Match List-I with List-II and choose the correct answer using the codes given below the lists :
List-I
A. Cooperative Federalism
B. Bargaining Federalism
C. Quasi Federalism
D. Federalism with Central

Question

Match List-I with List-II and choose the correct answer using the codes given below the lists :
List-I
A. Cooperative Federalism
B. Bargaining Federalism
C. Quasi Federalism
D. Federalism with Centralising Tendency
List-II
1. K.C. Wheare
2. Ivor Jennings
3. Morris-Jones
4. Granville Austin
Codes :

UnlockIAS · Accepted Answer

Correct — C, A-4, B-3, C-1, D-2: Cooperative Federalism → Granville Austin, Bargaining Federalism → Morris-Jones, Quasi Federalism → K.C. Wheare, and Federalism with a Centralising Tendency → Ivor Jennings. The row that decides the question is C-1. Sir Kenneth Clinton Wheare, the Australian-born constitutional scholar at Oxford whose Federal Government (1946) is the standard modern treatment of the subject, examined the Indian Constitution and concluded that it set up a system that is at most quasi-federal — in his phrasing, a unitary State with subsidiary federal features rather than a federal State with subsidiary unitary features. That single pairing appears in only one code, so a candidate who knows nothing else can still finish the question. The other three follow the same logic of attaching a label to the scholar who coined it. Granville Austin, the American historian of the Constituent Assembly whose The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation (1966) shaped how India reads its own founding, described the Indian scheme as cooperative federalism — a Union and States that are not rivals with sealed jurisdictions but partners obliged to work the same administrative and fiscal machinery together, which is why he stressed that the Assembly built 'a new kind of federalism to meet India's peculiar needs'. W.H. Morris-Jones, the British political scientist who wrote The Government and Politics of India, looked at how Centre–State relations actually operated in practice and called the result bargaining federalism: the States, rather than litigating fixed constitutional entitlements, negotiate — over plan outlays, grants, appointments and political support — and the balance shifts with the political strength of each side. Sir Ivor Jennings, the British constitutional lawyer who wrote on the Indian Constitution in the early 1950s, described it as a federation with a strong centralising tendency, pointing to the residuary power in the Union, the emergency provisions and Parliament's ability to legislate on State subjects. Note that these four are descriptions of the same Constitution from four angles, not four competing verdicts: Wheare and Jennings are describing its legal architecture, Austin its normative purpose and Morris-Jones its working practice.

Why the other options are wrong — (a) Every pair is misplaced. It gives Cooperative Federalism to Ivor Jennings, Bargaining Federalism to Granville Austin, Quasi Federalism to Morris-Jones and the Centralising Tendency to K.C. Wheare. The last pair is the clearest error: Wheare's contribution to the Indian debate is precisely the word 'quasi-federal', so any code that does not put him against C is out.  (b) Wrong on all four. It pairs Cooperative Federalism with Ivor Jennings, Bargaining Federalism with K.C. Wheare, Quasi Federalism with Granville Austin and the Centralising Tendency with Morris-Jones. Austin is the least likely author of 'quasi-federal' of the four — his whole reading of the Constituent Assembly is that the Constitution created a genuine, if distinctive, federal partnership, not a disguised unitary State.  (d) Wrong on all four. It pairs Cooperative Federalism with Morris-Jones, Bargaining Federalism with Ivor Jennings, Quasi Federalism with Granville Austin and the Centralising Tendency with K.C. Wheare. It is the most tempting of the three because it keeps 'bargaining' and 'centralising' in the same conceptual family; but it again moves Wheare off 'quasi', which is the one attribution the examiner is certain every candidate has met.

Concept: Indian federalism has never fitted the classical American model of two coordinate governments with watertight jurisdictions, so scholars invented labels for what it is instead — and prelims examiners test those labels as attributions. Article 1 itself avoids the word: India is a 'Union of States', a phrase Dr Ambedkar explained as meaning that the Union is indestructible and the States derive their existence from the Constitution rather than from a compact among sovereign units. The Constitution then adds a series of unitary devices — a single citizenship, a single integrated judiciary, All India Services, Parliament's power to legislate on the State List under Articles 249 and 250, the Governor's reservation of Bills under Article 200, and three kinds of emergency — on top of an otherwise federal division of powers in the Seventh Schedule.

State PCS 2024 Q128 — Polity & Governance PYQ with Answer

State PCS 2024 Q128 — Polity & Governance PYQ with Answer