14 Regional Autonomy

Dr. Kanwalpreet

Regional Autonomy

India as a Nation, took birth on August 15, 1947. Its long-awaited independence was marred by riots, shedding of innocent blood besides untold hardships because of the partition of India into two countries – India and Pakistan. The partition on the basis of religion crippled both the countries and left them handicapped for ages.   The enmity between the two countries is further fuelled by anti-nation elements working on both the sides. These selfish interests work to spread ill-will and hatred in the short run without thinking of the larger picture. In developing countries like India, caste, religion, regional and linguistic ties are very strong vis-a-vis the loyalty to the Centre. The country is infested with various ills like ignorance, illiteracy, superstition besides backwardness and isolation being some of the dangerous ones.

Yet, the national leadership over the ages has endeavoured to foster unquestionable unity amongst the people of India. Regional affiliations of the people align them to their own respective regions . F. G. Bailey conducted interviews with leaders of Orissa and came up with important results that ‘casteism, communalism and regionalism are the inevitable accompaniments of an infant democracy and that given time these undesirable features will give way to a developing sense of provincial and national unity’. Bailey’s observations have been optimistic but they have proved inaccurate in the Indian context. Regionalism has only grown in India and is proving to be detrimental in national integration. The growing assertion by the regional groups has posed new challenges to the Indian political system. The demand for separation and autonomy has led to the Centre taking stringent steps. Sometimes, unreasonable demands have been suppressed and at other times some demands have been reconciled of the regional interests with that of the national interests. It is a tough task to balance the two and when this balance is not achieved, there are serious repercussions.

India is a ‘Union’ of States and the word, ‘Federation’ is nowhere used in the Indian constitution. But despite the absence of the word, ‘federation’, all the structural features of a federal government have been included. The Indian Constitution has provided for a dual government with power divided between the government at the Centre and the state governments. Powers are carefully divided between the union and state governments and the distribution is clearly mentioned under the Union, State and Concurrent Lists. The Constitution also mentions that the residuary powers lie with the Union government.  The Indian Constitution while keeping itself supreme, sees to it that the union government does not infringe upon the authority of the state governments. But the Indian Constitution provides for a unitary state keeping in mind the fissiparous elements in the country. There are many features of a unitary state like an integrated judiciary, residuary powers with the Union government, single constitution and bestowing single citizenship on its citizens. The division of powers between the Union and state governments is favourably aligned towards the former. The Parliament can even legislate on any matter reserved for the state governments. The Emergency powers vested with the President of India give overwhelming powers to the Centre in which it can exercise control over the state governments. Under Art 356, which is failure of Constitutional Machinery in the states, the President can assume all the powers till the Emergency lasts. The Article was supposed to be a ‘dead letter’ as wished by Dr. Ambedkar, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constituent Assembly, but has been misused by successive governments to further their vested interests. This Article has been a bone of contention between the Centre and the States in which the latter feel that it is a direct attack on the autonomy of the states. Declaration of any Emergency under Arts. 352, 356 and 360 provide powers to the Centre in such a way that till the Emergency lasts the country becomes unitary in character. This might be a temporary change but the autonomy of the States’ suffers. The Union government even has the power to alter the boundaries of states or to reorganize the States even if there is no declaration of Emergency.

The national leadership differed in their vision for India. Ram Manohar Lohia ‘hoped that the small machine would bring about economic decentralization, and the four pillar state, political de-centralisation. In the four-pillar state, all the four pillars – village, district, province and centre – would be of ‘equal majority and dignity’.2 There were others who were averse to party politics like the Gandhians who had a strong dislike to party politics. ‘Lohia and Ambedkar did have reservations about pro-establishment parties but were well aware of the fact that a party can be turned into a vehicle for bringing about an egalitarian society.’ It is the parties that should act as a link between people of different regions, religions etc, but failure on their part, leads to problems of regionalism. Their petty interest to consolidate their vote-bank is the biggest bane of the Indian political system.

