, Class, and Dominance”, in Dominance and State Power in India, Decline of a Social Order, ed. Francine Frankel and M.S.A. Rao, Vol. I & II, (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1989 & 1990), 204-322.
[50] James Manor, “The Presidency”, in Rethinking Public Institutions in India, ed. Devesh Kapur, Pratap Bhanu Mehta and Milan Vaishnav, (Oxford University Press, 2017), 32-66.
[51] Peter Ronald deSouza, “The Struggle for Local Government: Indian Democracy’s New Phase”, Publius: The Journal of Federalism, Vol 33, No. 4, (2003): 99-118.
[52] Subrata.K. Mitra and Make Pehl, “Federalism,” 43-55.
[53] Partha Pratim Basu, “Federalism and Foreign Policy in India-Experiences of UPA and NDA II Regime”, India Quaterly, 72 (3), (2016):1-19.
[54] Ashutosh Varshney, “How has Indian Federalism done?”, Studies in Indian Politics, Vol. I(I), (2013):43-46.
[55] “Mamata withdraws support from UPA govt, ministers to hand over their resignations on Friday,” India Today, September 18, 2012.
[56] Niraja Gopal Jayal (eds.), Re-forming India: The Nation Today, (Penguin India, 2019)
[57] E. Sridharan 2014. “India’s Watershed Vote: Behind Modi’s Victory.” Journal of Democracy, Vol. 25 (4), (2014): 20–23.
[58] M. Vaishnav and D. Smogard, “A New Era in Indian Politics?” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, June 10, 2014.
[59] P. K. Chhibber and R. Verma, Ideology and Identity: The Changing Party Systems of India, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017)
[60] P. K. Chhibber and R. Verma. 2014. “It is Modi, not BJP that Won this Election”. The Hindu, June 1, 2014.
[61] S. Palshikar, “A New Phase of the Polity,” The Hindu, May 22, 2014.
[62] Pradeep Chibber and Rahul Verma, “The Rise of the Second Dominant Party System in India: BJP’s New Social Coalition in 2019,” Studies in Indian Politics, Vol 7(2), (2019): 131–148.
[63] Rahul Verma and Pranav Gupta, “Four reasons why BJP is losing to Congress and regional parties in assembly elections,” The Print, December 26, 2019.
[64] Adam Ziegfeld, “A new dominant party in India? Putting the 2019 BJP victory into comparative and historical perspective,” India Review, Vol. 19 No. 2, (2020):136-152.
[65] Chanchal Kumar Sharma and Wilfried Swenden, “Modi-fying Indian Federalism: Centre-state relations under Modi’s tenure as Prime Minister”, Indian Politics & Policy, Vol 1, No 1, (2018):51-81.
[66] Wilfried Swenden, “’Team India’ and the NitiAyog” in The Union and the States: A Symposium on the changing federal dynamics in India, ed. Yamini Aiyer and Louis Tillin, Seminar, May 2019.
[67] Vijay Kelkar, “Towards India’s new fiscal federalism” in The Union and the States: A Symposium on the changing federal dynamics in India, ed. Yamini Aiyer and Louis Tillin, Seminar, May 2019.
[68] “42% of resources to go to states, Centre accepts finance commission report”, hindustantimes, February 25, 2015.
[69] K. K. Kailash, “The Chimera of cooperative federalism”, in The Union and the States: A Symposium on the changing federal dynamics in India, ed. Yamini Aiyer& Louis Tillin, Seminar, May 2019.
[70] K. R. Sudhamam, “Has Niti Aayog pushed fiscal federalism forward”, Deccan Herald, June 3, 2018.
[71] Yamini Aiyar and Louise Tillin, “One nation, BJP, and the future of Indian federalism”, India Review, Vol 19 No 2, (2020): 117-135.
[72] Christophe Jaffrelot and Gilles Verniers, “The BJP’s 2019 election campaign: Not business as usual”, Contemporary South Asia, May 2020.
[73] Yamini Aiyer and Neelanjan Sircar, “Understanding the decline of Regional party power in 2019 national elections and beyond”, Contemporary South Asia, Vol. 28, No. 2, (2020): 209–222.
[74] Christophe Jaffrelot & Gilles Verniers, “A new party system or a new political system”, Contemporary South Asia, Vol. 28, No. 2, (2020): 141–154.
[75] Rakhahari Chatterji, “Recurring controversy about Governor’s role in state politics”, ORF Expert Speak, June 6, 2020.
[76] Rajeshwari Deshpande, Louise Tillin and K. K. Kailash, “The BJP’s Welfare Schemes: Did They Make a Difference in the 2019 Elections?” Studies in Indian Politics, 7: 2, (2020):219-233.
[77]Atul Sharma and Manish Gupta, “India’s eroding cooperative federalism. Centre’s functioning has curbed states’ operational freedom”, Financial Express, December 30, 2019.
