Union and its Territory: An Overview
Part I of the Indian Constitution, encompassing Articles 1 to 4, deals with the Union and its Territory. Article 1 is foundational, as it officially declares the name of the country and delineates the types of territories that constitute India. It also crucially defines the nature of the Indian political structure as a "Union of States," a phrase deliberately chosen to emphasize the indestructibility of the Union while allowing for the reorganization of its constituent states. This section will delve into the nuances of Article 1, including the significance of the dual nomenclature "India, that is Bharat," the classification of its territories, the implications of being a "Union of States," and a reference to the current composition of states and union territories.
(Source: Broad understanding synthesized from Laxmikanth, D.D. Basu, NCERT)
Article 1: Name and Territory of the Union
Article 1 of the Constitution of India declares:
- (1) India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.
- (2) The States and the territories thereof shall be as specified in the First Schedule.
- (3) The territory of India shall comprise –
- (a) the territories of the States;
- (b) the Union territories specified in the First Schedule; and
- (c) such other territories as may be acquired.
"India, that is Bharat" – Significance and Debates
- Dual Nomenclature: Adopts "India" for international recognition and "Bharat" for indigenous heritage.
- Compromise and Consensus: Result of Constituent Assembly debates between proponents of "Bharat" (decolonization, cultural roots) and "India" (global familiarity, continuity). Dr. B.R. Ambedkar played a key role in the compromise.
- Unity in Diversity: Symbolically blends ancient heritage with modern identity.
- Legally Recognized: Both names are constitutionally valid and interchangeable.
Classification of Territory
Article 1(3) specifies three categories comprising the "territory of India":
- Territories of the States: These are the federating units with shared powers, enjoying legislative autonomy as defined by the Constitution. Their names and extent are specified in the First Schedule.
- Union Territories: Directly administered by the Union (Central) government for strategic, administrative, or historical reasons. They are also specified in the First Schedule. Some (like Delhi, Puducherry, J&K) have legislatures.
- Such other territories as may be acquired: This provision allows India, as a sovereign state, to acquire new territories by modes recognized under international law (e.g., purchase, treaty, cession, conquest).
Nature of the Union: "Union of States"
- Deliberate Choice: The Constituent Assembly deliberately chose "Union of States" over "Federation of States" (as in USA).
- Rationale (Dr. B.R. Ambedkar):
- The Indian federation is *not* the result of an agreement among independent states.
- States have *no right to secede* from the Union. The federation is a Union because it is indestructible.
- Implication: Indestructible Union, Destructible States: While the Union cannot be destroyed, the constituent states are not permanent. Parliament (under Article 3) can form new states, alter areas, boundaries, or names of existing states by a simple majority and without the states' consent (though their views are ascertained).
- Emphasis on Unity: This structure strongly emphasizes national unity and integrity, crucial post-Partition.
Conceptualizing the Indian Union
Indestructible Union
India as a whole cannot be destroyed or broken up. No state has the right to secede.
Composed of...
Destructible States
Parliament can alter areas, boundaries, or names of existing states (Article 3), demonstrating their non-permanent territorial integrity.
Evolution of India's Territory
Article 1(3)(c) allows India to acquire new territories. Here are some key instances where this provision was applied.
-
1
Pondicherry & French Enclaves (1954/1962)
Acquired from France in 1954 (de facto), formally ceded in 1962, becoming the Union Territory of Puducherry.
-
2
Goa, Daman & Diu (1961)
Liberated from Portuguese rule by police action in 1961, initially becoming a Union Territory. Goa later attained statehood in 1987.
-
3
Sikkim (1974-1975)
Became an 'associate state' in 1974 (35th Amendment), and a full-fledged state of India in 1975 (36th Amendment) through a referendum.
-
4
Exchange of Enclaves with Bangladesh (2015)
100th Constitutional Amendment Act regularized the exchange of enclaves with Bangladesh, involving both acquisition and cession of territories.
