Federalism · Class 10 Political Science: 225 MCQs with answers

a central authority and various constituent units of the country

The first option describes the horizontal distribution of power among organs, which is a different form of power sharing altogether.

a few subjects of common national interest

Day-to-day administering belongs to the state or provincial governments; the national level handles subjects of common national interest.

—

two or more levels, or tiers, of government

Two or more, so a third tier may be added without the country ceasing to be federal.

In the constitution

So every tier's existence and authority carries a constitutional guarantee rather than granted by another level.

Both the levels of government

Requiring both is precisely what stops the stronger level rewriting the arrangement to suit itself.

—

a Union of States

It did not use the word federation, although the Indian Union is based on the principles of federalism.

Two

A two-tier system of the Union Government and the State governments. Panchayats and Municipalities were added later as a third tier.

Panchayats and Municipalities

It was added after the original two-tier design, and as in any federation the tiers enjoy separate jurisdiction.

the first and a major test for democratic politics in India

It was the first of three ways in which federalism was strengthened in practice, the others being language policy and Centre-State relations.

the coming together of at least two political parties

The partners generally enter an alliance and agree a shared programme before governing.

power moved down out of the Centre and the States into local government

Power moves downward from both higher levels, and the resulting third tier is called local government.

Local self-government

It follows from the point that people can directly participate in decision making at the local level.

1992

An amendment to the Constitution set out to give the third tier real power and real effect.

Both levels enjoy their power independent of the other

Independence of each level from the other is the feature that separates a federation from a unitary state with provinces.

either there is only one level, or the sub-units are subordinate to the centre

Subordination is the key word. A unitary state may well have provinces, but the centre can pass on orders to them.

It holds powers in its own right and need not account to the centre for them

Because the powers are its own, the central government cannot order the state government to do something within that sphere.

separately to the people

Neither answers upward or downward to the other. A voter elects both and can hold each to account for its own failures.

a unitary to a federal form of government

Making regional powers constitutional rather than revocable is precisely what converted the system from unitary to federal.

It continues, for all practical purposes, to be a unitary system

The national government has all the powers, which is why Tamil leaders have wanted the country to become federal.

independent states join on their own to form a bigger unit

They pool sovereignty and retain identity so as to increase their security, which is why they guard their powers afterwards.

USA, Switzerland and Australia

India, Spain and Belgium are the holding-together examples, in which the centre tends to be more powerful.

India, Spain and Belgium

Each of these is a large country, or in Belgium's case an existing state, that decided to divide its power downward.

safeguard and promote unity of the country, and accommodate regional diversity

The two aims pull against each other permanently, and holding both at once is what a federal arrangement is for.

geographical boundaries, or certain kinds of subjects

The second sense is the one students drop, and Indian federalism divides jurisdiction by subject far more than by boundary.

25 countries, 40 per cent of the world's population

Federalism is rare among countries and common among people, because most large countries are federations.

Switzerland — coming together

Switzerland belongs with the USA and Australia. Spain and India, like Belgium, are holding-together federations.

All constituent states are strong relative to the centre

That last feature belongs to coming-together federations, whose states joined voluntarily and kept their strength.

—

—

—

—

Any five points. 1 mark — in a unitary system there is one level, or sub-units subordinate to the centre. 1 mark — the centre can pass on orders to the provincial or local government. 1 mark — in a federal system the centre cannot order a state government to act. 1 mark — the state has powers in its own right, for whic…

—

Any five points. 1 mark — the balance varies between federations and depends mainly on the historical context of formation. 1 mark — coming together: independent states join on their own to form a bigger unit. 1 mark — pooling sovereignty while keeping their identity to increase security; examples USA, Switzerland, Aus…

—

Any five points. 1 mark — the dual objectives: safeguard and promote unity, and accommodate regional diversity. 1 mark — the two aims pull in opposite directions, which is why the arrangement is needed. 1 mark — the different levels of government must settle on rules for sharing power. 1 mark — each must also believe t…

the same citizens, each tier having its own jurisdiction

The same citizen is governed by both tiers, in respect of different subjects. This is the clause students most often reverse.

legislation, taxation and administration

Three kinds of jurisdiction, not one: making the rules, raising the money and running things.

cannot be altered by one level of government acting alone

Such changes require the consent of both the levels of government, which is what protects the guarantee created by the previous feature.