There are scholars, who refuse to term India as a ‘true federation’ like the United States, calling India as ‘quasi-federal’. Professor K. C. Wheare is one of those who term India as ‘quasi-federal’ in nature. The Union government has been given more powers by the Indian Constitution, because of the various dividing forces prevalent in the country. But it is not so easy to usurp powers by the Union government. The Judiciary is there to see that the Union government does not do this too often and too easily. The Indian Constitution, thus, is a good mixture of unitary and federal features. The States have been hankering for more autonomy. They want to play a greater role in the development of their region with less interference from the Union government. The grievances of the States are also regarding the fiscal distribution. It is the Central government which allocates money to the States and also provides them with grants. The budget, planning and distribution of resources is all done at the Central level. The Indian Constitution gives sweeping powers to the Centre to collect taxes, and distribute them. It is the Centre which gives discretionary grants to the States. The opposition-ruled states are always at a disadvantage. The Centre also keeps a control through the IAS officers who are posted in the States. They owe their allegiance to the Centre because their salary, allowances, terms of service are all decided by the Union government. Thus, the States complain of centralisation in the Indian polity. The Congress Party’s domination in the Constituent Assembly led to the practical implementation of the national leadership’s idea that a strong Centre was needed to preserve unity. The Government Act of 1935 was the model for our Constitution-makers. Initially, the Act of 1935 was framed by the British to have an authoritarian hold over India. They had not visualised India’s independence so early. Centralisation was its core element and while framing the Constitution it was incorporated into the Constitution, though with a democratic twist.

The word , ‘Union’, is used to emphasise that the Indian federation was not formed because of any agreement between the formerly independent units (like  the United States of America). The Indian states were not free to secede from the Indian Union. The Constitution makers were clear that the States are and would remain subordinate to the Union. It is clear that the states are neither a coordinate nor independent authorities. The judgement of the Supreme Court in West Bengal vs Union of India re-emphasised that the States are not co-ordinate with the Union. Chief Justice Sinha stated in his ruling in this case that this is so because there is neither dual citizenship in India nor separate Constitution for the States. Further, Art. 365 entitles the Centre to supersede the state government by assuming to itself under Art. 356 the powers of the respective state governments. Art. 365 highlights the subordinate position of the States vis-a-vis the Indian Union.

Despite the Centre being strong, the different regions of India continue to protest for greater autonomy. India is an aggregation of different linguistic nationalities like the Assamese, Bengalis, Gujratis, Tamilians and the Maharashtrians to mention a few. During the struggle for Independence, the leaders harped on the past glory and commonness of the different linguistic minorities to arouse national consciousness among them. After Independence, the masses continued with their linguistic patriotism which led to their loyalty growing more to their respective regions than to the Nation.The next natural step of this situation was that the States were reorganised on the basis of language in 1956. This also meant an acceleration of demands by the remaining linguistic groups to have their own States on the basis of language. The Sikhs were one such group who wanted a ‘Punjabi suba’, to protect their language, culture and script. Punjab, as a State of the Indian Union, took birth on Nov. 1, 1966. The reorganization of states on the basis of language in 1956 has only strengthened the forces of regionalism. India is not a well-integrated nation and regionalism is a serious handicap. ‘There have been struggles around the assertiveness and conflicting claims of the identity groups and of struggles amongst them, often fought out on lines of region, religion, language (even dialect), caste and community.’

After Independence, for a few years, there was a one party rule at the Centre, much to chagrin of the states. The Congress Party at the Centre muted all the protests by the States by bargaining with the state leaders. In a majority of the cases, the demands were not even listened to. The differences were resolved, usually, by the state leaders yielding to the dictates of the Centre. Yet, there were times when the Centre had to adhere to the demands of the States because the leaders at the Centre depended upon the support of the regional leaders. The leadership at the centre has to establish a working relationship to accommodate diverse interest. On the other hand, the state leaders couldn’t always tow the Centre’s line because they had to fulfill the demands of the region that they represented. As it is, the Constitution visualized a co-operative federation, but with a bias in favour of a strong Centre. A strong Union can be built only when it derives its support from strong, united and self-sufficient states.

Problems arise between the Union and the States when the leadership acts in a partisan way and does not uphold the spirit of the Constitution. In India, the problem of regionalism has become acute because of the lop-sided development of the various regions. The gap between the development and the under-developed regions has increased. This has led to increasing frustration and rise of the demand for autonomy among the people who feel deprived and left behind in the nation’s progress. There is lack of capital and political will but a need for quick development by the people . This puts great pressure on the Union government as well as the state governments. Development needs to be accelerated to fulfill the rising expectations of the people. The State does not only have to play a dynamic role but a more responsible one. It has to intervene more often. The Indian society is highly fragmented and it has to be moulded into a political and social cohesive whole.

