एकीकृत भारत और विभिन्न राष्ट्रीयताओं के संघ के बीच की स्थिति के परिप्रेक्ष्य में, भारत में लोकतांत्रिक प्रक्रियाओं पर इसके प्रभावों की चर्चा करें। अपने उत्तर में स्पष्ट उदाहरणों का उपयोग करें |“

Answer:

Introduction:

India, often celebrated as the world’s largest democracy, has demonstrated a unique blend of unitary and federal structures since its independence. While enshrining federal principles like division of powers and independent judiciary, the constitution provides for a strong centre, thereby imbuing India with a quasi-federal character. However, India’s diverse ethnic, linguistic, and religious composition has led to persistent calls for more federal autonomy.

Body:

The tension between a unitary India and a federation of nationalities has significant implications for its democratic processes:

• Democratic Participation:
  • A unitary structure promotes uniformity and standardization. (For Example, Election commission in India)
    Election laws, political party structures, and citizen rights are consistent across states, simplifying governance.
    For instance, the ‘One Nation, One Election’ proposal advocates synchronized elections at the central and state level for efficiency. However, it might undermine local issues that require unique attention, thereby diluting democratic participation.
  • In contrast, a federation of nationalities can facilitate better representation of diverse groups.
    For example, the creation of culturally homogenous states like Telangana enhanced political participation by empowering local identities.

• Decentralization:
  • While a unitary system allows for swift decision-making, such as the implementation of GST, but it might neglect regional disparities.
  • On the other hand, a federation of nationalities promotes decentralization and local self-governance.
    For instance, the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments, empower rural and urban local bodies, enhancing democratic processes at the grassroot level.

• Conflict Resolution:
  • A unitary structure might stifle diverse viewpoints, leading to dissatisfaction and conflict, as witnessed in the demands for separate statehood like in the case of Gorkhaland or Telangana.
  • In contrast, by providing constitutional mechanisms for dispute resolution (like Inter-State Councils), a federation of nationalities can accommodate differing regional interests, promoting cooperative federalism.

• Social Justice:
  • A unitary India may overlook the specific needs of marginalized communities.
  • In contrast, a federation of nationalities can enact policies that cater to unique socio-cultural realities.
    For instance, the Constitution under Article 15(4) empowers states to make special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes, promoting social justice.

• National Unity:
  • While a unitary system underscores national unity and integrity, it might fuel fears of cultural homogenization.
  • In contrast, a federation of nationalities, like the linguistic reorganization of states, has accommodated diversity without compromising on national unity.

Conclusion:

While a unitary structure brings coherence and efficiency, a federation of nationalities promotes representation, decentralization, conflict resolution, and social justice. Rather than swinging towards either extreme, India needs to strike a balance between the two, upholding the ethos of ‘Unity in Diversity.’
Therefore, a structure that promotes national unity without stifling regional diversity and ensures efficient legislation without ignoring local specifics, is the need of the hour to sustain and strengthen the world’s largest democracy.