Social Science (087) — AI-generated practice question

Constitutional provisions alone cannot ensure genuine federalism — political will and the party system are equally crucial.

Before 1990: The same party (Indian National Congress) ruled at both Centre and most States for long periods. State governments did not exercise autonomous rights. The Central Government misused constitutional provisions — including dismissal of rival State governments — undermining the spirit of federalism.

After 1990: Regional parties rose to prominence and no single party won a clear Lok Sabha majority, leading to the era of coalition governments. National parties allied with regional parties, creating a new culture of power-sharing and respect for State autonomy. A major Supreme Court judgement also made arbitrary dismissal of State governments difficult.

Thus, federal power sharing became more effective after 1990 — not because the Constitution changed, but because the nature of democratic politics changed.

Source: Democratic Politics, Chapter 2, "Centre-State relations"

---

• Examiners expect contrast between pre-1990 (one-party dominance, Article 356 misuse) and post-1990 (coalition era, regional parties, Supreme Court ruling).
• The core argument must be: constitutional provisions are necessary but not sufficient — quote or paraphrase this.
• Don't forget the Supreme Court judgement point; it shows how judicial will also supports federalism.
• Avoid vague statements — be specific (Congress dominance, coalition era, regional parties, dismissal of state governments).