The authority to say what the constitution means and what each level may do

Interpretation is an ongoing function, distinct from the occasional role of umpiring an actual dispute.

levels of government fall out over how their powers are being used

The umpiring role is specifically about clashes between levels over their respective powers.

sources of revenue for each level are clearly specified, ensuring financial autonomy

Specified sources, rather than an annual share handed down, are what make a level financially independent.

Every constituent unit must hold exactly the same powers

Equal powers for all units is not a feature of federalism as such; in holding-together federations units very often have unequal powers.

Making rules, raising money and running things

Legislation, taxation and administration, so a tier's authority is not confined to passing laws.

The highest court, acting as umpire

Neither disputant may decide its own case, so the highest court umpires disputes over the exercise of respective powers.

That a level has revenue sources of its own rather than depending on another level

Clearly specified sources are what make the autonomy real; an annual grant decided elsewhere would not.

—

—

—

Any five points, each being a feature correctly stated. A mark is given for the feature; credit the consequence where offered. 1 mark — two or more levels or tiers of government. 1 mark — different tiers govern the same citizens, each with its own jurisdiction in legislation, taxation and administration. 1 mark — juris…

—

Any five points. 1 mark — tiers alone settle nothing, since a unitary state may have them. 1 mark — each tier therefore gets its own jurisdiction, but a granted jurisdiction can be withdrawn. 1 mark — so jurisdictions are specified in the constitution, guaranteeing existence and authority. 1 mark — a constitution amend…

—

Any five points. 1 mark — the first feature is met: more than one tier exists. 1 mark — the second is met: provinces have their own subjects while governing the same citizens. 1 mark — the third appears met, since jurisdictions are specified in the constitution. 1 mark — the fourth fails: amendment by one level alone,…

Defence, foreign affairs, banking, communications, currency

All five need a uniform policy throughout the country, which is the reason given for grouping them together.

Police, trade, commerce, agriculture, irrigation

These are subjects of State and local importance, on which the State Governments alone can make laws.

The law made by the Union Government

A conflict rule is necessary wherever two authorities may legislate on the same subject, and India's favours the Union.

The Union Government

Residuary subjects are those falling in none of the three lists, including subjects that arose after the Constitution was made.

Computer software

It did not exist when the Constitution was written, so it falls in none of the three lists and goes to the Union.

All States do not have identical powers, and some enjoy a special status

Unequal powers are typical of federations formed by holding together, so this is a variation within the system rather than a departure from it.

Assam, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram

They hold these powers because of their unusual social and historical background.

areas too small to become an independent State and unmergeable with existing States

Chandigarh, Lakshadweep and Delhi are the examples given. They do not have the powers of a State.

It does not have the powers of a State, and the Central Government has special powers in running it

They are a different category rather than a smaller version of a State.

Passage by both Houses of Parliament with at least a two-thirds majority

Ratification by the States is the second stage, and it is that stage which makes the procedure federal.

Approval by the legislatures of half the States or more

At least half of the total States must ratify, so the level whose powers are being changed has to consent.

By levying taxes, each having the power to raise resources

Both levels have the power to raise resources by levying taxes for the responsibilities assigned to each of them, which is financial autonomy in practice.

It may be completed by Parliament acting on its own

Parliament cannot on its own change the arrangement; the ratification stage is what gives the States a say in their own powers.

—

—

—

—

Any five points. 1 mark — the Constitution declared India a Union of States, without using the word federation. 1 mark — originally two tiers, Union and State, with a third tier of Panchayats and Municipalities added later. 1 mark — the Union List, its examples and the reason of uniform policy. 1 mark — the State List…

—

Any five points. 1 mark — all States do not have identical powers; some enjoy a special status. 1 mark — Assam, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram under Article 371, owing to unusual social and historical background. 1 mark — the special powers relate to land rights of indigenous peoples, culture, and preferential…

—

Any five points. 1 mark — the Union List, with examples, and the reason of uniform policy throughout the country. 1 mark — the State List with examples, on which States alone legislate. 1 mark — the Concurrent List with examples, on which both may legislate. 1 mark — the conflict rule: the law made by the Union Governm…

necessary but not sufficient for success

The real success of federalism in India is attributed to the nature of democratic politics rather than to the provisions alone.