Current Political Map: States & Union Territories
As per the First Schedule of the Constitution, India currently comprises 28 States and 8 Union Territories (as of early 2024).
| States (28) | Union Territories (8) |
|---|---|
| Andhra Pradesh | Andaman and Nicobar Islands |
| Arunachal Pradesh | Chandigarh |
| Assam | Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu (merged Jan 2020) |
| Bihar | Delhi (National Capital Territory) |
| Chhattisgarh | Jammu and Kashmir (UT since Oct 2019) |
| Goa | Ladakh (UT since Oct 2019) |
| Gujarat | Lakshadweep |
| Haryana | Puducherry |
| Himachal Pradesh | |
| Jharkhand | |
| Karnataka | |
| Kerala | |
| Madhya Pradesh | |
| Maharashtra | |
| Manipur | |
| Meghalaya | |
| Mizoram | |
| Nagaland | |
| Odisha | |
| Punjab | |
| Rajasthan | |
| Sikkim | |
| Tamil Nadu | |
| Telangana (created 2014) | |
| Tripura | |
| Uttar Pradesh | |
| Uttarakhand | |
| West Bengal |
(Source: First Schedule of the Constitution, Government of India. Always verify latest numbers as changes can occur.)
UPSC Corner: Notes & PYQs
Prelims-ready Notes
- Art 1(1): "India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States."
- "India, that is Bharat": Dual names reflecting international recognition and historical/cultural roots; compromise in Constituent Assembly.
- Recent G20: "President of Bharat" usage sparked debate on name prominence.
- Art 1(3) - Territory of India comprises: Territories of States, Union Territories, and Acquired Territories.
- "Union of India" vs. "Territory of India": Union refers to States (federal units), Territory is wider (States + UTs + Acquired).
- "Union of States" Nature: Deliberately chosen; not result of agreement by States; States have no right to secede.
- Implications: Indestructible Union of destructible states (Parliament can alter state boundaries/names under Art 3 without state consent).
- Current Composition (First Schedule): 28 States and 8 Union Territories (as of early 2024).
| Aspect | Constitutional Provision / Explanation | Significance / Implication |
|---|---|---|
| Name of Country | Art 1(1): "India, that is Bharat" | Dual nomenclature; compromise; reflects history & modernity. |
| Nature of Polity | Art 1(1): "...shall be a Union of States." | Indestructible Union, no right to secede for states; emphasizes unity over federal compact theory. |
| Components of Territory | Art 1(3): Territories of States, Union Territories (First Schedule), Acquired Territories. | Defines geographical extent and types of administrative units. |
| States' Status | Destructible units within an indestructible Union. Parliament can reorganize states (Art 3). | Flexibility in internal territorial adjustments for administrative/political reasons. |
Mains-ready Analytical Notes
- Debate on "India" vs. "Bharat": Choosing both names reflects a desire to connect modern India with its ancient past while retaining international familiarity. The G20 incident highlighted the ongoing cultural and political weight of these names.
- "Union of States" – A Deliberate Constitutional Design: Heavily influenced by the trauma of partition, prioritizing national unity. Unlike classical federations, the Union is primary. This facilitates nation-building by allowing state reorganization (Art 3) to accommodate linguistic and regional aspirations, forming the basis of India's 'quasi-federal' structure with a strong central bias.
- Acquired Territories – Reflecting Sovereign Power: Article 1(3)(c) allows India to expand its territory per international law. The integration of former French/Portuguese colonies and Sikkim demonstrates its application. The 100th Amendment (Bangladesh) also shows border management complexities.
- First Schedule – Dynamic, Not Static: It has been amended multiple times to reflect changes in states and UTs, enabled by Articles 2, 3, and 4. This dynamism supports adaptability.
Current Affairs & Recent Developments (Last one year)
- "Bharat" Name Controversy (September 2023): The use of "President of Bharat" in G20 Summit invitations sparked intense political debate, linking directly to Article 1(1) and discussions about national identity and decolonization.
