India also has 10 Autonomous District Councils (ADC). Which are like State within a State. They have their own Government, Legislative Assembly and is led by a Chief Executive Member (CEM). Election is held every 5 year. ADCs are basically Reserved Land for Native Tribals to protect their culture, identity & heritage.
@@Dhruv-Kumaras an Assamese, I think yes, Bodoland should be separated to keep both Assamese and Bodo people in their respective states to stop further instability
@@Lance14470 its fortunate that there are good assamese like you. Assamese and bengali should understand that boro and gorkha are different. Anyway cheers!
@@Dhruv-Kumar yeah, the most of the Assamese you encounter have no knowledge of ethinic stability and things that cause fighting like in Manipur. We can take Manipur as an example and separate the people who are asking to be separated and give them their state they want
As an Indian, I will say you did a pretty good job explaining things (though I should note the previous PM Manmohan Singh was elected from the Rajya Sabha), and your pronunciation didn't kill my ears, although you kind of flubbed the long and short vowels.
Also, I should note that during the latter five years of the Modi Sarkaar, there have been some more conflicts regarding the constitutional balance surrounding Indian federalism, especially with many opposition ruled states having conflicts the Centre appointed governors (most notably my home state Tamil Nadu between the CM Stalin, and governor Ravi)
@@singam7436dmk has a history with picking fights with governors. Dmk hate being questioned. They love to behave dictators. Actually dmk tried to separate tamilnadu from india during 70s by begging in front of UN and that party's mentor EVR begged to Britain in 40s during independence to make tamilnadu. Nobody cared though. The Party has a history of being traitors to the state and country.
@@singam7436 Wait how is a Governor of a state appointed? Does only the President have the power to appoint them and the state has no power in this regard?
@@adarshmohapatra5058no state didn't have any power to appoint governor. governor is appointed by President ( Puppet) on the advice of Prime minister.
As an Indian, to explain the slightly confusing concept of both Unitary and Federal structure of our government: It was done to draw a contrast between the nature of India and some other countries, like USA, UK, and Soviet Union, from where we imbibed some of the ideas for our Constitution. In the above mentioned countries, several independent geopolitical units came together to form a Union, the 4 kingdoms of UK, the 13 colonies of America, the Soviet Republics in USSR, etc. And each of these units was equal to each other and largely independent. They had provisions or at least weak ties that could enable them to Secede or break away from the larger Union, like the break up of Soviet Union, the short period of American Civil War, or the presently on going Scottish Independence referendum. In India however, this is not the case. We see our country as a single unbreakeable whole, a permanent Union of the People of India (and not states). This Union of people shall divide itself into smaller units (states) for ease of governance only and for no other claims of local autonomy. No territory of India may ever breakaway from the Union. It's punisheable as treason to speak of another separation of India (the horrors of Partition). But, such a large population we are, we might not always get along well with our cousins, and tensions will rise, so we prefer to draw lines within our country than across it. That is, we are kinda flexible with our state borders. It's not very easy to carve a new state, but not impossible. However, the Union of India shall always be a single indivisible entity. That's the Federal structure with Unitary features.
The term "socialist" was added to the constitution's preamble without any democratic procedures during the infamous "emergency" declared by Indira Gandhi.
@@Kaito028 The amendment which added the words also included a lot of things which are very important for the constitution like it also added the word 'integrity',gave free legal aid to people,etc..most of its parts which are unnecessary and authorative parts are removed
Sometime unitary country is surprisingly federal. Take China as example. While gaokao are all at the same day and same time, the paper is varied by region, thus lead to unequal difficulty and stress to student.
Correction: Prime Minister can also be elected from among the Members of Rajya Sabha, as in Manmohan Singh who served as Prime Minister from 2004 to 2014 while being a Member of Parliament of Rajya Sabha from Assam
U hv got almost right,but 2 correction worth mentioning :- 1.its not necessary that PM gets elected from lok-sabha,(its ideal situation), unlike UK.But anyone can become PM,choosen by majority party but he/she must gets a membership in either of the two houses within 6 months of taking charge.(same for the ministers) 2.There is no post like deupty PM,( Constitution doesn't mention, its not a rule), it's just occasionally to satisfy the coalition partners.Since past 20 yrs India has no deputy PM. Of such complicated Nation & its politics,ur explanation in such lucid manner, deserve a applause.
Basically for all those from Presidential systems, a Ceremonial President is just there as a reserve. The government runs in their name. They are re supposed to be impartial and have no partisan bias (though most are just retired politicians). It’s a leftover feature from a constitutional monarchy where the Monarch is the head of state and is there as a backup/reserve power/monitoring authority/representative of the entire nation and not just a party. Most parliamentary forms of government are either constitutional monarchies (UK, Japan, Netherlands, Spain, Malaysia) or parliamentary republics (India, Pakistan, Germany, Ireland)
Some corrections 2:38 - no, the Prime Minister is not necessarily elected from the Lok Sabha. Only that the party or coalition having the majority will choose someone to become PM, they can be anyone qualified to be an MP in either house. If they are already not in the house, they are given six months to be elected to either house. Just to give an example, the Prime Minister before Modi was Manmohan Singh, who was in the Rajya Sabha and not the Lok Sabha. 6:16 J&K will also have its own Legislature on the lines of Puducherry. Also the Government of India is called Central Government or Union Government interchangeably. However the proper term is the Government of India.
0:40 the words Socialist and Secular were forcefully added in 1970s under PM Indira Gandhi’s tenure, and was not present at Independence. India no longer is Socialist.
isn't the 'Socialism' part sort of representing the large control over some industries that the Indian state maintains, although far from "pure socialism" (what ever that is) dosn't Indian maintain a swath of industries thats partly or wholly government managed,
@@gawkthimm6030 yes. But after 1991 reforms and then subsequent reforms in various governments since then, India has allowed private sector participation in most things, although many government ones still run alongside as a ‘socialist’ scheme. Except for defence, there are no other sectors where private players haven’t already established. So now Indian model is more of a capitalistic one. Government also sold Air India, the only public Airline to a private player. BSNL telecom is breathing its last breaths, will be dissolved in the next 2 decades. Many Public a sector banks are being merged, soon there will be only a few left
@@DocPrakhar When I search for "Indian state owned companies", I still find a lot and on the wiki; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Government-owned_companies_of_India
@@gawkthimm6030 Yes, they still exist but not really big outside of some "strategic sectors" like Defence, Energy and Banking. Several govt owned companies were privatized over the years either through gov offloading their stake through markets or putting up for outright sale through auction. Every year govt privatize some govt owned companies most of them except some large ones runs in losses.
Indian constitution sees States as administrative units rather than devolved powers. Federalism still maintains high degree of centralization both for political and pragmatic reasons (Some Indian States are just too poor to manage certain Departments, Central Govt funds close to 80% of their outlays). Power between States and Centre is dictated by 7th Schedule which maintains 3 separate lists - State, Union and Concurrent. This creates an interesting framework for balancing Political Power. For eg: Policing is in the State List, however Law and Order (aka Public Order) is in Concurrent List. So Central Govt cannot perform day to day policing but can get itself involved in serious degradation of public order or station Centrally Armed Police Force to maintain public order at facilities.
FACTUAL CORRECTION: The Lok Sab elects the Prime Minister, however, the Prime Minister has to be a Member of Parliament, i.e., in one of the houses, not necessarily the Lok Sabha only.
isn't that sort of representing the large control over some industries that the Indian state maintains, although far from "pure socialism" (what ever that is) dosn't Indian maintain a swath of industries thats partly or wholly government managed,
@@bhuvaneshs.k638 It sort of looks like it from the outside, but I wasn't sure, because of the huge scale of the Indian state as whole. I would guess its much easier if you are a large private company with an army or lawyers of bribes.
Dadra and Nagar haveli Daman and Diu were once part of Portugese India while Pondicherry it's exclaves Karaikal, mahe and yanam were part of French India. Goa also once part of Portugese India got statehood whereas aforementioned remained union territories.
Should have mentioned Panchayats, Grama Sabhas an ld Zilla Parishad. They are the basic structures of democratic fabric of India. I am also curious if such structures are present in other countries as well.
