ABSTRACT
India today can claim to be the world’s largest federation. Since shortly after independence in 1947 it has been divided into a number of states (currently numbering 29), each with its own legislative assembly and ministry. There are in addition six ‘union territories’, which owe their special status to history or geography, and the National Capital Territory of Delhi, created in 1991, which was formerly a union territory. Each state is proud of its language and traditions, and competes with its neighbours in economic development and social welfare. Yet in no other federal system does the central Government have as much reserve power as in India, where the President of the Union, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, can dismiss an elected state government and where the Parliament holds the power to alter state boundaries. Tensions and conflict between the central Government (‘the Centre’) and state governments have been a recurrent feature of Indian politics. Especially in the regions away from the Hindispeaking north, regional discord can be translated into demands for greater freedom from central control in the name of language and historical tradition. In some cases, these have been dynamic struggles with beneficial results for economic and social change, but in others they have had the opposite effect, with important development schemes delayed, or with damaging hostility to people from other parts of the country. As India moves steadily towards becoming the world’s most populous country, its future prospects will depend critically on the ability to resolve the tensions of federalism, to utilize its resources to the full, and to find ways to bring all regions into the mainstream of development. The ambiguities that characterize the current situation have a long history. Jawaharlal
Nehru, India’s first prime minister following the end of colonial rule, often spoke eloquently about the country’s fundamental unity, which he considered to be groundeddespite all the barriers created by caste and religion-in cultural practices of diversity and tolerance. Even so, there were always other voices within the broad nationalist movement that either placed greater stress on local identities or, conversely, saw India in more monolithic terms. Since 1947 the gradual assertion of Indian power in the world, together with the impact of nationally orientated educational and cultural institutions (popular cinema, for example), has generally led to a growing sense of Indian unity. Yet these same factors have often led India’s citizens to become just as aware of their identities as members of regional cultural traditions and, in some cases, to become less tolerant of religious or linguistic minorities. There is no necessary conflict between these layers or levels of identity, but they make the task of political control and leadership more complex. The present-day territory of the Republic of India had never been under unified poli-
tical control before the colonial period, although there were periods when strong
dynasties had ruled over extended areas, notably when the Mauryan emperors dominated the whole of northern and central India in the third and fourth centuries BC, and again in the 16th and 17th centuries AD, when the Mughal emperors did the same. Both had penetrated the southern and eastern parts of the subcontinent as well, but never brought the whole under central control. The Mauryan Ashoka and the Mughal Akbar fitted Nehru’s paradigm of Indian rulers, recognizing and respecting diversity as the basis of their imperial rule. At other times political order was provided on a regional basis, sometimes on a large scale, sometimes not. Day-to-day social life was regulated by the complex hierarchies of caste and religion. Throughout India the imperatives of dharma, or the observance of duty, provided a common framework, yet each region, each district, even each village, had its own understanding of these issues. A constant interplay between the different levels of the system provided opportunities for change and movement. Caste, for example, was not as immutable a category as some commentators used to imagine. Language was an important element of unity in diversity. While Sanskrit had been the language of the major religious texts of Hinduism, by the medieval period spoken languages in northern India, while retaining their Sanskrit origins, had diverged markedly. In the south, Tamil and other Dravidian languages had always been separate from Sanskrit, although there were many cultural and religious connections with other parts of India.
