Chapter 7 Federalism

Introduction

Comparing political maps of India from 1947 and today reveals significant changes in state boundaries, names, and numbers. Post-independence, India integrated princely states into existing provinces and later reorganised states multiple times, often based on the wishes of the local population (e.g., Mysore to Karnataka, Madras to Tamil Nadu). These transformations tell a story of the working of federalism in India.

By studying this chapter, you will understand:

• The concept of Federalism.
• Federal provisions in the Indian Constitution.
• Issues concerning relations between the Centre and the States.
• Special provisions for certain States with unique characteristics.

What Is Federalism?

Federalism is a system of government that accommodates two levels of polity: one at the national (central) level and another at the regional (state or provincial) level. In a federal system, each level of government is autonomous in its own sphere of responsibility.

People in a federal country often have dual identities and loyalties, identifying with both their region (e.g., Gujarati, Jharkhandi) and the nation (Indian).

Key ideas associated with federalism:

• An institutional mechanism providing autonomy to both regional and national governments.
• Clear specification of distinct powers and responsibilities for each level of government.
• A written constitution that is supreme and the source of authority for both levels of government.
• Division of subjects: national concerns (defence, currency) assigned to the central government, and regional/local matters (agriculture, police) to regional/state governments.
• An independent judiciary to settle disputes between the central government and states regarding the division of powers, upholding the supremacy of the constitution.

However, the actual functioning of a federation is also influenced by real politics, culture, ideology, and history. A culture of trust, cooperation, and mutual respect is essential for smooth operation. Political parties also play a significant role. If one unit or group dominates the federation, it can lead to resentment and demands for secession or even civil conflict.

The breakdown of federations like the USSR, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia, and near-breakdowns like in Canada, highlight that simply having a federal constitution is not enough. The nature and practice of federalism are equally vital. India, despite its immense diversity (languages, religions, indigenous peoples) and the challenges of Partition, has remained united, partly attributed to its federal structure and its specific practice.

Federalism in West Indies

The Federation of West Indies, formed by British colonies in 1958, had a weak central government and independent unit economies. Political competition among units led to its dissolution in 1962. Later, in 1973, independent islands formed the Caribbean Community, establishing joint authorities like a common legislature, supreme court, currency, and a degree of common market, even a common executive comprising member heads of government. This example shows the struggle for unity among units that could neither remain together as one country nor function entirely separately.

Federalism in Nigeria

Nigeria's experience illustrates how lack of trust and overlapping religious, ethnic, and economic differences among regions can challenge federalism. Formed from two separate British colonies in 1914, Nigeria adopted a federal constitution in 1950 based on three major ethnic groups controlling specific regions. Attempts by these groups to expand influence led to fears, conflicts, and periods of military rule. Despite the restoration of democracy, religious differences and disputes over oil resource control persist as challenges, with local ethnic communities resisting centralised control.

Federalism In The Indian Constitution

Leaders of India's national movement recognised the need to divide powers between the centre and regional governments to govern a vast and diverse country. They were aware of India's regional and linguistic diversity, which required recognition and power-sharing to ensure democratic governance where regions could govern themselves.

Following the decision for Partition, the Constituent Assembly framed a government based on principles of unity, cooperation between the centre and States, and distinct powers for the States. A key feature of Indian federalism is the emphasis on cooperation between the Centre and States, balancing the recognition of diversity with the need for national unity.

The Indian Constitution, notably, does not use the word 'federation'. Instead, Article 1 describes India as a 'Union of States'.

(The comparison to a school structure with different classes/divisions but a shared identity and pride in the school captures the essence of federalism accommodating distinct regional/group identities within a larger national identity.)

Division Of Powers

The Indian Constitution establishes two levels of government with distinct areas of activity: the Union government (for the entire nation) and State governments (for each unit). Both derive their status and powers from the Constitution.

The Constitution clearly demarcates the subjects falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Union and the States through three lists:

• Union List: Contains subjects of national importance requiring uniform laws across the country. The Union Legislature alone can make laws on these (e.g., Defence, Atomic Energy, Foreign Affairs, Banking, Railways, Communications, Currency).

