India is often hailed as the world’s largest democracy and a beacon of diversity. Yet beneath the surface lies a fragile federation—a patchwork of regions, languages, religions, and castes, stitched together through political compromise and constitutional engineering. Today, that fabric is under intense strain. From Kashmir to Tamil Nadu, from Punjab to the Northeast, separatist voices still echo. And under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, caste divisions—never far from the surface—have been sharpened and politicized like never before. Let’s discover the fragile federation of India.
India has 28 states and 8 union territories, making a total of 36 provincial units.
States of India (28)
- Andhra Pradesh
- Arunachal Pradesh
- Assam
- Bihar
- Chhattisgarh
- Goa
- Gujarat
- Haryana
- Himachal Pradesh
- Jharkhand
- Karnataka
- Kerala
- Madhya Pradesh
- Maharashtra
- Manipur
- Meghalaya
- Mizoram
- Nagaland
- Odisha
- Punjab
- Rajasthan
- Sikkim
- Tamil Nadu
- Telangana
- Tripura
- Uttar Pradesh
- Uttarakhand
- West Bengal
Union Territories of India (8)
- Andaman and Nicobar Islands
- Chandigarh
- Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu
- Delhi (National Capital Territory of Delhi)
- Jammu and Kashmir
- Ladakh
- Lakshadweep
- Puducherry
So, is India truly united, or are we witnessing cracks in the foundation of the Republic?
India’s Fragile Federation – Separatist and Discontent Regions
1. India as a Fragile Federation
India’s federalism is asymmetrical and often described as quasi-federal. Unlike the U.S. or Canada, India’s states do not enjoy full sovereignty in their respective domains. The central government retains overriding powers to dismiss state governments, redraw state boundaries, and legislate on critical issues under the concurrent list. This centralization was perhaps necessary in a newly independent, diverse country, but it remains a major point of tension as regional aspirations have matured.
Despite this centralized model, India’s unity has relied on the accommodation of linguistic, ethnic, religious, and caste-based identities. Where such accommodation has failed, separatist and sub-national movements have emerged—some peaceful, others violent.
2. Historical and Contemporary Separatist Movements
Kashmir: A Long-standing Dispute
Jammu and Kashmir’s demand for autonomy, and at times independence, has been one of the longest and bloodiest conflicts in South Asia. The 2019 abrogation of Article 370 under Modi’s government, which removed the region’s special status, only deepened alienation among Kashmiris. While New Delhi argues it was a move toward integration, many analysts interpret it as forced assimilation, feeding secessionist sentiment.
Northeast India: Ethnic and Tribal Nationalisms
States like Nagaland, Manipur, Assam, and Mizoram have long been home to various insurgencies. Though many have signed peace accords, resentment simmers. Policies perceived as “Hindu-nationalist impositions” — such as the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) — have reignited fears of cultural erasure among tribal and ethnic communities.
Punjab: Echoes of Khalistan
While the Khalistan movement for a separate Sikh homeland has largely been dormant since the 1990s, recent crackdowns on Sikh activists and perceptions of religious discrimination have created a simmering discontent. The 2020-21 farmers’ protests—many of whose participants were from Punjab—were not just about agricultural laws, but also a flashpoint of regional assertion against central control.
Southern States: Dravidian Assertion
While not separatist in the traditional sense today, Dravidian politics in Tamil Nadu, and linguistic-cultural assertiveness in Kerala, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh, reflect a broader resistance to northern imposition, particularly of Hindi and Hindutva ideology. Modi’s government’s promotion of Hindi and cultural homogeneity is viewed in the South as a form of soft colonization.
3. Casteism in a New Avatar: Modi’s Polarizing Politics
Narendra Modi rose to power promising development, good governance, and a break from dynastic politics. But much of the BJP’s electoral success hinges on finely tuned caste arithmetic and social engineering.
On the surface, Modi—a self-proclaimed backward caste leader—seems to champion lower castes. The BJP fields candidates from marginalized communities, appoints Dalit and tribal figureheads, and talks about “Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas” (Together with all, Development for all).
But dig deeper and the contradictions are glaring.
