Centralising Tendencies & the Unitary Appearance

Globalisation strengthens the Centre

• Jagdish Bhagwati — post-1991 liberalisation needed central oversight of trade, FDI, international standards.
• Arvind Panagariya — Centre’s regulatory role grew for trade, IP, labour, environment compliance.
• C. Raja Mohan — widened foreign policy & defence engagement (Union domains). K. Subrahmanyam — strong national response to terrorism & cyber threats.
• M.G. Rao — GST central to an integrated market. Nandan Nilekani — national tech infrastructure (Digital India). Amitabh Mattoo & Happymon Jacob — Union role in climate, WTO, UN forums.

Recent developments — pressure vs resilience

Indian federalism as “a vanishing act… leaving only the grin.”

Pratap Bhanu Mehta

Faizan Mustafa — recognising regional aspirations strengthens unity & democracy. Verdict: federal spirit under stress, not destroyed; Indian federalism remains a negotiated, resilient structure.

Answer map (unitary appearance / centralising tendencies / 2025). Federal structure with strong Union bias → Art 1; Arts 2&3; Wheare “quasi-federal” → centralising features (residuary, larger Union List, emergency, Art 356, Governor, AIS, single citizenship) + fiscal control (GST, grants, CSS, borrowing) + central agencies (CBI/ED/NIA) → recent examples: J&K reorganisation, farm laws, NDMA use in COVID-19; Stalin & Mehta on recentralisation → BUT federal anchors hold: written Constitution, dual polity, State List, independent judiciary, rigid amendment, S.R. Bommai, Kesavananda, regional parties, coalitions → conforms to centralising tendencies but not completely — a dynamic balance; federal spirit strained, not erased.

State Autonomy Movements

Meaning. Demands by States / regional parties for greater powers within the Union — not always secessionist: more financial powers, limits on Art 356, neutral Governor, role in planning, control over State subjects, language & culture, fair funds, less central interference.

“Participation in national-level government has enhanced the payoffs to leaders of regional parties by offering them ministerial berths, increased discretionary funds from the central government, and more secure state governments.”

Adam Ziegfeld

Balveer Arora, Mahendra Prasad Singh, Douglas Verney, Lloyd I. Rudolph & Susanne Hoeber Rudolph — post-1989 as a shift from old federalism to new federalism.

State Reorganisation & Demands for New States

Articles 2 & 3

Art 2 — admit/establish new States (Sikkim, 1975). Art 3 — form States, alter boundaries/areas/names; President recommends Bill, affected legislature gives views, Parliament not bound by State opinion — centralised flexibility.

• D.D. Basu — necessary for territorial integrity. Granville Austin — part of a flexible federal structure.
• Rajni Kothari — criticises excessive centralisation in boundary decisions. Subhash C. Kashyap — strong Centre but cautions against arbitrary alteration.

Shifting basis of statehood demands — Louise Tillin, Remapping India. 1950s–60s Language → 1970s–80s Ethnicity → 1990s Political economy → 21st century Development & governance.

• Phase 1 · language — Nagpur 1920 promise; States Reorganisation Act, 1956; Punjab reorganisation 1966. Ramachandra Guha — a “master stroke” that prevented balkanisation.
• Phase 2 · ethnicity — North-East (Meghalaya, Mizoram, Arunachal); Gorkhaland, Bodoland.
• Phase 3 · political economy — Atul Kohli; Chhattisgarh & mining.
• Phase 4 · development/governance — Telangana, Vidarbha, Bundelkhand, Purvanchal, Harit Pradesh, Gorkhaland.

“The linguistic reorganization of states in India was a historic response to the imperative of accommodating linguistic diversity within the federal structure. It reinforced the principle of unity in diversity by allowing people to be governed in their mother tongue.”

Neera Chandhoke

Factors behind statehood movements

Paul R. Brass (ethno-linguistic mobilisation — Gorkhaland) · Atul Kohli (regional disparity — Vidarbha) · Jean Drèze & Amartya Sen (deprivation — Bundelkhand) · Lloyd I. Rudolph & Susanne Hoeber Rudolph (elites/parties) · Louise Tillin & Christophe Jaffrelot (political timing & electoral calculation — Telangana, Uttarakhand, Bihar) · Ramachandra Guha (historical grievance) · Frankel (caste-regional class — Jats, Bhumihars, Rajputs).

“The story of secessionism in Post-Colonial India is a story of failed attempts. Three Indian leaders paid with their lives for the position they had taken on secessionist issues—Mahatma Gandhi on partition, Indira Gandhi on the question of separate Punjab Suba and Rajiv Gandhi on Tamil state.”