The nature of democratic politics in the country

Democratic politics ensured that the spirit of federalism, respect for diversity and the desire for living together became shared ideals.

So that people sharing a language would share a State

Some States were nonetheless created on other grounds, namely differences of culture, ethnicity or geography.

The disintegration of the country

The Central Government resisted linguistic States for some time because of this fear.

That it made the country more united and administration easier

A demand widely predicted to break the country up turned out to hold it together, which is the reversal the topic turns on.

About 44 per cent

Because a majority of Indians do not speak the official language at home, many safeguards were needed to protect other languages.

opt to take it in any of the Scheduled Languages

This is one of the safeguards that followed from declining to name a national language.

1965

The deadline was not kept, because many non-Hindi speaking States demanded that English continue.

Tamil Nadu

The Centre gave way, and allowed English to carry on in official use beside Hindi.

By agreeing to continue English along with Hindi for official purposes

The flexibility of this response is what the chapter contrasts with Sri Lanka's insistence on a single official language.

Misused the Constitution to dismiss them

The word 'misuse' matters: the text was not being broken but turned to a purpose it was not written for, which undermined the spirit of federalism.

The rise of regional parties and the era of coalition governments

With no one party winning an outright majority in the Lok Sabha, national parties had to ally with regional ones to form a government at the Centre.

More effective than before

The improvement came from the party system, the era of coalitions and a Supreme Court judgement rather than from any amendment.

Linguistic States, language policy, Centre-State relations

The first test concerned the map, the second the language of the state, and the third how the two levels actually dealt with one another.

States have their own official languages, and much government work takes place in them

So a citizen may deal with the State in a different language from the one used at the Centre, which is a safeguard in itself.

—

—

—

—

Any five points. 1 mark — constitutional provisions are necessary but not sufficient; success attributed to the nature of democratic politics. 1 mark — linguistic States created so that people speaking the same language lived in the same State. 1 mark — some States created on culture, ethnicity or geography instead: Na…

—

Any five points. 1 mark — Sri Lanka made Sinhala the only official language, disregarding Tamil. 1 mark — the consequences there: alienation, denied demands, civil war. 1 mark — India's Constitution gave national-language status to no language; Hindi is the official language. 1 mark — Hindi is the mother tongue of only…

—

Any five points. 1 mark — how the arrangements work depends largely on how ruling parties and leaders follow them. 1 mark — the same party ruling at both levels meant States did not exercise their rights as autonomous units. 1 mark — the Centre often misused the Constitution to dismiss rival State Governments, undermin…

Because States are as large as independent countries of Europe and are internally very diverse

The argument starts from scale, which is why power needs sharing within States as well as between them and the Centre.

Uttar Pradesh is bigger in population than Russia

The other comparison given is that Maharashtra is a match for Germany.

ward members often called panch, and a president or sarpanch

Every adult in the ward or village elects them directly, and the panchayat decides for the village as a whole.

At least twice or thrice a year, to pass the yearly budget and review the panchayat's performance

Two duties that a citizen elsewhere would delegate to a representative are here performed by every voter in the village.

a panchayat samiti, block or mandal

Its members are elected by all the panchayat members in that area, so it is built from the rung below it.

Can the central government pass on orders to the lower level?

Having provinces proves nothing, since a unitary system may have them. The power to give orders is what settles the question.

Regional governments were given constitutional powers no longer dependent on the centre

Regional governments existed even earlier with roles and powers of their own. What changed was the source of those powers, not their existence.

They were given by the central government and could be withdrawn by it

A power that the grantor may revoke is exercised on sufferance. Constitutional powers cannot be withdrawn in the same way.

Regional autonomy for Tamil-populated provinces

Regional autonomy is the demand for federalism under another name, and it was the one repeatedly denied.

equal in power and strong relative to the federal government

Because they joined voluntarily to increase their security, they kept their strength. Unequal powers are a feature of the other route.

They often have unequal powers, and some are granted special powers

Because power was shared out from the top, the centre keeps more of it and the units need not be treated identically.

I, II and III

I, II and III are correct. Statement IV reverses the position: units in a holding-together federation very often have unequal powers.

The historical context in which the federation was formed

The founding bargain sets the balance, which is why coming-together and holding-together federations end up so differently arranged.