I think every Indian would say that the Supreme court in india is the ultimate Goat in this process. They keep all this state and central government in check. Otherwise its sometimes all circus over here 😂😂😂
It would have been great if this channel had also gone into detail about how the judiciary works and how those judges are appointed. And how accountability in the judiciary works.
The judiciary is completely unaccountable and is the most corrupt arm. A huge chunk of the blame for India's issues lies with the judiciary. It is a nepotism clube with sons succeeding fathers and appointing themselves. Not the best recipe for a democracy. Unless judicial appointments are reviewed by a parliamentary committee and appointed by a statutory committee, no change is possible. Right now VIP lawyers and NGOs have a total stranglehold. Justice is only for a powerful few with connects and money.
@@raghavantheerthagiri7888 Tread carefully. There are parts of India where the light of democracy does not shine. And your rights can be explained away.
@@death_parade You want democracy, you need an accountable judiciary. Not nepotist milords who give judgement sbased on their whim and fancies and pandering to cabals.
Yes you should definitly look into formation of Telangana. They led their own movement to seperate from Andra and form the new state Telangana. I am from Chhattisgarh and my state also carried out a movement to seperate from the larger Madhaya Pradesh. Due to this I was born in M.P. and live in C.G. although I live in the same city (Bastar) in which I was born.
Why not lead a movement to separate from India ? If Indian government allowed this , they can also grant freedom ? Or it's different for Telangana people and they don't want to be separated ?
@@daniyalbbd5281 I don't think anyone wants to separate from the country. Usually a state seperation is demanded because the government of the larger state can't give attention to every part of the state due to their "remoteness". Chhattisgarh seperated from the larger Madhya Pradesh due to this line of thinking. I have seen the developments that has happened here after the seperation. Road widening, infrastructure developments, new airports, new steel plants etc. I don't think anybody from Chhattisgarh wanted to separate from India. Just from state of Madhya Pradesh. Fun fact: my Dad was a government employee and had to travel 841 km to headquarters of the government office in Bhopal, M.P. to get some work done. After seperation, he had to travel only 300 km as the headquarters was in Raipur, Chhattisgarh
@@daniyalbbd5281it was to not get people to step on each other's toes. Intially, states were separated by ethnicities and micro cultures to prevent disputes. But no matter the state, all identify as Indians
India's supposed to be a parliamentary democracy, but in practice acts like an executive dominated democracy, Indian parliament is in practice far weaker than even the US Congress in the presidential USA, the same applies to state legislatures which are even more feeble than the national parliament. Some of this is structural resulting in the extraordinary powers the Indian constitution gave to the executive despite creating a parliamentary republic (for example the ability to create temporary laws called "ordinances" sort of like executive orders in USA), how it doesn't really prevent the executive from cutting down parliamentary sessions, the speaker not being very independent in practice, the way Indian parties function, the legal prevention of MPs going against party line in the parliament, etc. So when a government has a single party majority in the parliament, the parliament (especially the Lok Sabha) turns into a rubber stamp of the executive with very little actual checking of executive power. Theoretically the Rajya Sabha offers some protection against this but in practice there are ways to completely bypass it like randomly designating a bill as a "money bill" or calling a joint session. When factoring all that only the judiciary actually checks the executive, which is why at times when the executive is very strong electorally they end up at loggerheads with the judiciary and speak of expanding parliamentary power (proxy for their power) against the judiciary like in the 70s or what you were seeing just a few months ago. Also the balance between the Union and the State is never very clear in practice either, states have gradually gotten more powerful overtime so although at the immediate post-independence period they were weak when compared to the centre and were easily dismissed by it through "presidential rule", today they're pretty powerful entities capable of going against national laws on a number of issues especially those on the concurrent list of the constitution (eg- Tamil Nadu rejecting the education policies of the centre) and are difficult to dismiss.
It is because after a long time (about 45years) a single party has absolute majority in central government. Otherwise making any controversial and almost any decision in general was almost impossible, specially during parliamentary crisis of 90s. Just because government with absolute majority gets it's way, doesn't make it worse than USA
And everyone agrees that the Supreme court of India is the best amongst them . Even now and then they keep both state and central government in check . Sadly not having a majority in parliament has led to alot of side movement in policies rather than forward moving one like in recent times
indeed. In my view, the Indian state values federalism too much. This slows down the reforms which are mostly brought around by the centre. I think Centre should have the ability to shove down reforms in any states and if seen on priority basis, then the border states.
You actually did a great job! I didn't catch any obvious mistakes. Although there's the joke about how the Indian government works - "who ever said it does?" 😂
I have never understood this disdain for the Indian government in the minds of the Indian people. Once a while, saying such things in frustration is acceptable. But making it a presupposition is dangerous. Objectively speaking, the Indian government does indeed work. Maybe not perfectly, but then which large nation's government is perfect?
..just joking. Was a part of the govt and I will say this. Know the existing rules, put your application or file on the route. Have patience. Never loose your temper. Keep following up. And work DOES get done.
@@death_paradewell not really .... the Indian government is extremely efficient in putting down rebellions and protests ( The Indian air force had bombed one of its own state capitals when a rebel group had occupied it ). Its just that the Government isn't interested in solving other issues like erratic electricity, education issues, etc ... these are mainly due to corruption
As white American, the government of India fascinates me and I wished we learned more about it. It’s history as being based in British (and to a lesser extent French and Portuguese) colonial rule and being then taken over by locals, it’s importance in the Cold War and it’s status in helping India become a rising power.
Good to have a new video. I guess that instead of them being ASAP, they have been WIFLI. It's basically the British system but without the King. In Canada, we have a system of divided sovereignty between the federal and provincial and at the federal level it's Prime Minister and Premier at the provincial.
I’m an Indian and have never seen a better explanation. Just one thing though: the Council of Ministers is not the cabinet, the cabinet is composed of the top ministers within the Council of Ministers.
2:35 The prime minister can be elected from either of the houses. For example Dr. Manmohan Singh was from the Rajya Sabha, on the other hand Narendra Modi is from Lok Sabha.
India is a Union, which is different from a federal or Quasi federal state, like US UK, and any other. A Union is the strongest and most United form of a country. In Indian Union, there are provisions, for Inclusion of states, but not secession, like US. Like, Sikkim was not part of India, but joined later. Nepal and Baluchistan also offered to join, i don't know why but the government declined the offers. All in all India is an Unbreakable entity.
1:45 u showed the picture of the Rashtrapati Bhavan - Residence of the Indian President while referring to the Parliament, which is a different building. Otherwise, good video.
TIF India has a president and it is not Modi. Are there any good videos explaining why some presidents like Macron and Biden are in charge and there is no or less powerful PM but in some cases lik Scholz and Modi the PM is in charge and nobody really knows the president. And then there is Russia where the importance of the PM/President changed with Putin.
00:04 India has a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic with a parliamentary form of government. 00:55 India is a democratic republic with a federal government. 01:53 Indian legislature is bicameral with Lok Sabha as lower house and Rajya Sabha as upper house. 02:41 The Indian Government works through the election of a leader to be the Prime Minister. 03:35 The Indian government consists of the Council of Ministers and the Judicial branch. 04:26 The Supreme Court reviews laws and ensures they don't violate the constitution. 05:12 States in India have their own legislative assemblies, some of which are bicameral. 06:01 Indian territories have their own local governments. Crafted by Merlin AI.
2:45 Its not Always required that the Prime minister be a member of Lok Sabha (people's house) ,he/she can be member of Rajya Sabha(council of States) too. The only requirement is he/she should have the support of majority of members of the Loksabha and be a Member of *Parliament*. Fun fact :- The President can also appoint a person as PM or any minister ,even if they currently not a member of Parliament but only for a period of six months . If within six months they dont get elected to either house then they must resign . 2:45
Very well explained yet simple. The map shown is an accurate depiction of what is under Indian control. Brace yourself for "incorrect map" comments but what you showed is accurate.