• State List: Contains subjects of primarily regional or local importance. Normally, the State Legislature alone can make laws on these (e.g., Agriculture, Police, Prison, Local Government, Public Health, Land, Trade and Commerce, State Public Services).

• Concurrent List: Contains subjects where both the Union and State Legislatures can make laws (e.g., Education, Transfer of Property, Forests, Trade Unions, Adulteration, Adoption, Succession). In case of conflict between a central and state law on a Concurrent List subject, the central law generally prevails.

• Residuary Powers: Subjects not mentioned in any of the three lists fall under the Residuary Powers, and the Union Legislature has the exclusive authority to legislate on these (e.g., Cyber Laws).

The Judiciary resolves any disputes between the Centre and States regarding the division of powers based on these constitutional provisions.

A significant aspect of this division is the centralisation of economic and financial powers with the Union government. While States have broad responsibilities, their revenue sources are limited, making them heavily dependent on the central government for grants and financial assistance. This financial centralisation is a frequent source of dissatisfaction for States.

(The analogy of financial control in a family where one person holds all the money highlights the States' financial dependence on the Centre and potential issues arising from this imbalance.)

Federalism With A Strong Central Government

The Indian Constitution is widely considered to have established a strong central government. Given India's vastness, diversity, and socio-economic problems at independence, the framers aimed for a federal structure that could accommodate differences while also creating a powerful centre to maintain unity, prevent disintegration, and drive social and political change.

The need for a strong centre was amplified by the task of integrating over 500 princely states into the Indian Union and addressing country-wide issues like poverty, illiteracy, and inequality through coordinated planning and development.

Key provisions contributing to a strong central government:

• Parliament's Power Over States: Parliament has the power to form new States, alter their boundaries, or even change their names (Article 3). While the Constitution requires consulting the concerned State legislature, Parliament's decision is final.
• Emergency Provisions: The Constitution contains powerful emergency provisions (Articles 352, 356, 360). When an emergency is declared, the federal system can effectively become highly centralised, with Parliament gaining powers to legislate on State List subjects and the Union government exercising greater control.
• Financial Centralisation: Revenue-generating subjects are mostly controlled by the central government, leaving States dependent on central grants and financial assistance. Centralised economic planning (through bodies like the Planning Commission, now NITI Aayog) also concentrates resource management powers with the Union.
• Governor's Role: The Governor, appointed by the central government, can recommend the dismissal of a State government and dissolution of the Assembly (under Article 356, President's Rule). The Governor can also reserve State bills for the President's assent, allowing the central government to delay or veto State legislation.
• Central Government's Power to Give Directions: The executive power of States must be exercised without impeding the Union's executive power (Article 257). The Union government can issue directions to State governments, which are bound to comply.
• All-India Services: Civil services like the IAS and IPS are common to the entire country. Officers are recruited by the central government but serve in states. Disciplinary action or removal rests solely with the central government, giving the centre significant control over key administrative officers in the states.
• Martial Law Provisions: Articles 33 and 34 empower Parliament to protect persons acting during martial law, further strengthening the Union's authority in maintaining order.

(The thought bubble "Oh! The central government appears to me to be all-powerful. Don’t the States complain about it?" anticipates the section on Centre-State conflicts and demands for autonomy, acknowledging that States do voice concerns about the strong centralisation.)

(T.T. Krishnamachari's quote from the Constituent Assembly Debates argues that the global trend in constitutions is towards centralisation, especially as states take on welfare responsibilities, justifying a strong centre in India for economic well-being.)

Conflicts In India’s Federal System

Given the Constitution vests strong powers in the Centre while also recognising the distinct identity of States, tensions and conflicts in Centre-State relations are inherent. States often demand greater autonomy and powers in their governance and in national affairs. While legal disputes can be resolved by the judiciary, demands for autonomy are primarily political and require resolution through negotiation.