Jean-Luc Racine

Smaller States — for & against

Answer map (2021). Early demands largely linguistic (SRA 1956); Guha — “master stroke” against balkanisation → then ethnicity (North-East, Bodoland, Gorkhaland) → post-liberalisation political economy & resource control (Kohli, Chhattisgarh) → 21st-century development/governance/neglect (Vidarbha, Bundelkhand, Telangana) → Fazl Ali Commission criteria (economic, administrative, ecological, socio-ethnic viability) → Yadav (assertion of marginalised); Tillin & Jaffrelot (timing); M.P. Singh — smaller States may raise disputes & weaken viability, no automatic better governance.

Regionalism & Federalism

Frame. Regionalism is challenge and strength — negative when exclusionary/secessionist; democratic when it articulates neglected aspirations.

Assessment: regionalism can democratise power, correct neglect, strengthen representation, deepen bargaining, reduce secession by giving constitutional space — dangerous only when linked to violence, exclusion, short-term electoralism, or left unmanaged by institutions.

Ethnicity, Regionalism & National Integration

Meaning & Approaches

Ethnicity = group consciousness based on common descent, language, religion, history, territory, culture, tribe, caste and shared memory.

Max Weber — ethnic groups are “those human groups that share a subjective belief about their common descent because of similarities of physical type or of customs or both, or because of memories of colonization and migration; this belief must be important for the propagation of group formation; conversely, it does not matter whether or not an objective blood relationship exists”.

• Paul R. Brass → ethnic and communal mobilizations are closely connected.
• Dipankar Gupta → ethnicity refers to the nation-state, territory and sovereignty; communalism targets government policies without necessarily questioning state loyalty.
• Donald Horowitz → broad definition — conflicts on ascriptive identities (race, language, religion, tribe, caste) count as ethnic.
• Ashutosh Varshney → ethnic conflict = conflict between contending ethnic groups fighting for their position in society.

Anthony D. Smith stresses deep historical-cultural roots. Hamza Alavi sees ethnic categories as attempts at mobilization and manipulation. James Manor argues Indians have fluid, overlapping identities that prevent permanent fault lines. Atul Kohli holds ethnic politics is expected in a multicultural democracy and that democratic accommodation is the best response.

“The manifestation of ethnicity in Indian politics is not so much an outcome of popular grassroots passions as it is a creation of vested political interests.”

S. D. Muni

Manifestations & State Response

Ethnic assertion — escalation ladder & how the state responds. Autonomy (within the Union) → Secession (separate nation) → Insurgency (armed struggle) → Riots / conflict (on identity markers). Forms 1–3 link to self-determination movements. Brass on India’s method: secession rejected outright · religiously framed demands less tolerated · linguistic / developmental demands more easily accommodated · demands gain attention when broadly supported · affected groups’ views considered.

State toolkit: coercion, accommodation, divide-and-rule, patronage, state reorganization, constitutional safeguards, peace accords, development packages, security measures. Selig S. Harrison called the first decades after Independence the “most dangerous decades” for linguistic and communal conflict. Examples: Punjabi Suba accepted once Haryana also demanded a Hindi-speaking area; linguistic reorganization accommodated many demands; the North-East was reorganized through statehood and autonomy.

North-East India

Eight states — Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, Tripura — with many ethnic groups, tribes, languages and religions; strategically placed near Bhutan, Myanmar, Bangladesh and China; rich in oil, coal, gas, minerals, forests and the Brahmaputra system. The Second Administrative Reforms Commission notes a long cycle of violent conflicts.

Modernization / Nation-building — S. K. Chaube, V. B. Singh, B. G. Verghese, Myron Weiner, Hiren Gohain

• tension between modern & traditional leadership,
• rising aspirations of new middle classes,
• development gaps & unmet expectations.

Federation-building — Sanjib Baruah, Sajal Nag, Udayan Sharma, Sanjay Hazarika, M. P. Bezbaruah, Urmila Phadnis

• nation-state building ignored smaller communities,
• centralization violated autonomy,
• rights violations deepened alienation.

Sanjib Baruah (In the Name of the Nation): the postcolonial state retained colonial security devices; the Sixth Schedule and small states were used to manage the region; AFSPA deepened alienation; militarization produced “otherness”; democracy often became a tool of legitimacy rather than genuine integration. His prescription — shift from “nation-state building” to “genuine federation-building”.

Government measures: Sixth Schedule ADCs · Article 371 · North Eastern Council · MDoNER · Act East · Assam & Mizo Accords · statehood · security + development + rehabilitation

UPSC 2018 · 15 marks

Critically examine the ethnic conflicts in North-East India.

UPSC 2022 · 20 marks — Ethnicity is the underlying cause which poses a great challenge in the resolution of the problems in the North-East region of India. Comment.

Tamil Nadu & Dravidian Politics

Ethnic politics around language, region, caste and anti-Brahminism. E. V. Ramaswamy Naicker (Periyar) attacked Indian nationalism as rooted in Hindu religion / Brahminism, imposing Hindi over Dravidian languages and sustaining high-caste dominance; C. N. Annadurai argued for Dravida Nadu against North Indian high-caste domination. Narendra Subramanian notes Dravidian parties were among the first to challenge Congress at the state level with relatively less violence. DMK and AIADMK abandoned full secession but kept Tamil identity, anti-Hindi politics, social justice, regional autonomy and an anti-caste rationalist heritage.

