Chapter 2 India’s Federal Order BONITA ALEAZ T Introduction he structure of the Indian federal state has been a matter of confusion and controversy from its very inception. Classicists ‘such: as K.C. Wheare have highlighted the confusion inherent in‘its nomenclature as well. Innumerable epithets have been used such’ as "federalism ‘in practice", “Constitutional federalism" and so on to describe the peculiarities of the In- dian federal state. However, no termi is explicit enough or comprehensive enough to éncapsulate the éntire Indian state. Even the innovative term "quasi federalism" falls short ‘of its-objective. For one thing, it fails to explain the emphases that varying determinants have at given periods of time within the structure. These determinants may be the "within" constitutional provisions or they may be pure innovations of the Indian federal structure. The fact is that there is no single federal pattern but a number of patterns in existence simultaneously. Out of this variegated phenomenon however, it is possible to distinguish certain features that stand out. For instance, the formal structure of administrative, legislative and financial relations, is intermeshed with an informal structure of political, socio-cultural and economic linkagés. Associated with these is a political process of bargaining and cooperating with that structure. It is at this political process that we must look at when we think of the strengths or weaknesses of the federal structure to meet the various de- mands made upon it. Before looking at the Indian federal structure the different approaches to the study of federalism should be briefly looked at. This is done in the first part. The second part deals with the development of the Indian federal state vis a vis the historical background, the Congress system, and as is visible in the Constitutional structure. This is followed by a ‘brief discussion on the at- tempts so far to review centre-state relations in India. The fourth section deals with the main aspects of Centre-state relationships — legislative, administra- tive, the role of the Governor, and the financial relations. Finally in conclu- sion the trend today is analysed.24 ¢ POLITICS INDIA II Different Approaches to the Study of Federalism Three main approaches to the study of federalism can be identified: the Clas- sical theory; the Origin theory and the Functional theory. The most prominent among the Classicists were Dicey, K.C. Wheare, and Jethro Brown. They all take after Lord Bryce, who argued-that in a federation,-the federal and state governments must be distinct and separate. A coordinate relationship was pos- ited by Wheare, between the two sets of powers. This approach has been criti- cized as suffering from legal formalism or a juristic stance. It also does, not explain the causes of federations. William Riker and others sought to correct the above mentioned defects through the origin theory. The most prominent of this school has been the po- litical theory of federalism. Livingstone stated that the federal nature of socie- ties, implying the diversities of religion, historical background and so on, account for federations. William Riker one of the main exponents of the political, theory was of the opinion that federalism is a solution to what is essentially and primarily a political problem: The solution is political because it centres around power, and stands for the division of political power. Hence it is to be recognized that political motives play a dominant role in the origin of federal systems. The functional theory of federalism has been the most popular explana- tory tool among political scientists. American political scientists analysing their own systems of governance, indicated that the classical system had never been realized in practice. R.L. Watts and even Daniel Elazar are its prominent exponents. Interdependence and cooperation between two levels of govern- ment are its characteristic features. More specifically, centre-state relations in India were defined by the clas- sical school as being structure-oriented and influenced the legal-political writ- ings such as that adopted by H.M. Seervai, B. Shiva Rao and others. The legal-political style was the dominant mode of analyses till the sixties. The later works have however abjured the pure structural form for an ap- proach which is more influenced by the functional school and does not distin- guish so categorically between structural and processual activities. Francine Frankel and M.S.A. Rao as also Sisson and Roy have used a mixture of both approaches. The latter include case studies of states. This trend was visible since the rhid-sixties, since the rising states’ expectations made them very at-. tive participants in, the political process and henceforth political-processual rather thafr-political-structural activities were emphasized>During the same period ethno-nationalism has also gained ift significance as an important inter- Pretative tool. Paul Brass, Atul Kohli and others for instance emphasize the change in democratic institutions whilé trying to accommodate new demands for political participation. Having had a cursory glance at the federal structureIndia’s federal order ... 25 ini general it is necessary to briefly survey the antecedents of the Indian struc- ture in order to fully comprehend its present state. III Development of the Indian Federal Structure a) Historical Background The administration of the country was taken over by the British Crown in 1858. However, as regards the princely states, the decision to continue the di- rect expansion of the British Empire was curtailed in favour of- indirect rule. The princely states were a source-of strength to the British, for the mainte- nance of the empire. Indirect rule in effect meant that, though ‘autonomous’ the 500 and odd princely sfates were no less submissive in practice to the sov- ereign power than thé British Indian provinces. it also méant, in the remote and inaccessible places, strong local customs and beliefs had to be given due regard, and these areas with long history of isolation, retained perhaps far greater degrees of autonomy. Significant steps towards the accommodation of these varying demands were made by the Indian Councils Act, 1861. This act not only reversed the centralization trend set by the Charter Act, 1833, it pro- vided for the participation in the Legislative Council of the Governor-General, as well as in the Legislative Councils of the provinces, by non-officials. The principle of indirect election to these Councils was established in 1892. Asso- ciation of Indiaris with iocal self-govérmment through elected municipalities and‘ district boards was initiated in 1882, by Lord Ripon. The authority al- lowed to these bodies was however very limited. Mounting pressures on thé British by the gradually escalating nationalist movernent compelled the ‘British to further exténd the association of Indians with the governance of the country. The India Councils Act, 1909 (Morlex Minto Reforms) brought this about however, on the basis of separate elector- ates, narrow franchise and iridirect election. The first phase of responsible government in India was brought about as a result of the Méntagu-Chelmsford Report and the subsequent Government of Inidia Act, 1919. ‘Dyarchy’ was established which demarcated the spliere of authority between the provinces ahd the Centre. BY tlie Devolution of Rules framed under the Act, powers Were delegated to the provinces not only in the administrative but also in thé legislative and financial spheres. The items in the Provincial List were further divided into the ‘reserved’ and ‘transferred’ subjects. The departments in charge of the former were administered by the Gévernof assisféd by dn Execufive Council nominated by him; however, the latter subjects were dealt with by departments consisting of elected ministeis responsible to the provincial legislatures. Although the provinces derived con-