Slight Inaccuracy: The biggest party in the lok sabha that has proven majority does get to chose the PM but, the PM doesn't have to be from lok sabha, He can be ANY Member of Parliament. Meaning he can also be a member of rajya sabha... Manmohan Singh was from Rajya Sabha, and he was the PM in UPA govt. Nirmala Sitharaman is the current Finance Minister and she's also from Rajya sabha...
There is extreme delegation of powers to the states in India, which is why India managed to stay united without any coups (unlike nearly all neighbours). Its also one of the reasons development is so hard to come by. Example: Party A gets elected into a state. Party A plans for X development projects which are opposed by all opposition parties (because then the people will look up to party A for bringing in development) and opposition parties use all powers possible (fake news, minority oppresion rhetoric, local jobs being lost, people losing land, dragging foreign media into the problems, polluting the environment, etc.). Then the next election opposition gets elected and goes on with literally the same projects they rejected that Party A brought up and now Party A is opposing them. At the end of the day, nobody wins and no development comes. Only recently have things started changing, because Hindus of almost all states have started voting in the same party (BJP) so this party can coordinate projects that involve multiple states (freeways, railways, etc.). So now we have sort of an electoral autocracy which i am very proud of, because finally work is actually getting done.
Maybe you people should come out of fallacious reasoning land and look at the actual data or read modern Indian history. The period when India had most of it's economic growth was also when the party at the state and that at the centre were least likely to be the same. There has been very little evidence to show that the same party being in the state and centre actually leads to better economic and social outcomes, even voters aren't convinced by this "double engine sarkar" theory anymore (support for the idea has only dropped in state elections in my state since 2016, and BJP's prospects in other non-BJP ruled states and even many of their own states in state elections aren't that great either), hell even Modi did not believe in this crap when he was a CM. Also lmao most Hindus don't even vote for the BJP and they under perform in states with higher than national average Hindu population.
I mean Telangana,Andhra,Tamil Nadu have their own parties and they are developing so your narrative is only somewhat true in that it applies to states which don't really have native parties or if they do these are much more corrupt and dependent on larger national parties than their southern counterparts
@@thelakeman2538 You're correct that Indian people don't believe in " Double Engine Sarkaar" anymore atleast in my state, RAJASTHAN THE CM, Ashok Gehlot is the most liked politician, but BJP always wins in Lok Sabha Elections And chances are it'll win again !
Happens when your recruitment process is prone to a scam every other week, and despite millions of people undertaking your recruitment exams, almost all of them are heavily understaffed because you've chronically underfunded most departments and agencies so they literally cannot hire many who pass those exams. If the state institutions are broken then of course the government operates incompetently.
You are an American citizen commenting on Indian political incompetence. Sit down brother your presidents are literal pedophiles, rap*sts and crybabies who refuse to leave parliaments when they lose. Indian government has improved a lot under modi government, especially compared to how high high corruption used to be before modi. Corruption was institutionalized before him. At least that stopped. Sure, corruption on a lower level is possible
Kinda bad that I have to refer to a foreign channel FOR MY OWN COUNTRY'S GOVERNMENT but damn you did a great job explaining the basics! sigh wish our own media would be even half as good as you
Nope. It was nothing like US. US had a proper civil war. India didn't have any civil war, there was no Indian military involved. It was muslim fanatics and muslim nationalists who did violent riots and massacres in areas dominating muslim population to force Indian govt to accept Partition. Even as Pakistan declared itself islamic republic, Indian govt refused to become a Hindu republic or even a republic with atleast state religion...It was obsessed with socialism and USSR and India became a country with same kind of insecure Central Govt like USSR had with little to no federalism on ground but federalism in school textbooks and constitution to give a sugar-coated view.
@@Rahul_Singh100so true khilafat movement and direct action day way not to get freedom from colonial brits but was establish sharia supremacist ideals over majority, thus asking for separate nation a fake country, where people are getting killed everywhere everyday its called paxtan
Atleast we never had a military coup & stood on our feet to a point of actually preserving a democratic system. Name any other country which hasn't fallen into a civil war or a military coup, right after independence... The constituion & the machinery may not be the best, but it held us firm on our feet. Hopefully, its a matter of time where we outgrow those limitations.
@@Tejas_ Authoritarian speed of decision making also means decisions with little oversight or public discourse which leads to stupid policies like the one-child policy that blow back in your face. Democracies that involve public discourse do have slow decision making, but such decision making is more stable. Ofcourse this can only happen when the electorate/voters are not complete idI0ts. In real life, most voters are idi0ts who seldom pay attention to the policy aspects, rather they only pay attention to their own bottom line and fall victim to vote bank politics or freebie politics.
@@sirBrouwer I guess I'm not used to a government that isn't a parliamentary monarchy doing the same thing to an elected position like a president 😅 The only other example I can think of is Singapore
That was a great video. You sir have truly managed to summarise one of the most confusing institutions on the planet. Beneath the infinie levels of Byzantine bureaucracy, there exists a system that somehow works. It has managed to hold itself (even if barely) for almost 80 years now. That's a huge feat considering the examples of many other post-colonial nations sharing similar starting conditions. I'd say the secret to this lies in something called the Panchayati raj. Surely you might have come across it while researching for this video. It essentially treats every village(of which there are a lot in India) as a republic of it's own, with it's own council(panchayat). Now this isn't something India created after 1947. The panchayati system of governance has been present in India in one form or the other since atleast the time of the 16 Mahajanapadas. Across millennia the core of which makes up India has stayed the same. This means the way society is structured and "managed" has been able to go through quite some refining. Invaded time and time again by foreign threats, this system has survived the test of time into the modern era and continues to guide the democratic values in such a humongous nation. No wonder India gets to title itself the largest democracy in the world and rightly so.
Well. India did have it's own powers before the Islamic invasions, it was after the fall of the Karakota Dynastry that the turks succeeded in invading Sindh. And the Maratha Empire was one of the modern powers that destroyed the mughal empire and then was crushed by the British empire. But I do agree with you, across millenniums, what makes India as India remains the same, it will uphold dharma till the end of time.
This was well-timed since I just recently listened to a video about the history of modern India's economy lol. Thank you for this informative episode. God be with you out there everybody. ✝️ :)
Short answer: It doesn't. Edit: Chill, people, chill. My joke about the inefficiency of the Indian government is as surface level as it seems and contains literally no other deeper meanings.
Indian States in their current Borders and State didn't existed in history because they are created by Indian constitutional order. Indian States Aren't Monoethenic, Monolingual, Mono religious. There are lot of disputes between states.
@@noistivmuestiliv3300 I've noticed many youtubers try to include PoK and Aksai China but always end up missing Shaksgam Valley 😂 Sometimes, they even miss Arunachal Pradesh, Andaman and Nicobar and once I saw a horrid map where the entire Himalayas, including Himachal, Sikkim and Uttarakhand was in China 💀
Actually it's quite easy to be a dictator in India. Federalism is only lip service in India. It's absolute unitary power in India in hands of Union Govt. The worse thing is a dictator needn't even declare that he/she is a dictator because the structure is designed that way and gullible Indian public fanboy Union Govt as uncorrupt, innocent, absolute representation of patriotism.
@@Rahul_Singh100 I guess the people voted and elected him, didn't they? Then how exactly is he a dictator? If you don't like his policies, you can always vote him out of power. Also saying that the Center has all the power in India and acts like a dictator is completely wrong. Our constitution has done a good job of dividing the power between different Center and State governments and different branches of government. Though it can be said that the Center is comparatively more powerful than the States, but that still does not make the Center a dictator.
@@pratyush1162 _"Our constitution has done a good job in dividing power between centre and state"_ ....is a school textbook sentemce that students mug in India but just because you have mugged it doesn't mean it's necessarily true. In reality , Central Govt does have unfairly high amount of power, control, influence and say in each and every affair of India and Indian states. Central Govt can impose em3rgency (which already happened in 1976) and can distort constitution unilaterally if it wants and states can't do anything about it. State govts will become Null. It already have happened in 1976. Courts can be dissolved, state govts can be shut down, states can be diVided without their consent, their resources can be extracted and land be given away to foreign countries and much much more, all so that interests and Treasury of Central Govt is filled. Central Govt has unequally high amount of power. The only reason it's not doing so in the open is because it doesn't need to. Centre already is having it's interests being met anyway. People are conditioned to be fanboys of Central Govt where they can't even assume that Central Govt can be as corrupt, as malicious as any other state govt. People assume Central Govt and it's agencies are unconditionally patriotic, unbiased and what not from watching bollywood movies ,but reality is far from fiction.