[78]Ajay Kumar Singh, “An emerging national federalism”, in The Union and the States: A Symposium on the changing federal dynamics in India, ed. Yamini Aiyer& Louis Tillin, Seminar, May 2019.
[79] Rakhahari Chatterji. “Delhi elections and beyond”, ORF Expert Speak, February 18, 2020.
[80] Ambar Kumar Ghosh, “Dissecting the Maharashtra political impasse: Reinforcement of regionalisation?”, ORF Expert Speak, November 13, 2019.
[81]Ambar Kumar Ghosh, “Delhi assembly elections: A reinforcement of electoral federalism in India?”, ORF Expert Speak, February 14, 2020.
[82] Arjan H. Schakel, Chanchal Kumar Sharma and Wilfried Swenden, “India after the 2014 general elections: BJP dominance and the crisis of the third party system”, Regional & Federal Studies, 2019, Vol. 29, No. 3, (2019): 329–354.
[83] Vibha Sharma, “Big challenges ahead of BJP leadership”, The Tribune, January 2, 2020.
[84] Chanakya, “Modi 2.0: Successes, defects and a challenge” hindustantimes, March 31, 2020.
[85] B.S. Satish Kumar, “BJP national executive to focus on strengthening 7 ‘weak’ States”, The Hindu, April 2, 2020.
[86] Prabhash K. Dutta, “Get out of states: Congress takeaway for Gandhis from Haryana, Maharashtra”, India Today, 28 October 2019, https://www.indiatoday.in/news-analysis/story/get-out-of-states-congress-takeaway-for-gandhis-from-haryana-maharashtra-1613457-2019-10-28
[87] Arjan H. Schakel, Chanchal Kumar Sharma & Wilfried Swenden, “India after the 2014 general elections: BJP dominance and the crisis of the third party system”, 329–354.
[88] Debashis Bhattacharya, “Can India afford the demise of the Congress”, The Statesman, October 18, 2019. https://www.thestatesman.com/opinion/can-india-afford-demise-congress-1502811465.html.
[89] Prakash K Dutta, “Narendra Modi vs Opposition in states over CAA-NPR, NIA”, India Today, January 27, 2020, https://www.indiatoday.in/news-analysis/story/narendra-modi-vs-opposition-in-states-over-caa-npr-nia-1640523-2020-01-27.
[90] Satish Mishra, “ Taking a close look at Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB)”, ORF Expert Speak, December 10, 2019, https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/taking-a-close-look-at-citizenship-amendment-bill-58676/.
[91] Yamini Aiyar and Mekhala Krishnamurthy, “Covid-19: Centre and states must work together”, hindustantimes, April 1, 202 https://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/covid-19-centre-and-states-must-work-together/story-UFuvvR18MU54lzsIF3FkYJ.html
[92] Ambar Kumar Ghosh, “India: Assessing the political messaging in view of COVID19”, ORF Commentary, 9 April 2020, https://www.orfonline.org/research/india-assessing-the-political-messaging-in-view-of-covid19/
[93] “Mamata Banerjee in fresh tussle with Centre as COVID-19 teams blocked from assessing ground situation in West Bengal”, Financial Express, April 21, 2020, https://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/mamata-banerjee-in-fresh-tussle-with-centre-as-covid-19-teams-blocked-from-assessing-ground-situation-in-west-bengal/1935314/
[94] Niranjan Sahoo, “COVID-19 and cooperative federalism in India: So far, so good”, ORF Expert Speak, 30 April 2020.
[95] Qadri Inzamam, “With Jharkhand loss, BJP’s Footprint on Indian Map Reduces to Half”, Outlook India, December 24, 2019.
[96] Milan Vaishnav and Jamie Hintson, “India’s New Fourth Party System”, Carnegie Endowments for International Peace, August 19, 2019.
[97] A.K. Singh, Union Model of Indian Federalism. (New Delhi: CFS & Manak Publications, 2009) and, ‘Constitutional Semantics and Autonomy within Indian Federalism’, in Federalism as Decision Making: Changes in Structures, Procedures and Policies, ed. Francesco Palermo and Elisabeth Alber, (Leiden & Boston: Brill Nijhoff, 2015).
[98] James Manor, “India’s states: The Struggle to Govern”, Studies in Indian Politics, Vol. 4 (1), (2016): 8-21.
[99] Mitra and Pehl, “Federalism”, 43-55.
[100] Stephan, Alfred, Juan J Linz and Yogendra Yadav, Crafting State-Nations: India and Other Multinational Democracies, (The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2011)
[101] Chibber and Verma, “The Rise of the Second Dominant Party System In India: BJP’s New Social Coalition in 2019,” 131–148.
[102] Ashutosh Varshney, “How has Indian Federalism done,” 43-46.
[103] Commission on Centre-State relations, Report Volume 1, 2010.