Gulyakov Alexander Dmitrievich, Candidate of juridical sciences, associate professor, rector of Penza State University (40 Krasnaya street, Penza, Russia), email@example.com
Background. India was to remain under-centralized state for centuries due to its geopolitics and closed Hindu community – that in reality appeared to be a “small state”. The above mentioned factors partially explain the establishment of the British colonial rule over India is the second half of 18th century. But what were the methods of this colonial rule? And how has this colonial rule influenced the formation of future Indian federalism.
Materials and methods. An analysis of foreign and Russian literature shows that Great Britain was not ready for tough super domination over the vast territory of India. Firstly, it used private capital for taking economic and military control over the native population. But soon the English East Indian Company passed its powers to the British Government. The countries applied different Government Acts to demonstrate the slow process of permeating Indians to governing. It’s extremely important to compare the acts of 1919 and 1935 as turning points of transforming India into a dominion.
Results. The Constitution of 1950, being the result of conquering the independence for India, contains federative, State and concurrent powers, as it was designated in the Act of 1935. In contrast with the constitutional practice of the USA, Switzerland, Australia, but similar to Canada, the residual powers are preserved for a federal center. Another sign of supercentralization is the possibility of extraordinary presidential governance in the states. It was a triumph of cooperative federalism when the federal center rendered great material assistance to the states. But the final collapse of political monopoly of the Indian National Congress in the late 1980s was a sign of increasing political and economic autonomy of the states.
Conclusions. Highly centralized federalism is a natural consequence and a big advantage for India. But this federalism is changing. 1990s witnessed some corrections thereof and nowdays we observe an increasing party competition and a competition between states for material resources. Nevertheless, there is no serious danger of state separatism.
1. Salomatin A. Yu. Vsemirnaya istoriya gosudarstva i gosudarstvennogo upravleniya [The world history of state and governing]. Moscow, 2013.
2. Konovalova I. G. Srednevekovyy Vostok: ucheb. posobie dlya vuzov [Medieval East: teaching aid for universities]. Moscow, 2008.
3. Fursov K. A. Derzhava-kupets: otnosheniya angliyskoy Ost-Indskoy kompanii s angliyskim gosudarstvom i indiyskimi patrimoniyami [State-merchant: the relationships of the East Indian Company with the English government and Indian patrimonies]. Moscow, 2006.
4. Devyatkina T. F. Likvidatsiya knyazhestv v sovremennoy Indii [Termination of princedoms in modern India]. Moscow, 1961.
5. Available at: https: //palakmathur.wordpress.com/notes/general-studies/constitutionalreforms- in-brirish-india
6. Indian Council Act. 1861. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Councils_Act_1892
7. Imperial Legislative Council. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Legisla tive_Council/
8. Istoriya stran Azii i Afriki v novoe vremya [The history of Asian and African countries in the modern era]. Moscow, 1991, part 2.
9. Ponomarev Yu. A. Istoriya Musul'manskoy ligi Pakistana [The history of the Muslim League of Pakistan]. Moscow, 1982.
10. Yurlov F. N., Yurlova E. S. Istoriya Indii. XX vek [The history of India. The XXth century]. Moscow: IVI RAN, 2010.
11. Banerjee A. C. The Constitutional History of India. Delhi, 1978, vol. II: 1858–1919.
12. Tammita-Del'goda S. Indiya. Istoriya strany [India. The national history]. Moscow: Eksmo; Saint-Petersburg: Midgrad.
13. Brown W. N. The United States and India and Pakistan. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963.
14. Parliamentary Debates. House of Commons. London, 1946, vol. 420, col. 1420.
15. Ul'yanova L. P. Indiya: pravovoe polozhenie shtatov [India: the legal status of the states]. Moscow, 1971.
16. Semenova N. I. Indiya – soyuz shtatov. Problemy politicheskogo i sotsial'no-ekonomicheskogo razvitiya [India – a union of states. Problems of political and socioeconomic development]. Moscow, 1981.
17. Etnichnost'. Kul'tura. Gosudarstvennost'. Problema etnicheskogo federalizma v XXI veke: monografiya [Ethnicity. Culture. Statehood. The problem of ethnic federalism in the XXIst century: monograph]. Ed. M. S. Salikov. Ekaterinburg, 2014.
18. Kazakov V. I. Bor'ba v nezavisimoy Indii za sozdanie natsional'nykh shtatov: avtoref. dis. kand. ist. nauk [The struggle for national states establishment in an independent India: author’s abstract of dissertation to apply for the degree of the candidate of historical sciences]. Moscow, 1964.
19. Galiullin M. Z., Yagudin B. M. Stanovlenie federativnoy sistemy postkolonial'noy Indii (50–70-e gg. XX v.) [The federative system formation in a post-colonial India (1950– 1970s)]. Kazan, 2015.
20. Narang A. S. Indian Journal of Federal Studies. 2012, vol. XIII, no. 2.
21. Chlibber P. K., Kollman K. The Formation of National Party Systems. Federalism and Party Competition in Canada, Great Britain, India and the United States. Princeton; Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2004, 276 p.
22. Kothari R. Economic and Political Weekly. 1988, 22 October.
23. The State, Political Process and Identity. Ed. by Z. Hasan, S. N. Jha, R. Klan. Delhi: Sage, 1989.
24. Kumar C. Journal of Business Management & Social Sciences Research. 2014, September, vol. 3, no. 9.
25. Chander P., Arora P. Comparative Politics & International Relations. Gurgaon: Cosmos Bookhive, pp. 129–134.