- Discussions on Statehood Demands: Occasional demands for statehood (e.g., Puducherry, sometimes Delhi) or creation of new states relate to the "destructible states" aspect and Parliament's power under Article 3.
- Delimitation in Jammu & Kashmir: The process of delimitation of constituencies in the UT of J&K, following its reorganization in 2019, is a step towards holding assembly elections, connecting to the evolving status of territories in the First Schedule.
- Ladakh's Demand for Sixth Schedule Status: Persistent demands from Ladakh for inclusion under the Sixth Schedule (for protection of tribal rights and culture) and for statehood highlight the ongoing process of defining the administrative and political status of regions within the "Territory of India."
UPSC Previous Year Questions
(a) India is a Union of States and the States have the right to secede.
(b) India is a Federation of States and the States have the right to secede.
(c) India is a Union of States and the States have no right to secede.
(d) India is a Federation of States and the States have no right to secede.
Answer: (c)
Hint/Explanation: Article 1 declares India as a "Union of States," and a key implication of this, as explained by Dr. Ambedkar, is that states have no right to secede.
(a) Federal State
(b) Quasi-Federal State
(c) Unitary State
(d) Union of States
Answer: (d)
Hint/Explanation: Article 1(1) explicitly states, "India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States."
1. A bill for this purpose can be introduced only on the recommendation of the President.
2. The President must refer the bill to the legislature of the state concerned for expressing its views within a specified period.
3. The Parliament is bound by the views of the state legislature.
Select the correct answer using the code given below:
(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 2 and 3 only
(c) 1 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer: (a)
Hint/Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect; Parliament is NOT bound by the views of the state legislature. This highlights the "destructible states" aspect within the "Union of States."
Direction/Value Points:
- Introduction: State Article 1(1) and the deliberate choice of words.
- Reasons for "Union of States" (Ambedkar's explanation): Not a result of an agreement among states; States have no right to secede.
- Significance & Implications: Indestructible Union, Destructible States (Parliament's power Art 3); Emphasis on National Unity & Integrity (crucial post-partition); Centralizing Tendency (quasi-federal); Flexibility (linguistic reorganization).
- Comparison: Briefly compare with classical federations like USA to highlight distinction.
- Conclusion: The term "Union of States" aptly reflects India's unique federal structure, prioritizing national unity while allowing for administrative diversity and evolution.
Direction/Value Points:
- Introduction: Explain the dual nomenclature in Article 1(1).
- Historical Context of "Bharat": Ancient origins, cultural significance, indigenous identity.
- Historical Context of "India": International recognition, colonial era usage, continuity.
- Constituent Assembly Debates: Arguments for "Bharat" (decolonization, cultural pride) vs. "India" (global familiarity). Role of Dr. Ambedkar.
- Synthesis Achieved: How the phrase bridges past and present.
- Contemporary Relevance: Ongoing discussions reflect enduring symbolism.
- Conclusion: Naming was a carefully considered decision reflecting forging national identity.
Direction/Value Points:
- Introduction: Quote or paraphrase Article 1(3).
- Categories of Territories: States (federal units), Union Territories (centrally administered), Acquired Territories (for future acquisitions).
- Distinction: "Union of India" vs. "Territory of India."
- Process of Acquiring New Territories: International law modes (cession, treaty, etc.). Constitutional aspect (Art 2). Examples: Goa, Pondicherry, Sikkim, LBA with Bangladesh.
- Conclusion: Article 1 provides comprehensive and flexible definition.
Test Your Knowledge: Original MCQs
(a) To indicate that Indian states were once sovereign entities that agreed to form a federation.
(b) To signify that the Indian Union is indestructible and states have no right to secede from it.
(c) To imply that the Central government holds all powers and states are mere administrative units.
(d) To reflect the equal representation of all states in the Upper House of Parliament.
Answer: (b)
Explanation: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar clarified that "Union of States" was preferred to indicate two things: (i) the Indian federation is not the result of an agreement by the states to join a federation, and (ii) the states have no right to secede. This emphasizes the indestructibility of the Union.
