Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
10.It is not constitutional law but political factors that ultimately determine
Centre-States relations in India.(2011)
11.Examine the efficacy of available mechanisms for resolving inter-State
dispute in India. (2012)
Q. Trace and analyse the co-operation trends in Indian federalism.
India takes great pride in describing itself as the worlds largest democracy.
However, this democracy is meaningful significantly because it is encapsulated
in a federal structure. Although the Constitution of India has nowhere used the
term 'federal', it has provided for a structure of governance which is essentially
federal in nature. While democracy represents the majority opinion, federalism
accommodates and links it to the voice of the minority, lending a flavour of social
justice. This ensures harmonious functioning of the entire system. There is no
single pure model of federalism that is applicable everywhere. Rather the basic
notion of involving the combination of shared rule (to promote unity) for some
purposes and self-rule (for regional/local purpose of diversity) for others within a
single political system so that neither is subordinate to the other has been
applied in different ways to different circumstances. According to some scholars
like Granville Austin, India is a cooperative federalism. According to him it
produces a strong central government, yet it does not result in weak provincial or
state governments that are largely administrative agencies for central policies.
According to the 9th five year plan document, in a vast country like ours, the
spirit of co-operative federalism should guide the relations between the Centre
and the States on the one hand, among different States and between the States
and the Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) and the Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) on
the other. The essence of co-operative federalism is that the Centre and the
State Governments should be guided by the broader national concerns of using
the available resources for the benefit of the people. Co-operative federalism
encourages the Government at different levels to take advantage of a large
national market, diverse and rich natural resources and the potential of human
capabilities in all parts of the country and from all sections of the society for
building a prosperous nation. Co-operative federalism makes it possible to raise
all the available resources by the Government at different levels in a coordinated way and channel them for use for the common good of the people.
This requires a harmonious relationship and co-operative spirit between the
Centre and the States and among the States themselves. While a healthy
competition among the States for evolving efficient and socially desirable
policies and programmes is welcome, any competition which nullifies each
other's advantages in development and erodes the resource base of the States
should be avoided. Co-operative federalism is intended to ensure a minimum
bundle of basic services and a nationally acceptable level of living for all the
people of the country.
Cooperative Federalism in the pre-independence era
Seeds of cooperative federalism can be traced right from the Regulating Act of
1773 which set up a system whereby the British Government supervised
regulated the work of the East India Company but did not take power for itself.
The Government of India Act, 1919 provided for a federal India, however
superficial, by envisaging a dual form of government called diarchy. The Report
of the Indian Statutory Commission of 1929 gave a federal solution by proposing
to introduce diarchy at the centre and to advance from diarchy to fully
responsible government in the provinces. The same was sought to be achieved
by the Government of India Act, 1935.
In 1937, after a great deal of confrontation, Provincial Autonomy commenced.
From that point until the declaration of war in 1939, Lord Linlithgow tirelessly
tried to get enough of the Princes to accede to launch the Federation. The
Cabinet Mission of 1946 provided that Union of India should deal with Foreign
Affairs, Defence and Communication and all subjects other than Union subjects
and all residuary powers were to vest in the Provinces.
Jawaharlal Nehru, while moving his Objectives Resolution on 13 December, 1946,
reiterated that the need for a measure of uniformity in regard to apparatus and
machinery of government at the Central level was to be considered in
cooperation and consultation with the states, and that all power and authority
of the Sovereign Independent India, its constituent parts and organs of
government, are derived from the people. The Constituent Assembly members
did a commendable job by envisaging a cooperative federalism set up because in
the turbulent and bloody circumstances prevailing at that time and in the wake
of Indias partition, it could have been very easy to swing towards at least a
highly centralised federation, if not unitary, in place of a quasi-federation. Hence,
even though federal character seemed to be a practical imperative by reason of
Indias sheer size and diversity, yet this assumption should not be taken for
granted. In fact, the strong central bias in the constitution has been a boon to
keep India together at the most crucial time of its birth when forces of
communalism, separatism and linguism were rampant.