Both A and R are true, but R is not the correct explanation of A

Both are true, but the wording the Constitution chose is not what makes trust necessary between the levels.

Because rules nobody is willing to honour are a document rather than an arrangement

Rules without trust go unhonoured; trust without rules lasts only while goodwill does. The ideal system has both.

Because most large countries are federations, yet Belgium is small

Most of the large countries of the world are federations, so a small country adopting federalism runs against the pattern.

Unitary, because the provinces' powers depend on the centre

This is exactly Belgium's position before 1993. Powers the centre may withdraw are not powers held independently.

A unitary system, since the centre can pass on orders

In a federal system the central government cannot order a state government to do something within the state's own sphere.

I, II and III

I, II and III are correct. Statement IV is false: the state has powers in its own right, for which it cannot be called to account by the centre.

Provincial powers had been placed beyond the centre's power to withdraw

This is the Belgian test of 1993. Decentralisation grants; federalism guarantees, and only the second survives a change of mind at the centre.

Because the founding bargain sets where power settles between centre and units

States that joined voluntarily kept their strength; units that received power from above left strength at the centre.

come of their own accord into a larger unit

They give up some independence for shared security while keeping what makes them distinct, which is the coming-together route.

Because safeguarding unity pulls power towards the centre while accommodating diversity pulls it towards the regions

Holding both aims at once is precisely what a federal arrangement is for, and the tension between them is the design rather than a defect in it.

A unitary system may also have provinces, but they are subordinate to the centre

The existence of sub-units settles nothing. What matters is whether they hold power independently or at the centre's pleasure.

Jurisdiction defined in terms of certain kinds of subjects

Both levels govern the same territory and the same citizens, so what separates them is the list of subjects each may legislate on.

—

—

Because each tier's jurisdiction covers different subjects

Jurisdiction here is defined by subject rather than by territory, which is the second sense of the word given in the previous topic.

Its existence and its authority

One protects the body from abolition and the other protects its powers from being hollowed out.

Because a level able to amend the constitution alone could rewrite the guarantee

Features 3 and 4 are two halves of one protection: written down, and not rewritable alone.

I, II and IV

I, II and IV are correct. Statement III reverses the fourth feature, which requires the consent of both levels.

Because a dispute between two levels cannot be settled by either of them

If the centre decided it would win every time, and if the state decided the reverse. The word 'umpire' captures being outside both sides rather than above them.

Because a tier that must ask another level for money cannot in practice exercise its powers

Guaranteed existence, guaranteed powers and a court to defend them all come to little if the means to act must be requested each year.

A is false but R is true

Without its own revenue it depends on another level for everything, so the assertion is false. The reason explains why revenue is specified.

The first six describe machinery while the seventh states its purpose

The seventh uses the word 'thus', because it draws the purpose out of the structure the previous six describe.

Jurisdictions specified in the constitution, guaranteeing their existence and authority

Their jurisdictions already existed; what they gained was constitutional guarantee rather than dependence on the centre.

Clearly specified sources of revenue for each level

Financial autonomy is absent, and without it the guarantees the other features provide cannot be exercised in practice.

I, II and III

I, II and III are correct. Amendment requires the consent of both levels of government and is not a judicial function.

Constitutional specification of jurisdictions — a tier cannot be abolished or hollowed out

Only the second pairing is right. The other three attach a feature to a consequence belonging elsewhere in the list.

That one level cannot change the fundamental provisions alone

Without the rule against unilateral amendment, the level able to amend could simply rewrite what the other relies on.

Because a unitary state may also contain tiers, though subordinate ones

The existence of tiers is only a starting point. The remaining features are what make those tiers genuinely independent.

Tiers, jurisdiction, constitutional specification, no unilateral change, courts, revenue, dual objectives

Each feature closes a gap the previous one leaves open, which is why the order is not arbitrary.

Six describe machinery and the seventh states the purpose it serves

The seventh uses the word 'thus' because it draws the dual objective out of everything preceding it.

That fundamental provisions cannot be unilaterally changed by one level

Such changes require the consent of both levels; otherwise the constitutional guarantee is provisional on the stronger level's forbearance.

Because an umpire stands outside both sides rather than above them

The court is not a higher level of government; it is an outside body applying the constitution to both levels alike.