Centre-State Relations

The practical working of Indian federalism is heavily influenced by the political process. In the initial decades post-independence (1950s-early 1960s), marked by Congress dominance at both the Centre and States, Centre-State relations were relatively smooth, focused on cooperation and development with central assistance.

However, from the mid-1960s, with the decline of Congress dominance and the rise of opposition parties in many States, demands for greater State powers and autonomy became more vocal. This was a direct consequence of having different parties ruling at the Centre and in the States, leading to perceived interference by the central government.

Since the 1990s, the era of coalition politics at the Centre has resulted in a greater voice for States, increased respect for regional diversity, and the evolution towards a more mature federalism where States play a more significant role.

(The thought bubble "This is quite interesting. So, laws and constitutions alone do not decide everything. After all, actual politics decides the nature of our government!" reflects the understanding that constitutional provisions are shaped and influenced by real-world political dynamics and practices.)

Demands For Autonomy

States and political parties have articulated various demands for greater autonomy from the central government. These demands cover multiple aspects:

• Redistribution of Powers: States demand changes to the division of powers, seeking more and more important subjects to be placed under State control (e.g., demands by Tamil Nadu, Punjab, West Bengal, parties like DMK, Akali Dal, CPI-M).
• Financial Autonomy: States seek independent sources of revenue and greater control over their financial resources, often referred to as financial autonomy (e.g., demands for restructuring Centre-State financial relations, support for greater financial powers from Tamil Nadu and Punjab).
• Administrative Autonomy: States resent central control over administrative machinery, particularly the deployment and control of All-India Services officers serving in states.
• Cultural and Linguistic Autonomy: Demands related to protecting regional languages and cultures, and resistance to perceived imposition of Hindi by the Centre (e.g., anti-Hindi agitations in Tamil Nadu in the 1960s, demands for promoting Punjabi language/culture). Some States feel that Hindi-speaking regions dominate others.

(The cartoon about Hindi imposition reflects the tension around linguistic diversity and potential cultural dominance by the majority language group, a recurring issue in Indian federalism.)

Role Of Governors And President’s Rule

The role of the Governor is a significant point of contention between the Centre and States. The Governor is not elected but appointed by the central government, often seen as an agent of the Centre interfering in State governance, particularly when different parties are in power at the Centre and State.

Article 356, which allows for President's Rule in a State if its government cannot function according to the Constitution, is one of the most controversial provisions. This results in the Union government taking over the State government's functions. The Governor's power to recommend the imposition of President's Rule has been frequently criticised for being misused to dismiss State governments (sometimes even those with a legislative majority) or prevent the formation of governments by opposition parties.

While Article 356 was used sparingly initially, its use increased significantly after 1967 when non-Congress governments began forming in States while the Congress was in power at the Centre. The Supreme Court has since ruled that the constitutional validity of imposing President's Rule can be judicially reviewed.

(The cartoon depicting politicians trying to 'topple' state governments suggests a political game of dismissing opposing state governments, often using means like President's Rule, which has been a controversial aspect of Centre-State relations.)

Demands For New States

Demands for creating new States have been another source of tension in the federal system. The national movement fostered both national unity and distinct regional identities based on language and culture. The commitment to democracy led to the principle of forming States primarily based on linguistic and cultural identity, which began after independence.

The States Reorganisation Commission (1953) recommended creating linguistic States, leading to the reorganisation of many States in 1956 and subsequent years (e.g., creation of Gujarat, Maharashtra, Punjab, Haryana, and several North Eastern States). This process of creating linguistic States continues.

More recently, larger States have been further divided for reasons of administrative efficiency and to meet demands for separate statehood from specific regions. Examples include the creation of Chhattisgarh (from Madhya Pradesh), Uttarakhand (from Uttar Pradesh), and Jharkhand (from Bihar) in 2000, and Telangana (from Andhra Pradesh) in 2014. Demands for new States still exist (e.g., Vidarbha in Maharashtra).

Interstate Conflicts

Besides Centre-State conflicts, disputes between two or more States are also common. While the judiciary (Supreme Court) can arbitrate legal disputes, many interstate conflicts have political implications and are best resolved through negotiation and mutual understanding.