Development of Cooperative Federalism Post Independence
The changing dynamics and the varied experiences that the Indian State has had
one party rule, coalition and the not so united forms, have led to the shift from
Centralist to Federalist to Centre-Federalist forms of federal governance. The rise
of regional parties, the formation of coalition Governments, active role of the
Judiciary have shaped the trajectory of federalism by swinging the pendulum
from cooperative to confrontationist and vice versa.
the consultation in the ISC. Article 139A should be amended so as to provide that
it can withdraw to itself cases even if they are pending in one Court where such
questions as to legislative competence of Parliament or State Legislature are
involved. Further, an Inter State Trade and Commerce Commission should be
established.
The decade of 2000
The decade was the decade of coalition politics. Both UPA I and II were
coalition governments. During this time there were high demands for autonomy
from the state governments. The non-congress ruled states accused the centre
of step-mother attitude, while the allies didnt have any problem. So the issue of
federalism in this decade was a mere political rhetoric rather than a real issue.
The outcomes of globalisation lead to more federalism in this decade. This
decade witnessed a rise in inter-state disputes. Due to globalisation, inter-state
cooperation was replaced with interstate competition. Though healthy
completion is good for nations growth, but any competition which nullifies each
other's advantages in development and erodes the resource base of the States
should be avoided.
Conclusion
The relation between the centre, the states and the local tiers lies at the heart of
Indias sense of nationhood and is the pre requisite for Indias progress. However,
a strong political undercurrent runs through it. Every centre-state and every
interstate dispute is at its heart, a political dispute. This is the root cause of the
problematic nature of centre state relations. Such a dispute slowly ripens into an
economic one. Bad politics leads to bad economics. Unless stagnation in the
economic field and unbalanced regional development are not addressed,
integration and solidarity in the federal set up will not be complete. Both Centre
and State governments must attend to the task of preserving our nationhood
through constructive cooperative federalism which requires a great deal of
commitment. India is a beautiful melting pot of diversity. The same needs to be
valued and cherished. And there isnt a better way to do so than by cooperative
federalism. In the famous words of Justice Nani Palkhivala WHO DIES IF INDIA
LIVES AND WHO LIVES IF INDIA DIES..... People of several states sink or swim
together, and that in the long run, prosperity and salvation are in innovation and
not in division Mutuality and not conflict Cooperation and not competition.
course, has had both positive and negative effects. On the positive side, it has
created an atmosphere of cooperative federalism. Most importantly, the raising
of state and regional matters at the national level is no longer a taboo or
antinational as in the past, and it has, in fact, become a new dimension in
national decision-making. However, at the same time, narrow situational political
considerations and the exigencies of coalition dynamics have also often entered
both policymaking and policy decisions.
Office of the President and Governors
The functioning of the president at the centre and of governors in the states has
also undergone a dramatic change in this phase (Rudolph and Rudolph 2001b; M.
P. Singh 2002; Singh and Verney 2003). In the federalized atmosphere, the
holders of these constitutional positions have been wary of indiscretion and the
new federal political culture has not only given them greater autonomy but also
forced them to act with discretion, measured restraint, and judicious thought.
Also this period witnessed more politicization of the governors office.
Impact on Policy making
Federal coalitions have also institutionalized a GoM mechanism (Arora and
Kailash 2007). Though primarily intended to serve the purpose of coordination
and minimize differences and resolve conflicts within the council of ministers, it
also has a federal perspective. First, it has allowed for greater involvement, both
through representation and as an avenue for consultation of state-based
representatives and interests in the national decision-making apparatus. Second,
they have enabled an introduction of a local or state-based flavour in nationallevel decision-making and policies. In a way, it has served the dual purpose of
both representing diversity and involvement at the national level. At the same
time it has become very tough on the part of the government to pass a bill
because of incoherent ideologies of the alliance partners. The ministries were
decided by number of seats won by a party rather than the capability of the
person who is going to hold the post. For, example, the railway budget during
these coalition times looked like a state centric budget rather than a budget of a
nation.
Impact on Foreign Policy
According to the 7 th schedule of the Indian constitution, foreign affairs is in the
central list. But due to coalition compulsions the government had taken many
stances against its stated policy. The examples can be of relationship with Sri
Lanka was dictated by the local parties in TN. Similarly, the Teesta water sharing
with Bangladesh also involves a third party named the West Bengal Government.
