Article 371 and Asymmetric Federalism
Renewed demands for special provisions in the North-East and elsewhere bring Article 371 — and India's model of asymmetric federalism — back into focus.
On this page
Why is this in the news?
Several regional groups have raised demands for constitutional safeguards over land, culture and local employment, citing the special provisions available to other States under Articles 371 to 371J.
What is asymmetric federalism?
In a symmetric federation, all constituent units enjoy identical powers. Asymmetric federalism allows some units to have special arrangements because of their history, geography, ethnic composition or the circumstances of their accession.
The Constitution recognises that unity does not require uniformity.
Article 371 at a glance
| Article | State | Key provision |
|---|---|---|
| 371 | Maharashtra, Gujarat | Development boards for specified regions |
| 371A | Nagaland | Parliamentary laws on Naga customary law, religious practices and land apply only if the Assembly so decides |
| 371B | Assam | Committee of the Assembly for tribal areas |
| 371C | Manipur | Committee of Assembly members from the Hill Areas |
| 371D, 371E | Andhra Pradesh (and Telangana) | Equitable opportunities in public employment and education; central university |
| 371F | Sikkim | Special provisions following Sikkim's merger in 1975 |
| 371G | Mizoram | Protection of Mizo customary law and land ownership |
| 371H | Arunachal Pradesh | Special responsibility of the Governor for law and order |
| 371I | Goa | Minimum strength of the Legislative Assembly |
| 371J | Karnataka | Development board for the Hyderabad-Karnataka (Kalyana-Karnataka) region |
Arguments for
- Accommodates diversity and historical agreements.
- Protects small communities from demographic and economic marginalisation.
- Strengthens integration by building trust.
Arguments against
- Can create perceptions of unequal citizenship.
- May encourage competitive demands for special status.
- Implementation of development boards has often been weak.
Way forward
Strengthening Sixth Schedule institutions, empowering development boards with finances, and ensuring periodic review can make asymmetric arrangements more effective.