@@pratyush1162 Btw, Central Govt already has used Emergency laws to ban a documentary on PM and recently also invoked emergency laws to force Coal power plants to maximize their output. For good or bad, emergency laws have been used by Centre and states can't do anything about it. Constitution itself states that in a matter of dispute between state and centre, it will be the centre whose decision will supercede that of state, and at other times it will be decided by President (which itself is quite f00lish since President is nominated by the houses of Parliament in which the party in Central Govt has majority always, and also the fact that President is literally employed and housed by Central Govt)
A really interesting time to visit India is during the weeks prior to the start of voting. In 2004 I spent some time in Bhopal and had the opportunity to see the campaign process first hand. My trip was unrelated to such topics related to politics so I was unaware of the election environment so seeing the large gatherings in the fields outside of the city was impressive. Travel in the city on the weekend was impossible because most of the traffic circles were occupied by campaign speakers surrounded by massive throngs of people. All of these gatherings were sponsored by the party that went on to win that election cycle. When I returned home I started following global media coverage with a heightened interest and was surprised to find none of the coverage was giving even the slightest of a correct prediction on the eventual victor for that cycle. Publications like the FT were doing all of their reporting from an office desk in London or the clubhouse of like minded. Even the most casual of first hand on the scene observations like mine spoke of an inconvenient truth which did not reflect the “good facts” reality of global media.
I genuinly believe if India became an Absolute Monarchy they would be by the far the most powerful country within 25 years, democracy is a flawed system that does not work in developing nations
*Something you got painfully wrong- The map of India.* At this point, you must be confused why Indians complain so much about the map thing, so let me explain- Some parts of the areas of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh are illegally occupied by Pakistan and China. This is in violation of India's sovereignty (after all, we are a "sovereign" democratic republic) and thus Indians feel as if you are (unintentionally) helping the illegal occupiers by not showing the occupied parts in India's map.
![KSI - Dirty [Official Visualiser]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VoDh1h1dPUE/mqdefault.jpg)
its not mandatory for the prime minister to be from the lok sabha as said in the video. PM manmohan singh was a rajya sabha member from assam
I'm an NRI and I always thought he was elected from Punjab- 💀
Guess im racist now 💀💀💀
@@xijinpig8982 we don't expect anything from NRIs anyways, you are cool.
@@xijinpig8982but why tho? Like just lol at Atal Bihari or Narasimha Rao, what part Punjabi are they?
@@arijitpalit2756 Lmao that was cold 😂 😂
@@arijitpalit2756 chill bro, but ur correct lol
India also has 10 Autonomous District Councils (ADC). Which are like State within a State.
They have their own Government, Legislative Assembly and is led by a Chief Executive Member (CEM). Election is held every 5 year.
ADCs are basically Reserved Land for Native Tribals to protect their culture, identity & heritage.
So they are like the Native Reservations in USA
ruclips.net/video/z57SX9fDDY4/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/J5PLyYVIEpg/видео.html
Im not even Boro but I think Boroland needs separate state. ADC or ATC is not enough.
@@Dhruv-Kumaras an Assamese, I think yes, Bodoland should be separated to keep both Assamese and Bodo people in their respective states to stop further instability
@@Lance14470 its fortunate that there are good assamese like you. Assamese and bengali should understand that boro and gorkha are different. Anyway cheers!
@@Dhruv-Kumar yeah, the most of the Assamese you encounter have no knowledge of ethinic stability and things that cause fighting like in Manipur. We can take Manipur as an example and separate the people who are asking to be separated and give them their state they want
this will be the least political comment section ever
Yup
Totally no political arguments whatsoever
Real Bengali?
@spaghettiisyummy.3623 yes sir real bangladeshi
@@F.G_7even :O
For someone who is not native to India , This video was very well made , good job
Hi how are you doing 😊
@@martinssalvatore7702 stop, you are making a fool out of our glorius nation, i assure you all that most indians are not like him
@@annoyedbrox4851what are you on about lol
As an Indian, I will say you did a pretty good job explaining things (though I should note the previous PM Manmohan Singh was elected from the Rajya Sabha), and your pronunciation didn't kill my ears, although you kind of flubbed the long and short vowels.
Also, I should note that during the latter five years of the Modi Sarkaar, there have been some more conflicts regarding the constitutional balance surrounding Indian federalism, especially with many opposition ruled states having conflicts the Centre appointed governors (most notably my home state Tamil Nadu between the CM Stalin, and governor Ravi)
@@singam7436dmk has a history with picking fights with governors. Dmk hate being questioned. They love to behave dictators. Actually dmk tried to separate tamilnadu from india during 70s by begging in front of UN and that party's mentor EVR begged to Britain in 40s during independence to make tamilnadu. Nobody cared though. The Party has a history of being traitors to the state and country.
@@singam7436 Wait how is a Governor of a state appointed? Does only the President have the power to appoint them and the state has no power in this regard?
@@adarshmohapatra5058no state didn't have any power to appoint governor. governor is appointed by President ( Puppet) on the advice of Prime minister.
@@singam7436 so called democracy still have dynasty lol that too corrupt
As an Indian, to explain the slightly confusing concept of both Unitary and Federal structure of our government:
It was done to draw a contrast between the nature of India and some other countries, like USA, UK, and Soviet Union, from where we imbibed some of the ideas for our Constitution.
In the above mentioned countries, several independent geopolitical units came together to form a Union, the 4 kingdoms of UK, the 13 colonies of America, the Soviet Republics in USSR, etc. And each of these units was equal to each other and largely independent. They had provisions or at least weak ties that could enable them to Secede or break away from the larger Union, like the break up of Soviet Union, the short period of American Civil War, or the presently on going Scottish Independence referendum.
In India however, this is not the case. We see our country as a single unbreakeable whole, a permanent Union of the People of India (and not states). This Union of people shall divide itself into smaller units (states) for ease of governance only and for no other claims of local autonomy. No territory of India may ever breakaway from the Union. It's punisheable as treason to speak of another separation of India (the horrors of Partition).
But, such a large population we are, we might not always get along well with our cousins, and tensions will rise, so we prefer to draw lines within our country than across it. That is, we are kinda flexible with our state borders. It's not very easy to carve a new state, but not impossible. However, the Union of India shall always be a single indivisible entity. That's the Federal structure with Unitary features.
Great, you just defined a unitary state
Beautifully explained.
Quasi Federal structure of government was taken from *Canada's system* by Indian Constitution
Yeah it's clearly written Breakable states but unbreakable country 😂😂😂, but Everything is free in India unlike China
Just read the Pol Sc book of class 10
The term "socialist" was added to the constitution's preamble without any democratic procedures during the infamous "emergency" declared by Indira Gandhi.
Then why is it still there. The government is changed now right?
@@Kaito028 The amendment which added the words also included a lot of things which are very important for the constitution like it also added the word 'integrity',gave free legal aid to people,etc..most of its parts which are unnecessary and authorative parts are removed
So what , socialism means "Sarva or Sabi dharma" , which means the justice for all on equal basis . Is that a problem for you?
@@sundarraj_perumal_0612 , U are !IIiterate who know little bit English.
Read again what you wrote. Socialism means 😁😂
All mainstream parties in India have "socialist", social democratic, social-welfare oriented policies in their agendas, from BJP to CPI-M
Federalism without Federalism that's India
Same with Nigeria but they have the nerve to call themselves the ‘Federal Republic of Nigeria’
It’s called “Quasi-federalism”. Most countries lie on a spectrum between being totally unitary and totally federal.
Sometime unitary country is surprisingly federal.
Take China as example. While gaokao are all at the same day and same time, the paper is varied by region, thus lead to unequal difficulty and stress to student.
