Typologies of Federal Formation

Only the third statement is accurate. India is a 'Holding together' federation (a large unit dividing power), while the US is 'Coming together' (independent units uniting). The first statement is false because the 1991 reforms actually strengthened federalism by decentralizing economic controls and granting states greater fiscal autonomy to attract private investment. The second statement is false because while an independent judiciary is essential for federalism to arbitrate disputes, 'Judicial Supremacy' (where courts dominate the legislature absolutely) is not a required federal feature.

The Assertion is true; Indian states did not form the union via treaty. Reason 1 correctly supports this by defining the 'Holding together' model of federalism, where power is divided by a preexisting nation. Reason 2 is false; 'Judicial Supremacy' has nothing to do with forcefully merging international territories.

The second correction is sound. The US is a 'Coming together' federation formed by an agreement among independent states. India is a 'Holding together' federation; the country existed first and divided itself into states for administrative convenience. Because the Indian states did not form the union via a voluntary treaty, they possess absolutely no right to secede.

Only the first claim is verifiable (1991 reforms strengthened state fiscal autonomy). Statement 2 is false (an independent judiciary is required, not judicial supremacy). Statements 3 and 4 have their definitions completely swapped: The US is 'Coming together', while India is 'Holding together'.