The states and the Union try to iron out their differences from time to time. One such step was setting up of the Sarkaria Commission in June 1983 by the Central government of India. Its charter was not only to examine the relationship between the central and state governments in India but also to observe the balance of power between the two. It had to suggest changes within the framework of the Constitution of India. The Commission was headed by Justice Rajindra Singh Sarkaria and the other two members were Shri B. Sivaraman and Dr. S. R. Sen. Justice Sarkaria was a retired judge of the Supreme Court of India. After conducting surveys, discussions and many deliberations the Commission submitted its report in January 1988. The report ran into 1600 pages and contained 247 recommendations. The Commission recommended status quo in the centre-state relations, especially in the legislative matters. It suggested that Art. 370 was not a transitory provision. There was a demand to delete Art. 370 in the interests of national integration by some quarters . Art. 370 of the Indian Constitution gives special status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. It suggested that Art. 356 should be used very sparingly and in extreme cases. It gave many suggestions regarding the office of the Governor. The Commission recommended that only a person who is eminent in some walk of life should be appointed as the Governor of a state. The person so appointed should not be intimately connected with the politics of the state. People from the minority communities should be given a chance and it suggested that a politician from the ruling party at the Union should not be appointed as governor of a state run by the opposition. The Sarkaria Commission’s recommendations have not been implemented fully. Out of 247 recommendations only 91 have been implemented so far. The reason being that giving greater autonomy to the states would only lead to disintegration of the country.

Jammu and Kashmir is one state of the Indian Union in which some people continue to ask to secede from India. Though, given special status under Art. 370, a section of the people of the Valley want Independence from India. Art. 370 of the Indian Constitution has been quite controversial. It states that the provisions of Art. 238 shall not apply to the state of Jammu and Kashmir and the power of Parliament shall be limited to the power of those matters in the Union List and the Concurrent List which in consultation with the government of the state, are declared by the President to correspond to matters specified in the Instrument of Accession governing the accession of the state to the Dominion of India. Despite Art. 370, the region and some people of the Valley are not ready to stay with India. The Valley has been in turmoil with a few wanting to secede from the Indian Union. The Union government with the help of the state government and the Army has extended unconditional support to the region under the ‘Sadhbhavna’ programme where aid is given to the people for education and health. They are given many other benefits to give them a better life. Yet anti-national elements disrupt the unity of the country.

That is why in a vast, diverse country like India we talk about co-operative federalism, where it should guide relations between the centre and states and also between the different states and the Union local bodies (ULB’s) and the Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs). Both the Union and the states should be concerned with the broader national concerns of using the resources for the benefit of the people of the country. Co- operative federalism should ensure a bundle of basic services and a nationally acceptable level of living for all the people.

Another state that wanted to secede from the Indian union in the late 1980’s was Punjab. This state was created specifically for Punjabi speaking population on November 1, 1966 in line with the Indian policy of linguistic states. A sub-committee of the Shiromani Akali Dal was created on December 11, 1972 to examine the situation and revise the policies of the Dal. This Committee was created by the Anandpur Sahib Resolution (ASR) in 1973 which was largely forgotten but came into limelight in the 1980’s. A Dharam Yudh Morcha was started in 1982 to implement the ASR and many people joined the movement, feeling it was a solution to demands such as a larger share of water for irrigation and return of Chandigarh to Punjab. According to SAD, the ASR endeavoured to achieve goals like propagation of Sikhism, eradication of poverty, baptizing the Sikhs on a mass scale, improving the administration in the Gurudwaras etc. Resolution No. 1 which was adopted alongwith 11 other Resolutions talked about the SAD realizing that India is a federal unity with a geographical entity of different languages, religions and cultures. The SAD endorsed the ASR and its principle of state autonomy in keeping with the concept of federalism. The SAD, under Resolution 2, felt that the Congress government had committed atrocities against the Sikhs, especially during the Emergency. The Congress government led by the Prime Minister, Mrs. Indira Gandhi, termed the ASR as a secessionist document. What followed, then, was a clash between the Congress government and the SAD which led to untold hardships for the people of the state. The ‘Operation Bluestar’ in 1984, which was an attack on the holiest shrine of the Sikhs, ‘The Golden Temple’ in Amritsar, wounded the Sikh psyche for a long, long time. Some members of the Sikh community, fuelled by anti-India elements retaliated which led to an increase in terrorist activities in the late 1980’s to the 1990’s. The situation was brought under control by a memorandum of settlement signed between Sant Longwal and the then Prime Minister of India, Rajiv Gandhi in 1985.

