How far has the Indian federal framework been successful in accommodating regional and cultural diversities? Highlight the role…

India’s federal framework has largely succeeded in preserving unity while accommodating deep diversity: linguistic reorganisation of States (1956), 22 Eighth Schedule languages, new States such as Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand (2000) and Telangana (2014), and peace accords (Mizo 1986, Bodo 2020) channelled regional aspirations into constitutional politics. Success is incomplete, as insurgencies and the ethnic violence in Manipur since 2023 show.

Role of Asymmetric Federalism The Article 371 series protects local traditions and resources, e.g., Article 371A (Nagaland’s customary law and land ownership), 371G (Mizoram), 371F (Sikkim) and 371C (Manipur hill areas). The Sixth Schedule gives Autonomous District Councils in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram legislative, judicial and administrative autonomy. The erstwhile Article 370 was the sharpest asymmetry; its 2019 abrogation, upheld in In re Article 370 (2023), shifted Jammu and Kashmir towards constitutional symmetry.

Deficits in Dispute Resolution Inter-State water disputes (e.g., Cauvery, Krishna) under Article 262 and the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 suffer protracted litigation and politicisation despite tribunal awards. The Inter-State Council (Article 263) remains underused and advisory, contrary to Sarkaria and Punchhi Commission (2010) advice to make it a permanent, professionally staffed forum.

Measures for Effective Resolution

• Give the Inter-State Council a permanent secretariat, regular meetings and conciliation timelines.
• Create a single permanent water tribunal with fixed adjudication periods and enforceable awards, as proposed in the Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Bill, 2019.
• Revive Zonal Councils for early mediation of boundary and resource disputes.
• Extend the GST Council model of consensus-based cooperative decision-making to other shared domains.