Which system -a federal or unitary is favourable for India and why?

Answer 1

Since the late 1960s, India's federalsystem has experienced severe strain incenter-state relations. Such strain was almost nonexistent during the first generation of Indian federalism (1950-1966). During the second generation, which followed the death of Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri in 1966, the rise of a powerful leader of the ruling Congress party, Indira Gandhi, and the emergence of dissent inside the party led to a greater emphasis on centralization and regimentation within the party and, thereby, the federalsystem as well. At the same time, economic development had helped to produce new political elites from rural areas who benefited from the "green revolution" of the 1960s. These new elites challenged the professional and industrial elites who had long controlled the Congress party, the national government, and many state governments. Feeling frustrated in their efforts to influence national economic policy in a significant way, these new elites have formulated demands that call forsubstantial decentralization, greater state autonomy, andmore tolerance for opposition parties whose electoral support is mainly state-based.

Answer 2

In a country where there is absolute homogeniety, Unitary form is to be preferred.

But for some invisible common threads that bind, India is a multi-cultural country. Its diversity is unparalleled anywhere on the Globe. It is somewhat akin to European Union. In fact, my hunch is that EU was patterned along lines of Indian Union (Indian constitution states that India is a union of states; many statutary bodies of India still hve the tag 'union' like 'Union Public service Commission'). Nevertheless there are serious attempts to undermine the reality of diversity, regional and otherwise. There is blood-congeling fear amongst these sections of people (secession of some part or the other is their recurring nightmare), who feel that partition could have been avoided. Federal pretentions have been gradually eroded and a kind of uniformity is being sought to be bull-dozed in its stead. It is even being sought that some sections are denied representation in public life. Denial can drive these sections to the brink or beyond, whereas participatory partnership will make them feel that they have nothing to lose. This majoritarian syndrome (majority is losing whatever they exclusively enjoyed, excluding significant other sections) if unchecked will spell disaster. Federalism is the answer.