Similarly, in Assam, normal life was disrupted from 1979 to 1985. The issue was unchecked migration of population not only from Bangladesh, but also from the neighbouring states reducing the ethnic population into a minority. So, much so, that the people warned of Assam, becoming a part of ‘Greater Bangladesh’ with change in the demographic profile in many districts. The agitation was led by the All Assam Students Union (AASU).The Assam Accord in 1985 was Memorandum of settlement (MOS) signed between the representatives of the government of India and the leaders of Assam Agitation in New Delhi on August 15, 1985. This accord, led to settling of differences to quite an extent, through all the clauses of the Accord haven’t been implemented as yet. Regionalism has now changed connotations. Regional autonomy is now linked with development of the area. Alongwith the problem of language identity, regional demands are now linked to the development of an area. Development and its benefit to the marginalized sections or benefits to the ‘laggard’ states have become an issue. A look into the aggregate vote of the tribal communities and the Muslims is an example. ‘ In 1996, the aggregate vote of the various tribal communities was slightly less than 1 percent below the national average. In 1971, it was below the average by 8.5 per cent that is on the average of 58 percent it stood at 57 percent in 1996, whereas in 1971 on the average of 55 percent, it stood at 48.5 percent. This represents an enormous increase. In the case of Muslims it was exactly 1 percent below the average in 1996 whereas in 1971 it was 7 percent below the average.’ ‘Alam feels that the crisis in India is because ‘the elites in India have fine tuned the culture of evasion and repressions’. With the opening of the Indian economy to Multi-National Corporations (henceforth MNCs), vast changes have taken place in the economy of the country. People of different regions want a more genuine representative democracy. And this voice is becoming louder with each passing day.  ‘The process has received an impetus with the introduction of the new economic policies in the marginal groups as well as the peripheral regions increasingly feel lift out with the centre gradually withdrawing from the social and economic sector and market economy privileging the privileged be it the social groups or the regions’.

Thus, presently, identity politics have emerged which has led to new combinations and permutations. The struggle between the different sections has intensified with the regional voices realizing its strength and the value of their vote as a community or as an aggrieved party. The dominant group in an area drums up support for their region citing its backwardness or the diversion of its resources to other areas. The people of an area do not shy from pursuing their parochial, regional interests for they believe that their personal development is invariably linked with the development of their area. Parties as well as regional group that extend support to the former do not stop from following an aggressive regional agenda. It is the States that make up the Indian Union. Only when there is a balanced development can the Union emerge as a stronger entity ready to take any challenge, be it external or internal.

It is the lop-sided development of States that leads to rise of regional tendencies. ‘The states which were once considered the bane of Indian unity are now recognized as the mainstay of India’s democracy and the crucial building block of the Indian Nation’.8 So, the shift of state formation has shifted from language to good governance, development and basic amenities like education, health and living standard of the people of the area. In 2000, it was because of the reason of lack of good governance and development that the new states of Jharkhand, Uttarakhand and Chhatisgarh were carved out from Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh respectively. This is what Jenkins refers to the ‘robust form of federalism’ and what the spirit of the Indian Constitution has envisioned ‘cooperative federalism’. Regional autonomy is the assertion of  regions within regions to ask for better governance and rapid development to contribute to the nation’s good. In place of disbursing rewards and asking for forced unity from top-to- bottom, it should aim to foster loyalty and goodwill from bottom to top.

In the present scenario, the emphasis is more on developmental imbalances between regions irrespective of geographical divisions. There are disparities at the regional level. For example, the tribal communities have been sidelined, without the development process touching them. This has led to large scale frustrations and grievances. Such communities want a quick redressal of their grievances. The different social, cultural groups have different interests, which, they feel, haven’t been accommodated. Thus, the socio-cultural requirements of the various groups have not been fulfilled. This leads to discontentment and demands for more autonomy. What might be essential for one group might not be necessary for the other. The demands and sometimes the very existence of such groups can come into danger. We have  the example of the tribes for whom forest, harmony with Nature was very important, rather it was a way of life. Their subsequent displacement from their space, the process of rehabilitation was painful for them. But for the others these wouldn’t be important vis-à- vis development and may be termed as ‘costs of displacement’.9 The birth of Uttarakhand can be traced to the feelings of deprivation and discrimination of the local pahari people by the state of Uttar Pradesh. The people of Kumaon and Garhwal areas settled their personal differences to come together to demand a new state, where their interests would be looked after. The above-mentioned areas were grossly neglected in terms of development by Uttar Pradesh. The policy makers as well as the planners had been insensitive to the hilly areas. All the plans were implemented in and around the capital of Uttar Pradesh with much development left to be desired in the hilly areas of Kumaon and Garhwal. But the hostility and mutual differences between the Kumaonis and the Garhwalis melted and led to the birth of a new identity, commonly known as Uttarakhandi identity. It got popular support and become a mass movement.

