Compare the British model of devolution with Indian asymmetric federalism in accommodating regional identities.

Both the U.K. and India are unions of diverse peoples, but they make room for regional identity in different ways. Britain devolves power from a sovereign Westminster to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland [1]. India writes differentiated autonomy into its Constitution within an "indestructible Union". The Cardiff MoU of September 2026, in which three First Ministers backed independence [6], shows how differently the two models handle pressure from regional identity.

Similarities

• Strong centre: Westminster remains sovereign and can legislate on any subject [1]. India's Parliament can alter State boundaries under Article 3 [4].
• Asymmetry by design: each U.K. nation has its own settlement. Northern Ireland's rests on the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement (1998), which requires power-sharing between communities and lets people identify as British, Irish or both [3]. In India, Articles 371A–371J and the Sixth Schedule give particular States and tribal areas special protection [4].

Differences

• Source of autonomy: U.K. powers come from ordinary statute. They are protected mainly by the convention that Westminster will not normally legislate on devolved matters without consent [1]. India's special provisions sit in a written Constitution.
• Unit of identity: Britain recognises historic nations. India accommodates overlapping identities: linguistic States, tribes (Autonomous District Councils) and regions (Art. 371A protects Naga customary law and land ownership) [4].
• Exit option: in Britain, secession is politically negotiable but legally controlled. The U.K. Supreme Court (2022) held that an independence referendum is a matter reserved to Westminster [2]. India permits no secession, and Art. 19(2) allows restrictions on speech in the interest of its sovereignty and integrity [4].
• Shared institutions: India gives States a voice through the Rajya Sabha and an Inter-State Council (Art. 263), set up on the Sarkaria Commission's recommendation [5]. U.K. intergovernmental relations rest mostly on convention [1].

Assessment

• U.K.: flexible and respectful of nationhood. However, it is fragile when the biggest decisions stay with the centre. Brexit is the example, which is why the MoU pairs independence with closer EU ties [6].
• India: the approach has been to accommodate, then integrate. The Mizo Accord was followed by Art. 371G [4] and turned an insurgency into a State. Tensions remain over delimitation and fiscal transfers.

Britain's model recognises nations but leaves the Union's own terms to Westminster. India's constitutional asymmetry gives distinct identities a lasting stake inside the Union. Both would benefit from stronger cooperative federalism, such as a regularly functioning Inter-State Council and consent-based reform. That would follow the Sarkaria idea of unity through accommodation rather than uniformity.