Towards a More Federalized Parliamentary System in India: Explaining Functional Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
istorically a federal and plural society and culture, India had gradually gravitated towards a parliamentary federal polity by the end of the British Raj. This process, which started with an administrative federalist response by the British Indian rulers, culminated in the parliamentary federal system under the 1950 republican Constitution framed by the Indian nationalist elites. The textual parliamentary primacy over the federal component of the Indian Union an arranged marriage between parliamentary and federal principles of government willed by the founding fathers of the Indian republic has not been without tensions and it pertains both to normal as well as emergency situations contemplated by the Constitution. The predominantly parliamentary tenor of Indian politics was sustained through the period of one-party dominance under the Indian National Congress, with occasional breaches in 1967 and 1977, until before the 1989 Lok Sabha elections. The two most notable changes of the 1990s in India have been the growing federalization of the polity and the reform of the economy with accent on liberalization and marketization. India's parliamentary federal systems of government quasi-federal in K.C. Wheare's2 classic characterization in the early post-World War II decades has in the 1990s become considerably more federalized than in the past. Although the Indian Constitution is primarily parliamentary, federalism is notjust an inconsequential appendage. This is so not only for the basically plural and federal character of the Indian society but also because of the nature of the constitutional text. Despite overriding powers of the Union over state governments in normal and emergency situations, the powers of
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".