I mean, it is still quite federal culturally, even if heavily centralised constitutionally (look at the kaveri conflicts for example)
Quasi federalism with a unitary tilt
5:56 It's cause "Dadra and Nagar Haveli" and "Daman and Diu" were separate Union Territories before they were merged together
i've always known them as 2 separate ones, when did they merge? i haven't kept up with India news for a few years
@@pqrstsma2011the same exact moment when JK and Ladakh separated
Correction:
Prime Minister can also be elected from among the Members of Rajya Sabha, as in Manmohan Singh who served as Prime Minister from 2004 to 2014 while being a Member of Parliament of Rajya Sabha from Assam
U hv got almost right,but 2 correction worth mentioning :-
1.its not necessary that PM gets elected from lok-sabha,(its ideal situation), unlike UK.But anyone can become PM,choosen by majority party but he/she must gets a membership in either of the two houses within 6 months of taking charge.(same for the ministers)
2.There is no post like deupty PM,( Constitution doesn't mention, its not a rule), it's just occasionally to satisfy the coalition partners.Since past 20 yrs India has no deputy PM.
Of such complicated Nation & its politics,ur explanation in such lucid manner, deserve a applause.
In most cases it was the Home minister who was declared as the Deputy prime minister.
@@agniswar3Home minister of which state?
@@maquacr7014 The Home minister of India. In the history of India three Home minister went to became deputy prime minister.
@@agniswar3 What are the executive powers of home minister? I thought home minister of a state and not country.
@@maquacr7014 The home minister is ike the minister of internal affairs in other countries.
Basically for all those from Presidential systems, a Ceremonial President is just there as a reserve. The government runs in their name. They are re supposed to be impartial and have no partisan bias (though most are just retired politicians). It’s a leftover feature from a constitutional monarchy where the Monarch is the head of state and is there as a backup/reserve power/monitoring authority/representative of the entire nation and not just a party. Most parliamentary forms of government are either constitutional monarchies (UK, Japan, Netherlands, Spain, Malaysia) or parliamentary republics (India, Pakistan, Germany, Ireland)
Learned more about India in 6:55 than I have all year. Well done video!
Hi 💕
🤣
I blame the biased western media.
6:17 For other people not from India
There are also other Autonomous District Councils
Most of them from Northeast India
Ooooh we don't talk about the Northeast that's a WHOLE other can of worms.
@@HiveMynd Espicially with the current situations
@@Polavianus Yeah, the Manipur shitposing...
@@arpan9937 Northeast India trying not to have any crisis (Impossible)
@@Polavianus Northeast India trying to not have militants (impossible)
Some corrections
2:38 - no, the Prime Minister is not necessarily elected from the Lok Sabha. Only that the party or coalition having the majority will choose someone to become PM, they can be anyone qualified to be an MP in either house. If they are already not in the house, they are given six months to be elected to either house. Just to give an example, the Prime Minister before Modi was Manmohan Singh, who was in the Rajya Sabha and not the Lok Sabha.
6:16 J&K will also have its own Legislature on the lines of Puducherry.
Also the Government of India is called Central Government or Union Government interchangeably. However the proper term is the Government of India.
0:40 the words Socialist and Secular were forcefully added in 1970s under PM Indira Gandhi’s tenure, and was not present at Independence. India no longer is Socialist.
isn't the 'Socialism' part sort of representing the large control over some industries that the Indian state maintains, although far from "pure socialism" (what ever that is) dosn't Indian maintain a swath of industries thats partly or wholly government managed,
@@gawkthimm6030 yes. But after 1991 reforms and then subsequent reforms in various governments since then, India has allowed private sector participation in most things, although many government ones still run alongside as a ‘socialist’ scheme. Except for defence, there are no other sectors where private players haven’t already established. So now Indian model is more of a capitalistic one. Government also sold Air India, the only public Airline to a private player. BSNL telecom is breathing its last breaths, will be dissolved in the next 2 decades. Many Public a sector banks are being merged, soon there will be only a few left
@@DocPrakhar When I search for "Indian state owned companies", I still find a lot and on the wiki; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Government-owned_companies_of_India
India is a capitalist country until our economy reach $50T.
@@gawkthimm6030 Yes, they still exist but not really big outside of some "strategic sectors" like Defence, Energy and Banking. Several govt owned companies were privatized over the years either through gov offloading their stake through markets or putting up for outright sale through auction. Every year govt privatize some govt owned companies most of them except some large ones runs in losses.
You should check out how India counts and collects all those votes in such a big country with some very rural areas
That's a really good Idea 😃
There was definitely some violence here recently in the rural elections
@@Ironbanner12 panchayat election of West Bengal???
@@Ironbanner12Bengal? The commie infestation of violent cartels? Who would’ve thought?
@@saikatkhan7162 hmm indeed, blame the illegal immigrant causing a ruckus..the centre needs to kick them out.
ah yes, lemme watch a video about a country's political system which doesnt effect me at 12 pm midnight
Indian constitution sees States as administrative units rather than devolved powers. Federalism still maintains high degree of centralization both for political and pragmatic reasons (Some Indian States are just too poor to manage certain Departments, Central Govt funds close to 80% of their outlays). Power between States and Centre is dictated by 7th Schedule which maintains 3 separate lists - State, Union and Concurrent. This creates an interesting framework for balancing Political Power. For eg: Policing is in the State List, however Law and Order (aka Public Order) is in Concurrent List. So Central Govt cannot perform day to day policing but can get itself involved in serious degradation of public order or station Centrally Armed Police Force to maintain public order at facilities.
FACTUAL CORRECTION:
The Lok Sab elects the Prime Minister, however, the Prime Minister has to be a Member of Parliament, i.e., in one of the houses, not necessarily the Lok Sabha only.
As an Indian who have studied the Indian Polity, I can confirm you worked really hard and the information is Completely correct except 2 minor errors.
We want to rip out socialist term from preamble. It was illegally inserted
isn't that sort of representing the large control over some industries that the Indian state maintains, although far from "pure socialism" (what ever that is) dosn't Indian maintain a swath of industries thats partly or wholly government managed,
How was it illegaly inserted?
Parliament voted on it and it got passed. Nothing about it is Illegal
@@gawkthimm6030 it's a mixed mess
And bureaucratic hell hole
It's very unfriendly for new business and entrepreneurs. Red tape socialist govt
@@bhuvaneshs.k638 It sort of looks like it from the outside, but I wasn't sure, because of the huge scale of the Indian state as whole. I would guess its much easier if you are a large private company with an army or lawyers of bribes.
Dadra and Nagar haveli Daman and Diu were once part of Portugese India while Pondicherry it's exclaves Karaikal, mahe and yanam were part of French India. Goa also once part of Portugese India got statehood whereas aforementioned remained union territories.
Should have mentioned Panchayats, Grama Sabhas an ld Zilla Parishad. They are the basic structures of democratic fabric of India. I am also curious if such structures are present in other countries as well.
This is some top-notch animating and editing
I think every Indian would say that the Supreme court in india is the ultimate Goat in this process. They keep all this state and central government in check. Otherwise its sometimes all circus over here 😂😂😂
Absolutely. And high courts for states. Sometimes I wonder what would happen without supreme court and high courts 😵💫
It would have been great if this channel had also gone into detail about how the judiciary works and how those judges are appointed. And how accountability in the judiciary works.
The judiciary is completely unaccountable and is the most corrupt arm. A huge chunk of the blame for India's issues lies with the judiciary. It is a nepotism clube with sons succeeding fathers and appointing themselves. Not the best recipe for a democracy. Unless judicial appointments are reviewed by a parliamentary committee and appointed by a statutory committee, no change is possible. Right now VIP lawyers and NGOs have a total stranglehold. Justice is only for a powerful few with connects and money.
@@raghavantheerthagiri7888 Tread carefully. There are parts of India where the light of democracy does not shine. And your rights can be explained away.
@@death_parade You want democracy, you need an accountable judiciary. Not nepotist milords who give judgement sbased on their whim and fancies and pandering to cabals.