That their powers and revenues are decided by the level above rather than guaranteed

Constitutional guarantee of existence and authority, plus specified revenue sources, are what separate a genuine tier from a delegated one.

Jurisdictions written into the constitution, which one level cannot change alone, given as a single feature

Constitutional specification and the bar on unilateral amendment are separate features doing separate jobs, and merging them offers one where two were available.

The level above cannot abolish it or reduce its subjects by itself

Longevity and administrative arrangements prove nothing. The test is whether another level can remove the tier or its powers unilaterally.

Close a gap that the preceding feature leaves open

Tiers alone prove nothing, so jurisdictions are added; jurisdictions could be withdrawn, so the constitution guarantees them; the constitution could be rewritten, so both levels must consent, and so on.

The states would hold powers they could not afford to exercise

This is the practical point behind the sixth feature: a level dependent on another for money cannot act on its own authority.

—

—

—

The Constitution did not use it, though the Union rests on federal principles

This is why the chapter argues from the arrangements rather than quoting a label, and why the seven features have to be checked one by one.

Because a uniform policy on them is needed throughout the country

The test is whether the subject requires the same treatment everywhere, which is also why local subjects sit on the State List.

The Concurrent List, and the Union law applies

Only a Concurrent List subject allows both to legislate at all, and where their laws conflict the law made by the Union Government prevails.

Because both levels may legislate on it, so contradictory laws are possible

On the Union and State Lists only one level may legislate, so no conflict can arise. The Concurrent List is the only one that needs a tie-breaker, and it gives it to the Union.

That the Union is treated as the default level, as is usual in a holding-together federation

Residuary power has to sit somewhere, and where it sits shows which level a constitution treats as the default.

safeguarding of indigenous peoples' rights over land, their culture, and preferential employment in government services

Concretely this means Indians who are not permanent residents of some of these States are restricted from buying land or a house there.

Restrictions on buying land or a house there

The restriction follows from the safeguarding of indigenous peoples' rights over land that Article 371 secures.

I, III and IV

I, III and IV are correct. Statement II is false: Union Territories do not have the powers of a State.

Both A and R are true, but R is not the correct explanation of A

Both are true. The three lists set out what the division is; they do not explain what it takes to change it.

To the High Courts and the Supreme Court, since neither party may decide its own case

The judiciary oversees the implementation of constitutional provisions, and in a dispute over how the powers are divided, the High Courts and the Supreme Court decide. A party to a dispute cannot judge it.

No, because the State may legislate on education, which is a Concurrent List subject

Education is on the Concurrent List, so the State may act. The Union's remedy would be its own legislation, which would prevail only in the event of a conflict.

No, because defence is a Union List subject on which the Union alone legislates

Union List subjects require a uniform policy throughout the country, and the Union Government alone can make laws relating to them.

No, because police is a State List subject

On State List subjects the State Governments alone can make laws, and in a federal system the centre cannot order a State to act within its own sphere.

I, II and III

I, II and III are correct. Statement IV reverses the rule: the law made by the Union Government prevails.

Adoption — Concurrent List

Adoption sits with education, forest, trade unions, marriage and succession on the Concurrent List. Irrigation is State, banking and currency Union.

The Union, because it holds the power over residuary subjects

This is precisely the situation the residuary provision was written for, and the textbook's own example of it is computer software.

Because federations formed by holding together commonly give unequal powers to their units

Equality among units is not a requirement of federalism. Unequal powers and special provisions are typical of the holding-together route.

That fundamental provisions cannot be unilaterally changed by one level

Requiring ratification by half the States is the Indian form of the rule that such changes need the consent of both levels.

Because the Constitution declared India a Union of States and avoided the word federation

The case therefore rests on showing that all seven features of federalism apply to the provisions of the Indian Constitution.

By whether the subject needs a uniform national policy or should fit local conditions

Defence, foreign affairs and currency must be the same everywhere; police, agriculture and irrigation properly vary from place to place.

—

—

—

differences of culture, ethnicity or geography

They are the textbook's named exceptions to the linguistic principle, and putting them among the linguistic States is a marked error.

A is false but R is true

The linguistic States case went the other way, so the assertion is false. The reason gives that case.

No language at all

National language status was given to nothing. What Hindi received was the title of official language, which means considerably less.