Punjab & Sikh Homeland

Punjabi Suba movement: Akali Dal demanded a Punjabi-speaking state; Master Tara Singh gave it a religious basis, Sant Fateh Singh a socio-economic one; Baldev Raj Nayar notes the Akalis’ constitutional, infiltration and agitational strategies. Khalistan phase: the 1980s saw the demand for an independent Khalistan; Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale became central; Operation Blue Star, Indira Gandhi’s assassination and anti-Sikh violence deepened the crisis.

Socio-economic explanation — Sucha Singh Gill, K. C. Singhal, Harish Kumar Puri, Joyce Pettigrew, M. S. Dhami, Javeed Alam, Gurharpal Singh

Green Revolution changes, unemployment, crisis of Sikh identity, consumerist modernity vs traditional values.

Political manipulation — Paul R. Brass

Socio-economic explanations are reductionist; stresses strategic manipulation of religion and grievance — Indira Gandhi’s engagement with Bhindranwale to weaken the Akali Dal backfired.

Jammu & Kashmir

Shaped by geography, history, religion, regional diversity and external intervention. Historical: Maharaja Hari Singh initially wanted independence; Sheikh Abdullah initially supported accession; Articles 370 and 35A gave special constitutional status; Sheikh Abdullah’s arrest in 1953 created long-term distrust; autonomy demands also came from Jammu and Ladakh; Pakistan-backed insurgency in the 1980s turned the conflict violent. Balraj Puri’s causes: central interference reducing autonomy, derailing of democracy, unemployment, deteriorating economy, denial of regional autonomy to Jammu and Ladakh, lack of legitimate opposition, and use of armed forces instead of political dialogue.

Post-2019. Abrogation of Article 370 on August 5, 2019 changed J&K’s constitutional relationship with India: removal of special status · legal integration with the Union · end of Article 35A · bifurcation into Union Territories · greater centralization · political reorganization · security restrictions · civil-rights debate · focus on development and investment (tourism, handicrafts, agriculture, IT) · changing role of regional parties (National Conference, People’s Democratic Party, which historically articulated regional autonomy and identity).

UPSC 2025 · 10 marks — Delineate the key factors that have shaped the evolving political landscape in Jammu and Kashmir post 2019.

Relative Deprivation & Ethnic Conflict

Relative deprivation = the perception that a group is unfairly disadvantaged compared with others — arising when groups compare expected with actual status, resources with other groups, rights with others’ privileges, recognition with humiliation.

Ted Robert Gurr — relative deprivation is “the tension that develops from a discrepancy between the ‘ought’ and the ‘is’ of collective value satisfaction, and this disposes men to violence”.

Examples: North-East insurgencies in Assam and Nagaland (perceived neglect, weak development, lack of recognition); Dalit movements (deprivation vs upper castes); Jat and Patidar agitations (declining agrarian income, job competition); the Bodo movement (language, land, institutional exclusion); Telangana (deprivation within a larger state); Jammu & Kashmir (autonomy, identity, representation). Yogendra Yadav notes dominant agrarian castes seek reservations when they fear loss of status; Gopal Guru links Dalit mobilization with long-standing exclusion; Charles Tilly argues nation-state building can exclude and subordinate ethnic groups.

UPSC 2024 · 10 marks — “Relative deprivation is a major source of ethnic conflict.” Elaborate the statement with relevant examples.

Regionalism & Federal Accommodation

Regionalism = mobilization around territory, culture, development and local identity. Paul R. Brass holds regionalism is a long-term trend while nationalism has often been short-term in Indian politics. Movements range from autonomy → separate statehood → special status → resource control → language recognition → protection from outsiders → secession. Gurharpal Singh divides them into movements from core regions (Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh) and from peripheries (Nagaland).

Explanations: modernization · democracy awakens tradition · uneven development · Telangana, Vidarbha · sons-of-the-soil · Shiv Sena, AGP · cultural anxiety · fear of assimilation · development deficit

Prema Singh argues regional solidarity can support welfare and development — strong regional identities in South India helped better bargaining and development. The Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions support democratic decentralization as a way to manage regional aspirations. Atul Kohli warns that mishandled regional movements can turn secessionist, as in Punjab and Jammu & Kashmir.

UPSC 2016 · 10 marks — Cultural and Regional differences are the enduring bases on which politics is played out in India.

Assessment

Ethnicity is not merely a threat — it is also a demand for recognition. India has often managed ethnic conflict better than many postcolonial states; the danger rises when accommodation is delayed and coercion becomes excessive. The solution is more democracy, not less — power-sharing, autonomy, inclusive growth, decentralization, cultural recognition and federal trust.