Most accurate video about India ever
Actually, really well explained
Yes you should definitly look into formation of Telangana. They led their own movement to seperate from Andra and form the new state Telangana. I am from Chhattisgarh and my state also carried out a movement to seperate from the larger Madhaya Pradesh. Due to this I was born in M.P. and live in C.G. although I live in the same city (Bastar) in which I was born.
Why not lead a movement to separate from India ? If Indian government allowed this , they can also grant freedom ? Or it's different for Telangana people and they don't want to be separated ?
@@daniyalbbd5281 I don't think anyone wants to separate from the country. Usually a state seperation is demanded because the government of the larger state can't give attention to every part of the state due to their "remoteness".
Chhattisgarh seperated from the larger Madhya Pradesh due to this line of thinking. I have seen the developments that has happened here after the seperation. Road widening, infrastructure developments, new airports, new steel plants etc.
I don't think anybody from Chhattisgarh wanted to separate from India. Just from state of Madhya Pradesh.
Fun fact: my Dad was a government employee and had to travel 841 km to headquarters of the government office in Bhopal, M.P. to get some work done.
After seperation, he had to travel only 300 km as the headquarters was in Raipur, Chhattisgarh
@@daniyalbbd5281it was to not get people to step on each other's toes. Intially, states were separated by ethnicities and micro cultures to prevent disputes. But no matter the state, all identify as Indians
It will keep happenning. Based on diversity of India, it needs 50 states.
@@daniyalbbd5281First, it's illegal. Second, unthreatened culturally enough.
India's supposed to be a parliamentary democracy, but in practice acts like an executive dominated democracy, Indian parliament is in practice far weaker than even the US Congress in the presidential USA, the same applies to state legislatures which are even more feeble than the national parliament. Some of this is structural resulting in the extraordinary powers the Indian constitution gave to the executive despite creating a parliamentary republic (for example the ability to create temporary laws called "ordinances" sort of like executive orders in USA), how it doesn't really prevent the executive from cutting down parliamentary sessions, the speaker not being very independent in practice, the way Indian parties function, the legal prevention of MPs going against party line in the parliament, etc. So when a government has a single party majority in the parliament, the parliament (especially the Lok Sabha) turns into a rubber stamp of the executive with very little actual checking of executive power. Theoretically the Rajya Sabha offers some protection against this but in practice there are ways to completely bypass it like randomly designating a bill as a "money bill" or calling a joint session. When factoring all that only the judiciary actually checks the executive, which is why at times when the executive is very strong electorally they end up at loggerheads with the judiciary and speak of expanding parliamentary power (proxy for their power) against the judiciary like in the 70s or what you were seeing just a few months ago.
Also the balance between the Union and the State is never very clear in practice either, states have gradually gotten more powerful overtime so although at the immediate post-independence period they were weak when compared to the centre and were easily dismissed by it through "presidential rule", today they're pretty powerful entities capable of going against national laws on a number of issues especially those on the concurrent list of the constitution (eg- Tamil Nadu rejecting the education policies of the centre) and are difficult to dismiss.
It is because after a long time (about 45years) a single party has absolute majority in central government.
Otherwise making any controversial and almost any decision in general was almost impossible, specially during parliamentary crisis of 90s.
Just because government with absolute majority gets it's way, doesn't make it worse than USA
An you are mostly right about the rest of the part.
thankfully atleast someone wrote this!
And everyone agrees that the Supreme court of India is the best amongst them . Even now and then they keep both state and central government in check . Sadly not having a majority in parliament has led to alot of side movement in policies rather than forward moving one like in recent times
indeed. In my view, the Indian state values federalism too much. This slows down the reforms which are mostly brought around by the centre. I think Centre should have the ability to shove down reforms in any states and if seen on priority basis, then the border states.
It is pretty accurate.
Good source for all the class 10 kids giving Pol Sc exam.
My guy showing president house as parliament lol.
You actually did a great job! I didn't catch any obvious mistakes. Although there's the joke about how the Indian government works - "who ever said it does?" 😂
Of course it works " Ram Bharose"😉😉😊
It's the epicentre of confusion.
I have never understood this disdain for the Indian government in the minds of the Indian people. Once a while, saying such things in frustration is acceptable. But making it a presupposition is dangerous. Objectively speaking, the Indian government does indeed work. Maybe not perfectly, but then which large nation's government is perfect?
..just joking. Was a part of the govt and I will say this. Know the existing rules, put your application or file on the route. Have patience. Never loose your temper. Keep following up. And work DOES get done.
@@death_paradewell not really .... the Indian government is extremely efficient in putting down rebellions and protests ( The Indian air force had bombed one of its own state capitals when a rebel group had occupied it ).
Its just that the Government isn't interested in solving other issues like erratic electricity, education issues, etc ... these are mainly due to corruption
Bro finally someone sensible put up the true map of India...hats off
As white American, the government of India fascinates me and I wished we learned more about it. It’s history as being based in British (and to a lesser extent French and Portuguese) colonial rule and being then taken over by locals, it’s importance in the Cold War and it’s status in helping India become a rising power.
India isn't rising it's just becoming what it was in past .
@@oxy2986 we are regaining our glory
@@oxy2986past ???
We were ruled over by the Europeans and Turks
@@rishavkumar1250 😂 no it is present dude I am talking about 400 years before now .
@@oxy2986 so India is going backwards? Lol. Go forward, not backwards, brother.
Very informative, indias finding a way to govern 1.5 billion people democratically republic society, way to go india!!
Finding ?😕 we are doing it since 1947 basically for 77 years
Proud to be an INDIAN🇮🇳👳
Great explanation...you explained almost all essential things in under 7 minutes 👏🏻👏🏻
Very well explained. Thanks for a great video. 🧡
That's actually quite a good explanation!
Good to have a new video. I guess that instead of them being ASAP, they have been WIFLI. It's basically the British system but without the King. In Canada, we have a system of divided sovereignty between the federal and provincial and at the federal level it's Prime Minister and Premier at the provincial.
I’m an Indian and have never seen a better explanation. Just one thing though: the Council of Ministers is not the cabinet, the cabinet is composed of the top ministers within the Council of Ministers.
India also has panchyat Raj institutions means at district and villages govt levels elections. Its much more democratized
Woah that was information dense… imma rewatch this
Indian Prime minister can be elected either from the upper house(rajya Sabha) or the lower house(lok sbha) and not just the lower house 2:34
That's is absolutely incorrect. The PM comes solely from the lok sabha
@@aaronnrodgers PM Indira Gandhi's first term(64-67) she is from Rajya Sabha. Later she contested from Lok Sabha.
@@aaronnrodgers our last PM Dr. Manmohan Singh was from Rajya sabha (upper house ) served from 2004 - 2014
@@aaronnrodgersthoda padh le...bolne se pehle
Manmohan Singh was not a lok sabha member...he was from rajya sabha
2:35 The prime minister can be elected from either of the houses. For example Dr. Manmohan Singh was from the Rajya Sabha, on the other hand Narendra Modi is from Lok Sabha.
India is a Union, which is different from a federal or Quasi federal state, like US UK, and any other. A Union is the strongest and most United form of a country.
In Indian Union, there are provisions, for Inclusion of states, but not secession, like US. Like, Sikkim was not part of India, but joined later. Nepal and Baluchistan also offered to join, i don't know why but the government declined the offers.
All in all India is an Unbreakable entity.
In US succession is illegal
5:55 it's not National capital territory, it's NCR (National Capital Region), not to dislike the video, just pointing out
The word federal is never mentioned anywhere in Indian constitution
But it did described India as a union of states.
@@Kaito028 , yeah, so!!?????
@@Edward4Plantagenet federalism.
India has a federal structure with a unitary bias.
One will find features of both federalism and unitarianism in India.
1:45 u showed the picture of the Rashtrapati Bhavan - Residence of the Indian President while referring to the Parliament, which is a different building. Otherwise, good video.
It is not called Raj Bhavan but Rashtrapati Bhavan.