No language was ever given the status of national language; Hindi is the official language

The petition rests on a status the Constitution never conferred. It gave the status of national language to no language at all, identifying Hindi as the official language instead.

Twenty-one

Twenty-one others, which makes twenty-two in total. Questions here are often built by swapping the two figures.

Because many think it favoured the English-speaking elite, who were already advantaged

The chapter credits the decision with flexibility that helped India avoid Sri Lanka's situation, and records the criticism alongside it. A full answer gives both rather than choosing.

That Hindi may be encouraged but not imposed on States speaking a different language

Promotion does not mean imposition, and that distinction is exactly what separates India's policy from Sri Lanka's.

Alienation among non-Hindi speakers of the kind that followed a similar decision in Sri Lanka

The flexibility of Indian leaders is credited with helping the country avoid the kind of situation Sri Lanka finds itself in after making one language the only official one.

I, II and III

I, II and III are correct. Statement IV is false: promotion does not mean that Hindi can be imposed on States where people speak a different language.

To a large extent, since how they work in reality depends on how those arrangements are followed

This is the general principle behind the whole topic, and it is why the practice of federalism changed without the text changing.

Because one party was in office at the Centre and across most States at once

Rights that exist on paper may go unused when the same party holds office at both levels and has no interest in a contest.

A major Supreme Court judgement making arbitrary dismissal of State Governments difficult

The judgement changed the Centre's behaviour without changing a word of the text it was applying.

Because it depends on those parties' support to form and keep a government

Needing someone's votes is a powerful argument for respecting their powers, and the change came from the arithmetic rather than from a new provision.

That it came about without any constitutional amendment

What changed was who held power and how they chose to use it, which is what 'necessary but not sufficient' means in practice.

I, II and III

I, II and III are correct. Statement IV is false: the change came from the party system and a Supreme Court judgement, not from amendment.

Because deciding whose language the state uses decides who can deal with it on equal terms

This is why Sri Lanka's language Act alienated a whole community, and why India's safeguards and the continuation of English mattered so much.

Two — there is no national language, and examinations may be taken in any Scheduled Language

The Constitution gave the status of national language to no language, and a candidate may opt to take a Central Government examination in any of the Scheduled Languages.

That leaders were willing to change course when a settlement provoked serious opposition

That willingness is the flexibility the chapter credits with helping India avoid the kind of situation Sri Lanka finds itself in.

The new culture of respect for State autonomy might not have developed

State Governments did not exercise their rights as autonomous federal units precisely while one party held both levels, and the change came when that stopped.

—

—

—

Local decisions are always cheaper than national ones

Cost is not among the reasons. The fifth reason given is that participation inculcates a habit of democratic participation.

That participation inculcates a habit of democratic participation

Taking part is valuable not only for what it decides but for what it does to the people who take part.

Because they were under state government control, elections were irregular, and they had no powers or resources of their own

The need had been recognised in the Constitution and the bodies had been set up in all the States. Creating a body is not the same as empowering it.

Making regular elections to local bodies constitutionally mandatory

A State may neglect what it is merely expected to do. Once holding elections became a constitutional obligation, postponement was no longer a matter of State discretion.

No, because seats are reserved in the elected bodies and in the posts heading those bodies

The reservation covers both the elected bodies and the executive heads, so leadership positions cannot be excluded from it.

At least one-third

The words 'at least' make it a floor rather than a fixed share, and questions are often built by dropping them.

Because an independent institution in each State conducts panchayat and municipal elections under the amendment

The State Election Commission is independent and exists in every State precisely so that the conduct of panchayat and municipal elections does not rest with the State government itself.

That they share some powers and revenue, the nature of sharing varying from State to State

This is the one change of the five whose content each State decides, and every difficulty later in the topic traces back to it.

I, II and III

I, II and III are correct. Statement IV is false: State governments are required only to share some powers and revenue, and the nature of sharing varies.

She is already a member of the gram sabha, since all the voters in the village belong to it

Membership of the gram sabha requires no election at all. It supervises the gram panchayat and meets to approve the budget and review performance.

The panchayat works under the overall supervision of the sabha

The panchayat is the elected council that decides; the gram sabha is the whole electorate, and it supervises.

All the panchayat members in that area elect it, so each rung is built from the one below

Direct election at the village level, indirect election above it: the ladder is constructed upward from the rung below rather than imposed from the top.