{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02640642939150402, 'fraction_numerical': 0.022962112514351322, 'mean_word_length': 5.656488549618321, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Multiple identities, dual loyalties and the stabilisation of federalism in India: Observations on Maya Chadda's ‘integration through internal reorganization: Containing ethnic conflict in India’

Maya Chadda's article (Chadda 2002) on the Mntegrative capacity' of the Indian federation and its contribution to building an 'Indian nation' covers many issues. She seeks to explain the differences in the rationale behind the reorganisations of the 1950s, 1970s and in 2000. From a comparative federal perspective, the creation of the states of Jharkhand, Chattisgarh and Uttaranchal in September 2000 was a radical and innovative step. Yet, as Chadda identifies, on one level, these reorganisations continued a trend set since independence. The Indian state has continuously reorganised its internal political boundaries in order to manage the diversity within its borders.