1. The territories of the States.
2. The Union territories specified in the First Schedule.
3. Territories that may be acquired by India.
4. Territorial waters extending up to twelve nautical miles.
Select the correct answer using the code given below:
(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 1, 2 and 3 only
(c) 1, 2, 3 and 4
(d) 1, 2 and 4 only
Answer: (b)
Explanation: Article 1(3) explicitly lists (a) territories of the States, (b) Union territories specified in the First Schedule, and (c) such other territories as may be acquired. Territorial waters are part of India's territory by international law and sovereignty but are not explicitly listed as a separate category within Article 1(3)'s classification of component territories. The listed categories encompass all land and by extension, appurtenant waters.
(a) The classification of territory into States and Union Territories.
(b) The procedure for acquiring new territories by the Union of India.
(c) The phrase "India, that is Bharat" defining the name of the country.
(d) The principle that India is an "indestructible Union of destructible states."
Answer: (c)
Explanation: The debate revolves around the dual nomenclature provided in Article 1(1) – "India, that is Bharat" – and the question of which name should be given prominence or whether one should be used exclusively.
Engage Deeper: Original Descriptive Questions
Key Points/Structure for Answering:
- Introduction: Highlight the significance of the phrasing in Article 1.
- Historical Context: Partition of India (paramount need for national unity to prevent further disintegration); Integration of Princely States (desire for a strong, unified nation, not a loose confederation); Diverse regional aspirations (need for a framework that could accommodate diversity without allowing secession).
- Nation-Building Imperatives: Creating a strong Centre to guide development, ensure security, and forge a common national identity; Preventing fissiparous tendencies; Enabling administrative reorganization for better governance and accommodating linguistic/regional demands (power under Art 3).
- Dr. Ambedkar's Rationale: Not a result of inter-state agreement; no right to secede.
- Implications of "Union of States": Indestructible union, emphasis on indivisibility, flexibility in internal reorganization.
- How it reflected Statesmanship: Foresight in balancing unity with diversity, creating a resilient framework capable of adapting to regional demands while preserving the integrity of the nation.
- Conclusion: The term "Union of States" was a carefully chosen constitutional cornerstone that provided the foundation for a united and enduring Indian nation, reflecting the pragmatic and visionary statesmanship of the framers.
Key Points/Structure for Answering:
- Introduction: Explain Parliament's power under Article 3, linking it to Article 1's "Union of States" where states are destructible.
- As a Necessary Tool for Administrative Dynamism (Arguments for): Facilitates creation of states based on linguistic, cultural, or administrative considerations (e.g., States Reorganisation Act 1956, creation of newer states like Telangana); Allows for better governance by creating smaller, more manageable units; Helps address regional aspirations and developmental needs; Flexibility to adapt to changing demographic and political realities.
- As a Potential Threat to Federal Principles (Arguments against/Concerns): Lack of requirement for state consent (Parliament not bound by state legislature's views) undermines state autonomy; Can be used for political considerations by the ruling party at the Centre; Frequent reorganization can lead to instability and administrative disruption; Perception of arbitrariness can fuel Centre-State tensions; Weakens the identity and permanence of state units, a key aspect of classical federalism; Example: Reorganization of Jammu & Kashmir into UTs without state assembly consent was heavily debated on these grounds.
- Constitutional Safeguards (though limited): President's recommendation needed for bill, referral to state legislature for views (though not binding).
- Judicial View: Courts have generally upheld Parliament's wide powers in this regard but have also emphasized that it should not undermine the basic federal structure.
- Conclusion: Parliament's power to reorganize states is a unique feature of Indian federalism that embodies the "indestructible Union of destructible states." While it provides essential flexibility for national integration and administrative efficiency, its exercise requires careful consideration to ensure it does not unduly erode federal balance and state autonomy, maintaining a judicious balance between national imperatives and regional sentiments.