The people of Kumaon and Garhwal demanded a separate state because of the growing political consciousness about their identity and also about the various development schemes that are offered by the policy planners from time to time. Such movements have also led to the marginalized sections of the regions coming forward to demand their rightful share in the development process so that they can fulfill their aspirations. The people in different regions have started articulating their needs and concerns. This is different from the past, when groups demanded a state on the basis of language or culture. In the economy of India where there is a scarcity of resources, the demand for statehood is, at present, based on the need to have a greater share in the resources of the region. And this can be fulfilled only when one has an access to political and economic power. Possession of one usually leads to the possession of the other. ‘Investment’ has become a key-word with States, nah, regions competing with each other to convince companies to invest in their State or region. In every region, the emergence of a few elites has led to the acceleration of this race for power, be it economic or political. Emerging as a power in one region leads to one’s growth even outside the region, because the national or state level leaders aim to foster their goodwill among the people of a particular region through the elites of that area/region.

Telangana region in Andhra Pradesh is demanding statehood because the process of development has left the region relatively untouched. Besides, maintaining that the culture, history and language of the area is distinct from the rest of the state of Andhra Pradesh, it is economic backwardness that has added the spark to the tensions. The people of Telangana rue the fact that all the investments and rewards have been disbursed to the coastal area leading to imbalanced development in the same state. Political groups that wanted to come on their own exploited the issue to an extent that it has become an issue that has grown out of proportion and is difficult to reverse.

Coorg in the Kodugu region of Karnataka is another region which hankers for autonomy from the parent state. The resource rich area feels that they are financing development in the rest of the state. They further feel that though they contribute a lot to the state’s economy, the region hasn’t been able to benefit in proportion to its contribution to the state’s economy. The area is contributing to development yet feels deprived.

The demand for regional autonomy is becoming more vocal like Poorvanchal, Ruhelkhand, Bundelkhand and Harit Pradesh. These regions feel that it is the prosperity of their regions that has made them rightfully ask for autonomy. Their argument is that they, like Coorg, are victims of ‘reverse discrimination’ where the gains made from the regions are being used to further interests elsewhere in the respective states. They feel that they were the victims of internal colonialism by the British colonial masters till 1947. They are very vocal that, development like this, stinks of the policies of the British Raj, the only difference being that first it were the outsiders, who were exploiting them and at present, it is the ‘elite class’ of the State that is diverting funds and resources to a particular region that has become prosperous at the cost of the others. This is termed as injustice and is a reason sufficient enough for people to rise to demand their due.In the Darjeeling district it is the demand of Gorkhaland that has disrupted normal life in the region. The demand, subsequently for a separate state of Kamtapur comprising of the six northern districts in plains of North Bengal is another that is a cause of friction.

Again, the grievances of the party is the total neglect of the regions. Coochbehar is, yet, another region in the same area that is asking for separate statehood. Economic neglect of the area alongwith parochial interests of the few at the regional level leads to rise in such demands for regional autonomy. Of course, differences have also arisen with the passage of time because of the language and culture being different of the indigenous groups from the dominant Bengali community. There is no organized group to represent the grievances of the ethnic groups and the lack of concern for the ethnic minority by the CPM- led government since the past so many years has led these ethnic minorities to demand regional autonomy.

Besides, these demands we have regions like Saurashtra in Gujarat, Vidarbha in Maharashtra, Mithilanchal in Bihar, Maru Pradesh in Rajasthan, a Greater Cooch Behar out of parts of Assam and West Bengal, Braj Pradesh and Awadh Pradesh in Uttar Pradesh asking for regional autonomy.