@@agniswar3 yeah yeah my bad, Raj bhavan is the governor's house
Thank you for the video❤❤❤
TIF India has a president and it is not Modi. Are there any good videos explaining why some presidents like Macron and Biden are in charge and there is no or less powerful PM but in some cases lik Scholz and Modi the PM is in charge and nobody really knows the president. And then there is Russia where the importance of the PM/President changed with Putin.
Look up the difference between presidential form of government and parlimentary form of government.
00:04 India has a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic with a parliamentary form of government.
00:55 India is a democratic republic with a federal government.
01:53 Indian legislature is bicameral with Lok Sabha as lower house and Rajya Sabha as upper house.
02:41 The Indian Government works through the election of a leader to be the Prime Minister.
03:35 The Indian government consists of the Council of Ministers and the Judicial branch.
04:26 The Supreme Court reviews laws and ensures they don't violate the constitution.
05:12 States in India have their own legislative assemblies, some of which are bicameral.
06:01 Indian territories have their own local governments.
Crafted by Merlin AI.
mf explained india better than our own indian textbooks
Have you ever read Jayanti Sengupta's books?
They explain quite well.
They are just confusing. I hated civics lol
@@arpan9937
Unfortunately, for both of us, I love civics.
Ncert is trash, and is written by idiots specially the social studies. Maths and science are fine tho
You haven't studied textbooks then.
2:45
Its not Always required that the Prime minister be a member of Lok Sabha (people's house) ,he/she can be member of Rajya Sabha(council of States) too.
The only requirement is he/she should have the support of majority of members of the Loksabha and be a Member of *Parliament*.
Fun fact :- The President can also appoint a person as PM or any minister ,even if they currently not a member of Parliament but only for a period of six months .
If within six months they dont get elected to either house then they must resign . 2:45
Very well explained yet simple. The map shown is an accurate depiction of what is under Indian control. Brace yourself for "incorrect map" comments but what you showed is accurate.
Slight Inaccuracy: The biggest party in the lok sabha that has proven majority does get to chose the PM but, the PM doesn't have to be from lok sabha, He can be ANY Member of Parliament. Meaning he can also be a member of rajya sabha...
Manmohan Singh was from Rajya Sabha, and he was the PM in UPA govt.
Nirmala Sitharaman is the current Finance Minister and she's also from Rajya sabha...
Thank you for using the images of new parliament 😅
It was a great video :)
There is extreme delegation of powers to the states in India, which is why India managed to stay united without any coups (unlike nearly all neighbours). Its also one of the reasons development is so hard to come by.
Example:
Party A gets elected into a state. Party A plans for X development projects which are opposed by all opposition parties (because then the people will look up to party A for bringing in development) and opposition parties use all powers possible (fake news, minority oppresion rhetoric, local jobs being lost, people losing land, dragging foreign media into the problems, polluting the environment, etc.). Then the next election opposition gets elected and goes on with literally the same projects they rejected that Party A brought up and now Party A is opposing them.
At the end of the day, nobody wins and no development comes.
Only recently have things started changing, because Hindus of almost all states have started voting in the same party (BJP) so this party can coordinate projects that involve multiple states (freeways, railways, etc.). So now we have sort of an electoral autocracy which i am very proud of, because finally work is actually getting done.
Some people might not like it but you are absolutely right.
Maybe you people should come out of fallacious reasoning land and look at the actual data or read modern Indian history. The period when India had most of it's economic growth was also when the party at the state and that at the centre were least likely to be the same. There has been very little evidence to show that the same party being in the state and centre actually leads to better economic and social outcomes, even voters aren't convinced by this "double engine sarkar" theory anymore (support for the idea has only dropped in state elections in my state since 2016, and BJP's prospects in other non-BJP ruled states and even many of their own states in state elections aren't that great either), hell even Modi did not believe in this crap when he was a CM.
Also lmao most Hindus don't even vote for the BJP and they under perform in states with higher than national average Hindu population.
I mean Telangana,Andhra,Tamil Nadu have their own parties and they are developing so your narrative is only somewhat true in that it applies to states which don't really have native parties or if they do these are much more corrupt and dependent on larger national parties than their southern counterparts
@@thelakeman2538 You're correct that Indian people don't believe in " Double Engine Sarkaar" anymore
atleast in my state, RAJASTHAN
THE CM, Ashok Gehlot is the most liked politician, but BJP always wins in Lok Sabha Elections
And chances are it'll win again !
The day we stop responding to identity politics, we'll start having good govt. in every state.
Im surprised you didnt mention the Vice President, leader of Rajya Sabha basically
How does the Indian government work? Incompetently.
Not really, you just need to know the right people to bribe.
@@DustinLaGrizaThats sentence is so Ironic it gave me iron poisoning.
Happens when your recruitment process is prone to a scam every other week, and despite millions of people undertaking your recruitment exams, almost all of them are heavily understaffed because you've chronically underfunded most departments and agencies so they literally cannot hire many who pass those exams. If the state institutions are broken then of course the government operates incompetently.
You are an American citizen commenting on Indian political incompetence. Sit down brother your presidents are literal pedophiles, rap*sts and crybabies who refuse to leave parliaments when they lose. Indian government has improved a lot under modi government, especially compared to how high high corruption used to be before modi. Corruption was institutionalized before him. At least that stopped. Sure, corruption on a lower level is possible
Not after 2014 nowdays Local govts are going wild. Central govt is all okay
Kinda bad that I have to refer to a foreign channel FOR MY OWN COUNTRY'S GOVERNMENT but damn you did a great job explaining the basics! sigh wish our own media would be even half as good as you
There are multiple Indian YT channels that have made better videos on the topic.
all you have to do is look. Also yt algorithm is such that you may not always be recommended the good stuff.
Bs dk bcoz you didn't pay attention in basic civics class, you are here simping over a yt channel 😂😂😂
This is taught in 7 and 8 class civics subject NCERT
@@death_parade all are hindi videos. What about those who dont speak hindi
We had our Partition kind of like US's North vs South civil wars. So we later made sure no more partition takes place and settle things amicably.
Nope. It was nothing like US. US had a proper civil war. India didn't have any civil war, there was no Indian military involved. It was muslim fanatics and muslim nationalists who did violent riots and massacres in areas dominating muslim population to force Indian govt to accept Partition. Even as Pakistan declared itself islamic republic, Indian govt refused to become a Hindu republic or even a republic with atleast state religion...It was obsessed with socialism and USSR and India became a country with same kind of insecure Central Govt like USSR had with little to no federalism on ground but federalism in school textbooks and constitution to give a sugar-coated view.
@@Rahul_Singh100so true khilafat movement and direct action day way not to get freedom from colonial brits but was establish sharia supremacist ideals over majority, thus asking for separate nation a fake country, where people are getting killed everywhere everyday its called paxtan
'Badly' was the first word that came to mind
Not really, but sometimes yes.
Atleast we never had a military coup & stood on our feet to a point of actually preserving a democratic system.
Name any other country which hasn't fallen into a civil war or a military coup, right after independence...
The constituion & the machinery may not be the best, but it held us firm on our feet.
Hopefully, its a matter of time where we outgrow those limitations.
@@chrismathewjoseph1283Australia. New Zealand. Canada.
That is three countries at the very least.
@@maquacr7014 all 3 countries r still dominions of Britain, so aren't they technically not an independent republic?? 😹
@@chrismathewjoseph1283 Lol that is not how it works.
Good video, just one correction that could be made is that use the correct map of India.
China has progressed because of its government India is progressing despite it.
It's the other way around.
Favourite Indian pass-time: slandering the Indian government while not giving a f**k about civic sense.
Well both governments have their flaws, but china being almost like a dictatorship does help the speed of decision making.
@@Tejas_ Authoritarian speed of decision making also means decisions with little oversight or public discourse which leads to stupid policies like the one-child policy that blow back in your face.
Democracies that involve public discourse do have slow decision making, but such decision making is more stable. Ofcourse this can only happen when the electorate/voters are not complete idI0ts.
In real life, most voters are idi0ts who seldom pay attention to the policy aspects, rather they only pay attention to their own bottom line and fall victim to vote bank politics or freebie politics.
Quality > Speed. The CCP will not exist by the next century.