The question here is not about whether a particular decision - such as that on Sri
Lanka - is right or wrong, but about whether the rationale provided for it speaks
to the national interest as conceptualised by the central government.
Conclusion
For federalism is not only about giving more power to the states; it is also about
preserving the integrity of those arenas that lie within the exclusive purview of
the centre. Undermining the centre's governance over its own jurisdiction does
not do any service to the federal idea.So, there is a need to create a equilibrium
between federalism and national interest and the leaders of all political parties
should take a note of it.
Differences, if any, during single party rule, between different ministers on issue
of policy, details of its working, performance, and so on could have been settled
through the party network but in the era of coalition politics it needed larger
involvement of regional parties, this results in maintaining diversity and creating
unity. It may be concluded that multiparty federalism has undoubtedly played a
major role in transforming centrestate relations in India.
Q. What is the impact of globalization on Indian federalism?
In the sense that while it has allowed more autonomy of action in favour of the
state to reap the benefits of globalization, this has at the same time prepared the
long-term basis of crisis in Indian federalism itself. First, the political autonomy of
the liberal democratic states has been compromised in favour of the market.
Second, the states have been engaged in fierce competition among themselves
for foreign direct investment and SEZ models of development giving rise to a
new division among the states such as forward and backward states,
interjurisdictional competition in place of inter-state cooperation, and weakening
loyalty to the `union. Third, with the weakening of the welfare state, the newly
created conflicts out of disparity in regional development, and widening
inequalities following globalization remain unmitigated. Fourth, with the political
autonomy of the liberal democratic state compromised in favour of the market,
local governance is more and more exposed to direct penetration by global and
corporate power structures. Finally, the gradual withdrawal of the very meagre
welfare measures, and the relative absence of any social security, or safety nets,
have meant that there is mass protest against globalization led by various forms
of grass-roots political activism. This cuts into the very democratic basis of
legitimacy of the party (ies) in power in the states.
Although it is commonly believed that globalization started in India from the
early 1990s, the process had had its beginnings in the mid-1960s when Lal
Bahadur Shastri, then the Prime Minister of India (1964-66), set in motion a
process of liberalisation so much so that in the initial approach paper on the
Fourth Five-Year Plan it was stated: within the broad framework of control in
strategic areas, there is an advantage in allowing the market much fuller play.
Indias liberalisation until the end of the 1960s took a variety of forms: 16 items
were decontrolled in 1963; cement was decontrolled in 1966, and cotton in 1967;
controls on investment were liberalized, and several industries were also
decontrolled. However, the process of Indias liberalisation has since been slow
and halting, and passed through phases, and even during the Emergency (197577) regime of authoritarianism and excessive state control, the process of
liberalization, paradoxically enough, was broadened and accelerated! Hardgrave
and Kochanek have noted: During the emergency, the government tried to
further liberalize the industrial licensing policies, relax price controls, and provide
tax incentives for industrial investment in an effort to accelerate the rate of
economic growth.What remained basically a guarded process of liberalization
until the early 1990s became ever since a combined process of liberalization,
privatization and globalization. The so-called structural reforms, as is heard a
lot these days, encompass the combination: decontrol and deregulation of
industry, changes in monetary and fiscal policy, liberalization of trade policy,
gradually withdrawing itself from its social responsibilities including welfareoriented development, most clearly evident, among others, in the shrinkage of
the number of centrally-sponsored welfare development schemes, as Bhambri
has shown, centre-state relations have taken often peculiar forms. Cajoling,
persuading and even bribing often could become tactics resorted to by the
Centre for involving the state governments in the process of economic reforms
and restructuring. Rao and Singh (2005) have recognized that the states role
has expanded due to market economy which demands more decentralized levels
of governance, but also that all the states are not equally equipped to access the
opportunities afforded by the market.
Q. Examine the efficacy of available mechanisms for resolving inter-State
disputes in India.
The successful functioning of Indian federation does not depend only on
center-state relationships but also on inter-state relationship. Hence the
constitution makes the following provisions with regard to inter-state comity.
1.
2.
3.
4.