Statement–Argument — Should India be ruled by a coalition of regional parties? Arguments: I) Yes; greater state voice at the centre could reduce alienation and secessionist pressures. II) No; coalition governments are unstable and crisis-prone. Choose the strong argument(s).

Introduction / Context:Federal democracies must integrate diverse regional interests while maintaining governability. Coalitions can amplify regional voices but may also fragment authority.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Regional representation can improve policy fit and legitimacy.
• Multi-party coalitions can suffer coordination failures and frequent bargaining.
• Electoral systems and coalition design affect stability.

Concept / Approach:Argument I is strong: inclusion of states can lower centre–state friction and reduce separatist sentiment. Argument II is also strong: instability risks are real. Because both articulate independent, policy-relevant considerations, “either” is appropriate.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:Comparative politics shows coalitions can be stable with clear agreements; others falter—supporting both arguments.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Only I/Only II” ignore the countervailing dimension; “Neither” denies observable realities.

Common Pitfalls:Equating all coalitions with instability; design matters.

Final Answer:If either I or II is strong.