Two types of interstate disputes are common:

• Border Disputes: States have conflicting claims over bordering territories. Linguistic boundaries are not always clear-cut, especially in border areas where multiple languages are spoken, making resolution difficult. Examples include the long-standing dispute between Maharashtra and Karnataka over Belgaum, Manipur and Nagaland's border dispute, and the dispute between Punjab and Haryana over border areas and the city of Chandigarh.
• River Water Disputes: These are often more serious, impacting drinking water and agriculture. Disputes over sharing river waters (a vital resource) between riparian states are frequent. Examples include the Cauvery water dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, and the dispute over Narmada waters involving Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra. River water tribunals are established to settle these, but disputes often escalate to the Supreme Court.

(The thought bubble "So, federalism is all about conflicts! First, we talked about Centre-State conflicts and now conflict among States. Can’t we live together peacefully?" expresses frustration with the prevalence of conflicts in a federal system but implicitly raises the question of how unity is maintained despite these disputes.)

Special Provisions

A distinctive feature of Indian federalism is the provision for asymmetrical federalism, where certain States receive differential treatment through special provisions. This is partly reflected in the Rajya Sabha representation (based on population, ensuring larger States get more seats while guaranteeing minimum representation for smaller ones).

Beyond representation, the Constitution includes special provisions for some States based on their unique social, historical, and geographical circumstances. Many of these provisions apply to the North Eastern States (Assam, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, etc.), primarily due to their significant indigenous tribal populations, distinct cultures, and historical contexts. These provisions aim to protect their unique identities and land rights, although they haven't entirely resolved alienation or insurgency in the region.

Special provisions also exist for hilly States like Himachal Pradesh and others such as Andhra Pradesh, Goa, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Sikkim, and Telangana.

Jammu And Kashmir

Before its reorganisation in 2019, Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) held a special status under Article 370 of the Constitution. As a large princely state with a Muslim majority (though its accession to India occurred under specific circumstances during the Partition), it was granted greater autonomy than other States.

Under Article 370, Parliament's power to make laws for J&K was limited. Laws on subjects in the Union List and Concurrent List would apply to J&K only with the concurrence (consent) of the State government. This contrasted with other States where the division of powers automatically applied.

While J&K had a separate constitution and flag, subsequent Presidential Orders (issued with J&K government's concurrence) made large parts of the Indian Constitution applicable to the State, gradually extending the Union's legislative powers over many subjects in the Union List.

Key differences that remained due to Article 370 included:

• Internal disturbances could not be grounds for declaring emergency in J&K without State concurrence.
• The Union government could not impose financial emergency in the State.
• The Directive Principles of State Policy did not apply to J&K.
• Amendments to the Indian Constitution (under Article 368) would apply to J&K only with the concurrence of the State government.

However, this special status no longer exists. The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, bifurcated the State into two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. This came into effect on October 31, 2019, fundamentally changing J&K's relationship with the Union.

(The thought bubble "I now understand what they meant by ‘intelligent and balanced design’ in the first chapter" suggests that the concept of asymmetrical federalism and special provisions is seen as a deliberate design choice in the Constitution to handle the complexities of India's diverse landscape.)

Conclusion

Federalism in India is likened to a rainbow, celebrating unity in diversity. It requires constantly balancing the powers and interests of the Centre and the States. No legal or institutional formula can guarantee its smooth operation; it fundamentally relies on the political process and the development of values like mutual trust, tolerance, cooperation, and responsiveness to diversities and demands for autonomy.

Forced uniformity undermines genuine unity and can lead to social strife and alienation. A federal system that acknowledges and responds to regional and cultural diversities and aspirations for autonomy is the foundation for a cooperative federation where national unity is built upon mutual respect and accommodation of differences.

(The thought bubble "Yes, conflict over Governors, over language, over borders and over water….and yet we manage to live together!" highlights the numerous sources of conflict within Indian federalism but ultimately points to India's resilience and ability to maintain unity despite these challenges.)

Exercises

As per instructions, the content of the exercises is not included, only the section heading structure is provided.