The EWS reservation introduced by his government benefits mostly upper-caste groups, diluting the original purpose of reservations—to uplift historically oppressed communities. The party has also been accused of co-opting certain OBC and Dalit subgroups to weaken caste-based solidarity and prevent the rise of powerful social justice movements like those once led by Kanshi Ram or Mayawati.
Meanwhile, incidents of caste-based violence—especially against Dalits and Adivasis—continue, often with muted response from authorities. Student protests led by marginalized groups are labeled “anti-national.” Scholars and activists raising uncomfortable truths about caste and inequality are silenced, jailed, or worse.
In short, instead of dismantling caste hierarchies, the BJP has often reinforced them under a different guise—turning caste from a structure of oppression into a tool of political calculation.
4. When Federalism Meets Casteism
Here’s where things become dangerous. India’s regional diversity and caste hierarchy don’t exist in isolation—they intersect in powerful ways.
When regional groups demand autonomy or protest against the center, they’re branded as seditious or separatist. When marginalized communities mobilize against oppression, they’re accused of disrupting harmony or playing identity politics. And when both come together—as seen in the farmers’ protests, which included strong caste and regional undertones—the state responds with brute force.
Modi’s vision of a “New India” often looks like a homogenized India—Hindu, Hindi-speaking, and loyal to a centralized authority. But India has never been that simple. It’s a union of different nations, castes, and cultures, bound not by sameness but by the promise of fairness, federalism, and fraternity.
Undermining that promise risks turning India from a diverse democracy into a majoritarian state—one where dissent is treason, caste is destiny, and regional pride is a threat.
Caste has always been a central fault line in Indian society. Modi’s BJP, while publicly championing “development for all” (Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas), has relied heavily on caste-based calculations and dog whistles in its electoral strategy.
Reinforcing Upper-Caste Hegemony
Despite symbolic gestures like appointing a Dalit president or fielding backward caste leaders, the BJP’s core support base remains the upper castes. Policies such as the 10% reservation for economically weaker sections (EWS) — largely benefiting upper-caste Hindus — have been criticized for diluting affirmative action meant for historically oppressed castes.
Polarizing Lower Castes
The BJP has often co-opted non-dominant OBC (Other Backward Classes) and SC (Scheduled Caste) groups to fragment caste solidarity. This divide-and-rule strategy has weakened caste-based movements for justice, such as the Bahujan Samaj Party’s vision of Dalit-Bahujan unity. Meanwhile, violent caste-based atrocities, particularly against Dalits and Adivasis, continue with impunity in several BJP-ruled states.
Suppressing Dissent
Voices that challenge the casteist and majoritarian tendencies of the regime — be it student movements (like Rohith Vemula’s case), intellectuals, or activists — are branded as “anti-national.” This labeling serves to delegitimize dissent and preserve the hierarchical order in society under the guise of nationalism.
5. The Intersection of Casteism and Separatism
Modi’s governance approach has combined hyper-centralization, Hindu nationalism, and caste calculus. This cocktail has weakened the principle of cooperative federalism. When regions or communities assert their identity — be it Kashmiri Muslims, Tamil Dravidians, Assamese tribals, or Dalit protestors — they are viewed not as citizens with grievances, but as threats to national unity.
Instead of addressing the underlying causes of discontent—social inequality, cultural alienation, economic marginalization—the state has often responded with repression. This only strengthens the resolve of separatist elements or nurtures the rise of new fault lines.
6. Conclusion: The Need for a New Federal Ethic
India stands at a critical juncture. Its federal structure, though never perfectly balanced, has endured through democratic consensus, cultural pluralism, and the promise of justice. But the current trajectory — marked by casteist populism, central authoritarianism, and suppression of regional diversity — risks turning India from a union of states into a coercive empire in denial.
The fragile federation of India does not demand mere administrative reforms; it calls for a moral and political reawakening. True unity can only emerge from decentralization, respect for diversity, protection of minority rights, and justice across caste lines. Without these, India’s unity may remain only a constitutional aspiration — not a lived reality.
Word Count: 1523 words
