Q. How would a Union of States be different from a Federation of States? Discuss (a) In the context of the Constitutional position in India that India is a Union. (b) In contrast with the causes and consequences of the American Civil War through which the Union was forced onto the Confederacy.
Ans: A Union of States implies an indivisible and integrated polity, whereas a Federation of States suggests a voluntary association of sovereign units. The distinction lies in the origin, autonomy, and secession rights of constituent units.
(a) India as a Union of States
- Article 1 of the Indian Constitution declares India as a “Union of States,” not a federation.
- The term was deliberately chosen to reflect:
- Indivisibility of the nation—states have no right to secede.
- Strong central authority—Parliament can alter state boundaries (Article 3).
- Historical context—India’s integration involved princely states and provinces, not a compact among equals.
- While India has federal features (dual polity, division of powers), it exhibits a unitary bias during emergencies, financial devolution, and constitutional amendments.
(b) Contrast with the American Civil War and the Confederacy
- The United States was formed as a Federation, where states voluntarily joined and retained theoretical rights to secede.
- The Confederacy (1861–65) emerged when Southern states seceded over issues like slavery and states’ rights.
- The Union’s victory in the Civil War:
- Reinforced the supremacy of federal authority.
- Abolished slavery and redefined national unity.
- Demonstrated the fragility of federations when constituent units assert sovereignty.
In conclusion, India’s model of a Union of States ensures territorial integrity and centralized cohesion, unlike federations like the U.S., where historical secessionist tendencies led to civil conflict and constitutional redefinition.
Read: OPSC Notes