Nice video. Thanks!
Cool
You did a good job loved this video got to know so much about india
India having a ceremonial president and a prime minister who is really in charge is wild to me
It's more common than not. A lot of democratic based countries (both republics and monarchies) have that split.
Why would that be wild? That's how most parliamentary democracies work
@@sirBrouwer I guess I'm not used to a government that isn't a parliamentary monarchy doing the same thing to an elected position like a president 😅 The only other example I can think of is Singapore
uk has a ceremonial head if they over throw the monarchy and have a president instead its almost the exact same
@@fra604 might be my bias of not knowing a lot of parliamentary republics then
Thank you.
That was a great video. You sir have truly managed to summarise one of the most confusing institutions on the planet. Beneath the infinie levels of Byzantine bureaucracy, there exists a system that somehow works. It has managed to hold itself (even if barely) for almost 80 years now. That's a huge feat considering the examples of many other post-colonial nations sharing similar starting conditions. I'd say the secret to this lies in something called the Panchayati raj. Surely you might have come across it while researching for this video. It essentially treats every village(of which there are a lot in India) as a republic of it's own, with it's own council(panchayat). Now this isn't something India created after 1947. The panchayati system of governance has been present in India in one form or the other since atleast the time of the 16 Mahajanapadas. Across millennia the core of which makes up India has stayed the same. This means the way society is structured and "managed" has been able to go through quite some refining. Invaded time and time again by foreign threats, this system has survived the test of time into the modern era and continues to guide the democratic values in such a humongous nation. No wonder India gets to title itself the largest democracy in the world and rightly so.
how 'barely'. India hasn't lost an inch of actually held territory since inception, and has only grown
Well. India did have it's own powers before the Islamic invasions, it was after the fall of the Karakota Dynastry that the turks succeeded in invading Sindh. And the Maratha Empire was one of the modern powers that destroyed the mughal empire and then was crushed by the British empire. But I do agree with you, across millenniums, what makes India as India remains the same, it will uphold dharma till the end of time.
Bruh the last genaral election was held in 2019 not 2018, how did you miss that
This was well-timed since I just recently listened to a video about the history of modern India's economy lol. Thank you for this informative episode.
God be with you out there everybody. ✝️ :)
You painfully got Bharat's map wrong
@khanubis now make how Chinese government works
There is a video on the channel with that topic
Done!
ruclips.net/video/_fqQEYNBb7Y/видео.html
Simple: Xi is boss.
Wrong India map!
It works?
For your kind information, you have used distorted map of India in video ..
Please correct it in upcomming videos
Short answer: It doesn't.
Edit: Chill, people, chill. My joke about the inefficiency of the Indian government is as surface level as it seems and contains literally no other deeper meanings.
Accurate
I think u are a native
If it doesn't then how despite all odds India is still united as a single country??
@SavedPlaylists am I
@@NaSaSh1087 I sometimes wonder that honestly, but good for them
Socialist and secular were added by indira gandhi.
And?
bro u really had to forget my boi ladakh?
" North Sentinel Island is here (do not go there) " loved it 🤣🤣🤣 6:05
Kinda reminds me of the roman Republic
Indian States in their current Borders and State didn't existed in history because they are created by Indian constitutional order.
Indian States Aren't Monoethenic, Monolingual, Mono religious. There are lot of disputes between states.
Class 9th civics class lecture
North Sentinel Island looks like a good place for a holiday.
1:24
Please show India's map accurately
Meh at 1:26 it does show everything we claim as ours.
@@noistivmuestiliv3300 I've noticed many youtubers try to include PoK and Aksai China but always end up missing Shaksgam Valley 😂
Sometimes, they even miss Arunachal Pradesh, Andaman and Nicobar and once I saw a horrid map where the entire Himalayas, including Himachal, Sikkim and Uttarakhand was in China 💀
@SavedPlaylistsno because the Siachen glacier is not shown in India.
It's just Internationally accepted map
1:31 you are showing the wrong map of india
That's why western media calling modi dictator doesn't understand how tough its to be dicatator in india.
Actually it's quite easy to be a dictator in India. Federalism is only lip service in India. It's absolute unitary power in India in hands of Union Govt. The worse thing is a dictator needn't even declare that he/she is a dictator because the structure is designed that way and gullible Indian public fanboy Union Govt as uncorrupt, innocent, absolute representation of patriotism.
@@Rahul_Singh100 I guess the people voted and elected him, didn't they? Then how exactly is he a dictator? If you don't like his policies, you can always vote him out of power.
Also saying that the Center has all the power in India and acts like a dictator is completely wrong. Our constitution has done a good job of dividing the power between different Center and State governments and different branches of government. Though it can be said that the Center is comparatively more powerful than the States, but that still does not make the Center a dictator.
@@pratyush1162 I didn't mention anyone's name. Why are you over reading so much?
@@pratyush1162 _"Our constitution has done a good job in dividing power between centre and state"_ ....is a school textbook sentemce that students mug in India but just because you have mugged it doesn't mean it's necessarily true.
In reality , Central Govt does have unfairly high amount of power, control, influence and say in each and every affair of India and Indian states. Central Govt can impose em3rgency (which already happened in 1976) and can distort constitution unilaterally if it wants and states can't do anything about it. State govts will become Null. It already have happened in 1976. Courts can be dissolved, state govts can be shut down, states can be diVided without their consent, their resources can be extracted and land be given away to foreign countries and much much more, all so that interests and Treasury of Central Govt is filled.
Central Govt has unequally high amount of power. The only reason it's not doing so in the open is because it doesn't need to. Centre already is having it's interests being met anyway.
People are conditioned to be fanboys of Central Govt where they can't even assume that Central Govt can be as corrupt, as malicious as any other state govt. People assume Central Govt and it's agencies are unconditionally patriotic, unbiased and what not from watching bollywood movies ,but reality is far from fiction.
@@pratyush1162 Btw, Central Govt already has used Emergency laws to ban a documentary on PM
and recently also invoked emergency laws to force Coal power plants to maximize their output.
For good or bad, emergency laws have been used by Centre and states can't do anything about it.
Constitution itself states that in a matter of dispute between state and centre, it will be the centre whose decision will supercede that of state, and at other times it will be decided by President (which itself is quite f00lish since President is nominated by the houses of Parliament in which the party in Central Govt has majority always, and also the fact that President is literally employed and housed by Central Govt)
Thanks for letting me know that Indian Government works!
Indians like here
👇
What if I'm not Indian?
@@henk-3098 then....don't like? Idk why is this soo complicated for you
@@jensenjorshina9945 that's racist dude
@@henk-3098 Tell me one thing that was racist about my reply.
A really interesting time to visit India is during the weeks prior to the start of voting. In 2004 I spent some time in Bhopal and had the opportunity to see the campaign process first hand. My trip was unrelated to such topics related to politics so I was unaware of the election environment so seeing the large gatherings in the fields outside of the city was impressive. Travel in the city on the weekend was impossible because most of the traffic circles were occupied by campaign speakers surrounded by massive throngs of people. All of these gatherings were sponsored by the party that went on to win that election cycle. When I returned home I started following global media coverage with a heightened interest and was surprised to find none of the coverage was giving even the slightest of a correct prediction on the eventual victor for that cycle. Publications like the FT were doing all of their reporting from an office desk in London or the clubhouse of like minded. Even the most casual of first hand on the scene observations like mine spoke of an inconvenient truth which did not reflect the “good facts” reality of global media.
This was too oversimplified. It is nowhere as simple as you said
Can you do better? If not, shut up.
Great video.
👍
I genuinly believe if India became an Absolute Monarchy they would be by the far the most powerful country within 25 years, democracy is a flawed system that does not work in developing nations
Bullshit
*Something you got painfully wrong- The map of India.*
At this point, you must be confused why Indians complain so much about the map thing, so let me explain- Some parts of the areas of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh are illegally occupied by Pakistan and China. This is in violation of India's sovereignty (after all, we are a "sovereign" democratic republic) and thus Indians feel as if you are (unintentionally) helping the illegal occupiers by not showing the occupied parts in India's map.