The demand is either for separate statehood, greater regional autonomy or for redrawing the boundaries. For example, Bhojpur comprising areas of eastern Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and the newly created Chhatisgarh is another voice for autonomy. Sometimes, it is caste politics across different states that lead to the birth of ‘identity politics’. Castes which have been subservient for long, have now become conscious for their rights. They have realized the benefits that they can derive from the political system as a caste. Then, the caste groups frame a rigorous schedule of mobilising people. This kind of agitation, at times, becomes violent. Neglect from the top, competition for scarce sources and local, vested interests mix to make a region volatile and vulnerable. South India, for long, has been quoting of a separate Dravidian identity with a distinct language, culture and history from the rest of India. Recently, one has seen fault lines appear in this Dravidian identity with the Dalit organizations emerging out of the former’s shadow with their own set of grievances and arguments to sustain their Dalit identity. This has led to the Dalit organizations demanding liberation from the dominant castes. The Dalits are also asking for an equitable share in the resources be it economic or political and an equal ,respectable share in the social sphere. Further, the reservation policy and the benefits doled out to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are so many that there is a struggle among the Dalit organizations to hijack the maximum. Even among the Dalits there is a strict hierarchy which leads to a tussle among the Dalits themselves. So, the struggle is two-fold. One with the other castes and the other, among their own. The Malas in the coastal areas in Andhra Pradesh have benefited more than the Madigas in the Telangana regions. Divisions, thus, have arisen among the marginal groups. Thus, the aspirations of the caste had in the past been in harmony with the other regional groups in a region, but at present, because of electoral politics, the vote-bank, growing needs of the people and political consciousness had led to further fragmentation in the regions giving a new dimension to the perspective of regional autonomy.

The Constitution makers extended privileges to the down-trodden and the marginalized groups so that inequality, exploitation and injustice would disappear in due course of time from the Country. But with the passage of time, this divide has only become more stark and deep. Affirmative justice has failed to bring about equality in the Indian society. Now, the smaller groups are asking for benefits for they have realized that goods are equally and easily distributed in a smaller group. In a positive way, this means democracy is touching everybody but unfortunately, the spirit is being vitiated with vested interests hankering for regional autonomy. Jammu and Kashmir is one state where the demand for regional autonomy still persists not only because of the demand based on ethnicity or religion but more so because of the , ‘reckless pursuit of the ‘hegemonised’ and homogenized’ politics by the centralizing and personalising political class in India, which refuses to acknowledge and accommodate the competing national and quasi-national identities and their demands, has been largely responsible for the politics of autonomy/azadi….’.

Conclusion

Regional autonomy poses a tough challenge for the Indian Union. In the past, various governments at the Centre were to be blamed for the lop-sided development because grants and plans were disbursed to the states where their own parties were in power. The numerical strength leads to formation of vote-bank which is needed to win an election. This leads to regions with less representation in the Legislative bodies being neglected. We have the example of the ‘seven-sisters’, the states in the North-East which lag behind in the process of development because they have less representation in the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha. Numerically, they have only few seats in the Lok Sabha whereas the bigger states have more. This leads to funds being diverted to the states, rather regions, where numbers matter. This is one reason why the voice for regional autonomy has grown over the past two decades. The demand for regional autonomy has now included the need for development besides protecting their languages, script and culture. People from different and distinct groups in one region can come together if they feel they are not equal shareholders in the process of development. This needs to be rectified. There has to be a positive approach from the Centre irrespective of the party in power at the Centre or the states. Grants should be disbursed in such a way that they ensure balanced development in the country. The areas or communities that remain backward at present should be included in the process of development. Only balanced development and good governance can keep the demand of regional autonomy in check, within limits and lead to a united India.

References/ Reading

• Bagchi, Ramesh. 2008: ‘Globalisation and Federalism: Uneasy Partners?’ Economic and Political Weekly. 20 September.
• Brass, Paul R. 1994. The Politics of India since Independence(2ndedn.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• D’Souza, Peter Ronald and E.Sridharan (eds.). 2006. India’s Political Parties. New Delhi: Sage.
• Desai, Meenal. 2007. State Formation and Radical Democracy in India. London and New York: Routledge.
• Kohli, Atul. 1987. The State and Poverty in India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Kothari, Rajni. 1970. Politics in India. New Delhi: Orient Longman.
• Kumar, Ashutosh. 2003. ‘State Electoral Politics: Looking for the larger picture’, Economic and Political Weekly. pp. 3145-3147. 26 July.
• Kumar, Ashutosh. 2011. Rethinking State Politics in India: Regions within Regions, London: Routledge.
• Mitra, Subrata K. 2006. The Puzzle of India’s Governance: Culture, Context and Comparative Theory. London: Routledge.
• Narain, Iqbal (ed.). 1976. State Politics in India. Jaipur: Meenakshi Prakashan.
• Pai, Sudha. 2000. State Politics: New Dimensions. New Delhi: Shipra.
• Shastri, Sandeep, K.C. Suri and Yogendra Yadav. 2009. Election Politics in Indian States. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
• Singh, Gurharpal. 2000. Ethnic Conflict in India: A Case Study of Punjab. London: Macmillan.
• Vora, Rajendra and Palshikar, Suhas (eds.). 2004. Indian Democracy, Meanings and Practices, New Delhi: Sage